ALBERTA ENVIRONMENT

WATEHWELL
COMPLAINT REVIEWS.
SUMMARY REPORT
Fonnatted:
Deletd! SUMtilAnYOF
Formatted: Indent: Left: 3'
Prepared by:
Alexander Blyth, P.Geol., Ph.D.
Alberta Research Council lnc.
Permit to Practice P03619
Prepared for:
Alberta Environment
10th Floor Oxbridge Place
9820 - 106 S:treet
Edmonton, Alberta TsK 2J6
December 30,2007
Contact lnformation:
Alec Blyth
Alberta Research Council lnc.
3608
-
33 Slreet NW
Galgary, Alberta T2L 2A6
DECEMEER 30. 2OO7
Phone: 403-21G5345
E-mall: blyh @arc.ab.ca
ALBERTA REsEAFcx Couucil hrc.
SUMMARY OF WATER WELI- COMPTAINT REVIEWS
ALBERTA RESEAFCH COUNCIL INC.
StlMt{aay oF WATER wE-L coirpr.Arwr REvrEws
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
TABLE OFCONTENTS
TNTRODUCTTON .......................3
CENTRAL PLANS REGTONALSETTTNG ...........2
2.1 GEoLoGtcAL FoRMATtoNs..... .........................
2
2.2 REGToNAL STRess Ree rue .. ...........................
Z
2.3
Gnouruownre@nrcIEElS4cs ..................2
CoALBED METHANE tN SOUTHERN ALBERTA ....................9
WATER WELL COMPLAINTS
LISTOF FIGURES
Figurc I CBM Potential and CBM Well Locations in Alberta ........5,
Flgure 2 Flowchart of the Overall Water Well Complalnt Response Process......................
9
'
'
Flgurc 3 Piper plot of complainant and D35 water wells.
Flgurc 4 Hlstogrem of carbon lsotope valugs of methane.
Flgurc 5 Methane concrntration versus 6l3C of methane..
Figurc 6 Histogram of cqqbon tsotope vatues of ethane. ..........
l4
'.
.'.
Flgurc 7 Mixing plot of 6trC of methane versus the methane/C2+ ratio............................. lli
'.
'.
Deld:l
DdTd! GEOLOG]C AND
HYPROGEOLOGIC
Ddcted!,
Ddeted:1
Deletdr 1
Dlebd! HYDHoSTRAT|GRAPHY AtrD
Ddd: FLOWANOGHADIENTS
Deltd! 1
Del&d!1
Ddetd:1
Ddeied:1
DeleE:1
Deleted:1
Ddetd: r
Ddetd:1
Dddcd!l
DdeH:1
Ddeted: I
Delsted! t
Ddeted:1
DeleH: I
Ddetd:1
Ddeted: I
..
i'.r\
4.2 NATUHEoFWATERWE[CoMeI-AINTs........... .9
J,',.,..
4.3 ALBERTA ENVTRoNMENT CoMpt-AtNT PRocEss AND HRruouruo..... .............. e \"
'.'
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE USED TO EVALUATE WATER WELL COMPLAINTS
CONCLUSIONS OF WATER WELL INVESTIGATIONS
t{f.tr{rl:Ii
Ll'..
SUMMABY OF WATEF WR I CO'{PIAMT REVIEWS DECEMBFR 3{) 2OO7
Q,Y
1 INTRODUCNON
Alberta Research Council (ARC) was contracted by Alberta Environment (AENV) to conduct
four reviews of complaints about coalbed methane (CBM) activities affecting pdvate water wells.
ARC undertook these reviews for AENV to independently assess the scientific evidence and
provide
conclusions identifying whether or not the water wells had been impacted by CBM or
conventional oil/gas extraction activities. This report summarizes ABC's reviews and
.
conclusions of these four water well complaints. The summary report discusses the regional ,
t'
I
geology and.oroundwater characteristics of the Central Plains region of Albena where the '
I
complaints originated from, gives a brief overview of CBM activity in the area,and discusses the ,'
I
nature of watel well complaints and potential impacts of CBM on water welts, Furthermore the
'
I
reoort discusses the specific lines of evidence used in the reviews of the wel! complaints and t
gives
overall conclusions of the ARC water well complaint investigation.
i
2 CENTRAL PLATNS REGTONALSETTTNG
The Central Plains reoion of Alberta is found within the Western Canada Sedimentarv Basin.
contain aouifers with non-saline
(fresh)
water. Current laWs and reoulations with resoect to oil
and oas develooment serve to orotect non-saline oroundwater resources above the BGP.
2.1 Geological Formations
2.2 RegionalStressRegime
(Start
with a basic definition/exolanation of stress reoime. one sentence). The stress regime of
upperpoaFbearing strata in Albefia Unsert depth ranoel has a strong correlation to permeability
and fracture dlrections in coal (face cleats). This in tum has a strong control on the direction that
'fluids" (both gas and oroundwater) tend to migrate in these strata. Studies have shown that
fracturesJine up in--certain directions due to reoional stres Jn Alberta the most likely
orientation of the predomlnant fractures (face cleats) in the coal would be about 55' E of N
(aoproximatelv
southwest to northeast)-
2.g,Groundwater
--Gharacteri
stics
(H
vd rooeoloqv)
Regional groundwater flow systems across the Albeila Basin are controlled, in part, by high
areas along the Rocky Mountain front in western niberta where precipitation water enters
permeable
rock (recharge zones). ln general, regional groundwater flow within the basin is
Ddeted! hydroEeology
Delefied: discusses
Deletd:,
DdTd! GEOLOGIC AND
HYDROGEOLOGlC
Dli:leltedi rne Cental Phlns reglon
of Aheda ls found wlthln he Westsm
Canada Sedimenhry Basin. Early
sedlmentary deposltlon was
domlnatsd by madne carbonabs,
vaporatos and shale. Uplift ot the
Rocky MounEln6 dposited coal-
tiearing sandsone and shab lnto the
devloplng basln. Psat accumuhllon
pEvlded he source malerlalforhe
malor codFbeadng strah lncludlng
lhe Manvllle, Blly Rfuor, Edmonbn
(including ihe Ho'seshoe Canyon
Fomadon) and he Scolhnl (Anlley).
ln th6 Cent al Reglon the Manville
coab occur bglow lhe base ol
groundwabr prolection and wr not
part ol any wellcomplalnt
lnvestlgatons. A descrlptlon of the
geology and hydrogeology
encounbrd abov lhe base of
goundwabr protectlon ln lhe @nual
Reglon of Abe& Is as follows:ll
ibrmattedr Normal Left, une
spaclng: slngle
FomEtted! Fbnt ltallc
Ddd! B6lly Fiver Groupll
The deepest geologic unlt rlwant to
the walbr wsllcomplalnt ravlews was
ihq Belly Rlver Oroup. The uppEr part
(Oldmad Formauon) of the Belly Rlver
Group conslsb of sandslonos,
slltsbnes and coal (Lethbrldgo)
deposited ln floodphln and lake
envlrcnmants (B6aton et al. 2002).tl
1l
Beapaw Fomatlonfl
A 6ea level rls6 deposlled ,ine-
grained madne sedlments ol he
Bearpaw Forfiatbn dhectly onb the
Beny Rtuer Group. Ths sgdlments
ale prdomlnanty shale and silbtone,
wffir some EanGbne beds and
clayston (Macdonald et al. I
gf:m
Ddctd! Cretaceous
-
Teiliarv
Formatd: Font: Ibllc
Hetd! Rock mechanlcs theory
and lleld measuEmenb shows
Ddetd! tsend
Ddetd:a
Ddted: parallel to he graEst
compressfue Btress. HorLonhl stress
oipntrlions ln Alberta have bs(lTti
DeleH:.
Deld: HydrostratlgrEphy and
Deletd: Flow and Gradlents
ALEERTA RESEARCH COI.INCIL INC.
G:9
controlled by topography and is directed northeast towards the basin edge (Hitcheon 1969a, b).
However, groundwater flow in upper rocks in the south-western part of the basin is directed
south-westward,finsert simoler exolanationl. Regionally, the Scollard and Paskapoo formations
act as in aquifer system (a rock unit that transmits usable amounts of water) above the regional
Battle-Whitemud aquitard (a rock unit that does not transmit water). Bslow this the Horseshoe
Canyon Formation acts as an aquifer above the Bearpaw Formation aquitard. Below the
Bearpaw,theupperBellyRiverFormationactsasanaquileL@
ln the Wetaskiwin area, groundwater flow in the Paskapoo-Scollard aquifer, where most
domestic wells are completed, is directed to the northeast (Bachu and Michael2002). The area
is relatively flat-lying and horizontal gradients (the driving force for water) are low. The hydraulic
conductivity (permeability to groundwater flow) of the rock is expected to be low to intermediate
and yields from wells in this area are expected to be 5 to 25 imperial gallons per minute (Le
Breton 1971). There is a groundwater divide
(hiqh point
in oroun in the deeper
Horseshoe Canyon aquifer in the area and water will flow both to the northeast and southwest
awav from the divide (Bachu and Michael2002).
ln the Rosebud/Hedland area, shallow groundwater flow withinlheJpp@g! Quaternary sand
and gravel-ljryg!-9lg!fuggg!
is directed towards the Rosebud River by gravity. Regional
groundwater flow in the Horseshoe Canyon aquifer (including the Carbon Thompson and
Weaver coals where most domestic wells are completed) is directed to the northeast (Bachu
and Michael 2002). The hydraulic conductivity of the rock is expected to be low to intermediate
and yields from wells in this area are expected to be 1 to 5 imperial gallqns per minute (Borneuf
.
1972). ln the deeper (below 200 m) Horseshoe Canyon Formation permeabilitles for coals are
,very
low- Completion data from the energy wells in the area suggest that the coals (with the
exception of the upper Carbon Thompson and Weaver members of the Horsqshoe Canyon) are
not water saturated based on pressure measurements and water production data.
Regionally grounduvater flow in the Belly River aquifer is directed to the southwest due tq
(nossibP
re-word base on orevious edit\. Coal permeability is et<pected to be vq-!ow.--
Completion data from the energy wells in the area show that the coals are not water saturated.
The implicatlon of this is that hydrocarbon gases are not expected to be transported from the
deep (gas saturated) coals to the shallow (water saturated) coals in a dissolved state.
Large downward vertical gradients between the Paskapoo or Upper Horseshoe Canyon aquifer
(where most domestic water wells are completed) and the deeper Horseshoe Canyon coals
(where
most CBM wells are completed) are expected and were measured. Hence if a water-
bearing zone in the Paskapoo or upper Horseshoe Canyon aquifers becomes connected to the
deeper CBM zones, water would flow downwards into the CBM zone rather than upwards into
the overlying aquifers.
3 COALBED METHANE IN SOUTHERN ALBERTA
Deleted: drtuen by eroslonal
rbound caused bY stlPplng ol uP to
3800 m of sedlmenb
(Parks, and
T6th 1995: Bachu 1999).
Formatted: Font: Itsllc
Font: Ibllc
Itnnatted: Font: Ibllc
Ddetd: on the order o, a 6w
mlllldarcy (Bachu and Mlchasl 2002)
which lndlcates
Deleted: prlmary pamoablllty
Deletd: eroslonal uptrft (Parks and
T6h 1995; Eachu 1999)
Formathd: Fonh lblic
Deld: on lhe ordor ota lw
mlllldarcy, slmilar to hat ln the
ovdylno Horsgshoe Canyon clals
Ddened: Drumhellgr momber and
Selow
Deleted: The Horseshoe Canyon
and Belly River coal zones are
underprossured (or lowfl wllh
raspect to predlcbd hydEullc
gradients based on slevation
difierences. These bwgr prcssurs
.have boen lnlelpleted to be due to
eoslonal robound causod by
of up b 3800m ofsediments
and T6[l, 1995; Bachu
Ddeted: I
ALBERTA RESEABCH CoUNCIL INc
SUMMAFY oF WATEn WaL coirprrrNT FlEvrEWs DECEMBEH 30. 2OO7
Allthe southem half of Alberta has potential for NGC (natural gas j4coal),
also known as CBM
(coalbed methane). This oas mostlv contains mpthane and ethane
(with
small amounts of
propane
and butane) which are adsorbed to the surface of fractures and gilflin the matrix of the
coal. Gas is produced by depressurizing (or dewatedng if water is present) the coal seam to
allow the gas to desorb and flow to the well. A typical Horseshoe Canyon CBM well involves
drllling and cementing a surface casing to a depth below non-saline water-bearing aquifers,
drilling to the GBM zone, installation and cementing of a production casing, perforation of the
production
casing at the zone of interest, followed by fractudng (stimulation) with 100% nitrogen
to remove drilling damage in the well bore.,
There are three main zones for CBM (Figure 1). The oldest and deepest is the Manville which
consists of thick coal seams along with shale, siltstone and sandstone at a depth of about 1050
metres below ground surface (Yurko 1975). This formation contains saline water (Hitchon and
Friedman 1969) and approximately 822 wells have been completed in this formation (as of
December 31,2003J,!p!h!tg mpp:eS
-
AEUB). The next zone is the Horseshoe Canyon
and Belly River Formations which contain coals deposited in lake, delta and river environments.
(how
manv CBM wells to date?). The shallowest coal (Carbon Thompson membE0 occurq at a
depth of about 100 to 500 m in the central part of the province (Beaton et al, 2002). The
Horseshoe Canyon and Belly River Fomations are generally considered dry, but the uppermost
members (Calbon Thompson and Weaver) sometimes contain non-saline water (Lemay and
Konhauser 2006). This is the main target of CBM operations in Alberta with 9,762 well as of
December 31, 2006. The Ardley coal zone is the youngest CBM zone and occuls at a depth of
100to600m'Thiscoaloftencontainsnon.salinewaleL@
ALBEHTA RESETRCH COUNCIL INc.
Delted! fom
Deletd: M
Delefied: and
Delefied:
Fonnatted: Font: Ibllc
Fomatted: Fonti Ibllc
SUMMAHY oFWATEH WE r c6Mpl
^rffi
Flililc DFCFMRFE IN ,NO7
sr
S5
Figure 1 CBM Potential and CBM Well Locations in Albeda.
(.Consider
cross section as welh
4 WATER WELL COMPLAINTS
4.1 Inltiation of Water Well Complaints
The
lqwater
well complaints reviewed by ARC were initiated in a number of ways. The
landowner complaints were often presented directly to industry (to local personnel or in public
meetings). Landowners sometimes contacted AENV, EUB, local health unit, or others (e.9.
other govemment representatives, the media). Often, more than one authodty was contacted
with the complaint. ln one case, the complaint was inltiated through the media and AENV
contacted the landowner to initiate and investigation.
4.2 Nafure of WaterWellComplaints
Allthe water well complaints reviewed by ARC were water quality related. Specific water quality
complaints included:
e
Livestock refusing water
r
Methane gas in water
r
lncreased methane gas in water (pipes banging and taps'spurting" more)
o
Mineral and bacteria deposits in well and plumbing system
ALBERTA RESEAFCH CoUNCIL INc,
Fonnatted! Left
Formattd! Font: Ibllc
SUMMARY OF WATEB WELL COMPLAINT REVTEWS DECEMBER 30.2OO7
4.8 Aberta Environment Complalnt Process and Handting
A flowchart of AENV's overall water well complaint response process is presented on Figure 2.
Typically, water well complaints are received and dealt with through AENV by its Compliance
and lnspection staff. The Departments three regions operate a Central Complaint Line and toll
free number (1-800-222-6514) to log the complaint and initiate a file and an investigation.
Phone calls are expected to be retumed within 24 hours of the initial complaint. A file will also
be opened if the complaint is reported to the AENV by an outside party that received the original
complaint, such as a company or the EUB. AENV may be involved through communications
with the company or complainant, at.various stages in the process.
When a complaint is received by the EUB, its procedure is to forward the complaint to the EUB
Environment Group, who then contacts the landowner to discuss the complaint. The EUB will
then refer the owner to the AENV 1-800 number, and provide follow-up, support, or act as a
contact as needed/requested.
When AENV is involved, an investigator contacts the complainant with respect to the issue. lf
the investigator can identify the water well problem and recommend a solution by phone (based
on the complaint and the investigato/s experience), this will be done. lf there is insufficient
information, the incident is loooed and the investioative
process
is initiated- ln some cases, the
company may initiate its own investigation. AENV wlll direct the company and its consultants in
the data gathering and evaluation phase until reasonable certainty is obtained to resolve the
Figure 2 Flowchart of the OverallWaterWell Complaint Response Process
Although the overall response process descdbed above is applicable in a general sense, AENV
does not have a specific, documented response process, with required tasks, and decision
points to directjhe investioative orocess or the involved
parties. Data gathering and evaluation
decisions are made somewhat subjectively based on experience of investigators and response
ALBEBTA RESEASCH CoUNoIL INc.
Dltd: an Investlgalion wlll be
lnltaled.
Deleted: lnvestigations
-b-
palticipants.
Specific responsibilities of AENV towards the companies and/or to water well
owners are not clearly delineated, and appear to vary between complaints. The process also
may not advance when certainty of one pafiy may be different than another and resolution
cannot proceed.
ln addition, although a resolution may be reached by the lnvestigators involved, if the owner is
not satisfied with the proposed resolution, the complaint may be remade to another
person or
body. The level of owner satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the
proposed iesolution may be
related to outstanding non-scientific issues such as trust or acceptance of scientific rationale;
lack of understanding; and/or the desires of the owner, among others. Where the owner
continues with the complalnt, there may not be a clear path for eventual resolution.
5 SCIENTIFIG EVIDENCE USED TO EVALUATE WATER WELL COMPLAINTS
the importance of each is below.
1) Geological and hydrogeological controls on groundwater flow and contaminant transport
The geological
controls on groundwater flow are important to understand at both the local and
regional scale. Locatly, geological units can direct water flow from the surface or shatlow
groundwater into a water well resulting in impact to water quality. Regionally, the geology exerts
control on the location and movement of CBM_ggg. lt is necessary to understand the
permeability; of the aquifers and the driving force (gradient) between aquifers to determine the
fate and transport of CBM gas. A review of the local and regional geology and hydrogeology
(including rock permeabili$ and gradients) was performed for each of the well complaints.
2) Surounding Energy Well lnformation
It is impoilant to examlne energy wells ln the vicinity of a well complaint to determine if any
problems
were encountered during ddlling or completion of the well. Energy wells within a 1.5
km radius of the well complaints were examined using data available from the AEUB and a
review of the tour reports by AEUB and ARC. Energy wells that lined up with the complainant
water well and the predominant regional fracture direction were examined. Additional wells
outside the 1.5 km radius were reviewed if they were specifically identified by a complainant or if
they had any unusual drilling or completion aspects relevant to the complaints.
3) WaterWd Construction and Maintenance
The construction methods used to install the complainantsl water,lvells were evaluated where
information existed. Well construction and sealing methods vary widely between drillers and
certain methods are more approprtate in some geological and hydrogeological situations. The
current condition of the wells and the maintenance regime followed by the complainant was
examined and evaluated to see if they were relevant to the problems reported for the well.
4) Major lon Chemistry
Deleted: (bolh natrral and inducgd)
DeleEd: well
ALEEHTA RESEAFGH CoUNcIL INc.
SUMMARY oF WATER WE-L CorrpurNT FEuEws DECEMEER 30. 2OO7
,
Historical water analyses of the major ion chemistry for the complainant wells was compared to
I
analyses performed during the well investigations. Maior ions include..... Changes in the maior
ions chemistry can be indicative of changes to the well (such as casing failure) or wideispread
changes to the aquifer chemistry (such as mixing caused by energy extraction activities). Each
water well complaint was also compared to between 105 and 145 nearby water wells from the
AENV database (collected under the AEUB Directive 35) to look for differences and similarities
between water types.
5) Dissolved Organic Chemistry
Dissolved organic chemistry (included volatile and extractable priority pollutants (USEPA) and
BTEX and F1-F4) was available for all the water wells investigated (but not the D35 water
wells). These analyses can be used to identify the type and source of contamination in a water
sample.
6) Free Gas Composition and Carbon lsotope Geochemistry
The presence of free methane gas in water was the primary concerp with the complainants. The
composition and ca6on isotope signature of free gas from the water wells was the primary data
used to evaluate the well complaints. The gas composition and carbon lsotope signature of the
wells were evaluated using a series of plots and statistically compared to 105 to 145 nearby
"D35" water wells from the AENV water well database pollected under the AEUB Directive 3{,
(Standard
for Bhseline Water Well Testino for Coalbed Methane/Natural Gas in Coal
Ooerations).
(Short panoraoh
on what isotopes are andtell usl
6 CONCLUSTONS OF WATER WELL INVESTIGATIONS
The Albeila Research Council's review of the four AENV complaint file and AEUB data, and our
independent review of additlonal data and aspects of the complaints
provide the following
conclusions, organized into the evidence categories listed above:
1) Geological and hydrogeological controls on groundwater flow and contaminant transpolt
o The Rosebud/Redland complainant water wells are completed in the Upper
Horseshoe Canyon Formation. ln the Rosebud/Redland area local water wells
appear to be predominantly producing water from the Carbon Thompson and
Weaver coals of the Horseshoe Canyon Formation. ln the Wetaskiwin area local
water wells appear to be predominately producing water from the
Paskapoo/Scollard Formations.
.
The deep AENV observation well and CBM drilling and completions records
indicate that in the Rosebud/Redland and Wetaskiwin areas the coals are not
water saturated below the Weaver coal (i.e. coals are "drf'). Under natural
conditlons,
qroundwater
flow withln and between these coal zones is expected to
be very limited.
ALBERTA RESEAHCH COIJNCIL INC.
Deleted:
Deleted:
)
Fonnatted! Font: Ibllc
Fomatd! Fonh lblic
Deleted: GOWN
e
-8-
2)
A local- oeolooical studv indicates the most likely orientation of fractures (face
cleats) in the coals would be abolt 055" E of N
(aporoximatelv
so
'
northeastl
An estimate of downward vertical gradient between the water wells and the
Horseshoe Canyon CBM zones is approximately 1.0. This represents a large
downward veilical gradient. lf these two zones become connected, water would
flow downwards into the GBM well rather than up into the water wells.
A theoretical evaluation of the potential migration of methane as bubbles from the
CBM well to the complainant wells (through an induced fracturegglly
fracture stimulation) suggests that the downward flow of groundwater in the
fracture would stop the upward migration of methane bubbles.
Fluctuations in static water levels were observed in all the complainant wells. The
cause of this fluctuation could be groundwater resource extraction by the
complainant well or nearby users or from drought. The drop in water level, and
corresponding drop in pressure on the coal zone, can be shown to contribute to
the increase in amount of methane dissolved in the groundwater. This effect
would be even greater during pumping of the wells where the waters level drop
more.
Sunounding Energy Well lnformation
.
Energy Wells in the vicinity (within 1.5 km) of the complainant water wells have
no apparent drilling and construction issues that would contdbute to methane or
degradation of water quality.
o
One CBM well in the Rosebud/Redland area had perforations and fracturing in
the same aquifer that many residential wells are completed in. The connection
between these wells has since been removed (well abandoned) and it is unlikely
that these short-lived perforations had any measurable effects on the
complainant wells at a distance of 1.7 to 3.1 km away.
Water Well Construction and Maintenance
Ddlling records indicate the all the complainant wells were drilled using mud
rotary rigs. ln all cases
"bentonite
and/or cuttings were put in the annulus (open
space) between the borehole and the casing. This method of sealing is not
prefened as there is no way to ensure a proper seal the entire length of the
annulus. furthermore in the Rosebud area, fine sand and/or gravel encountered
in all the boreholes between 5 and 11 m could have lead to bentonite bridging
(sticking caused by water swelling the bentonite) at that point. lt is not clear if the
existing seals provide adequate protection against contamination of water from
ground surface entering the well. Several water analyses (discussed below) did
indicate coliform bacteria were present and this could indicate a poor seal in the
upper part of the wells.
Records in the AENV wellcomplalnt files indicate the complainant wells were not
regularly shock chlorinated. The well casing of at least one
(?)
of the wells wgg
notingoodcondition@.
Ddeted: ,ock stress
Deleted:.
Ddd:
Ddetd: Benbnlte
Deleted: As well
DdeH: some
Deleted: ere
3)
ALBERTA RESEAFCH CoUNoIL INc.
SUMMARYoF WATEH WELL CoMPLATNT Fla/rEws DECEMaER 30- 2007
Analyses show the presence
of total coliform bacteria in exceedence of the
marimum acceptable concentration in three of the four wells evaluated. All three
wells had coliform bacteria numbers too numerous to count on at least one
occasion.
One wells had E. Coli bacteria present and in addition, amoebae, flagellates,
ciliates and possible water fleas were detected in the water.
The bacterial/microbial problems are likely lndicative o, water from ground
surface entedng the well. lt is likely that the source of contamination is quite
close, rather than from other sources such as drilling fluids used
Lor
energyJgllg
that were surface-water sourced, becausemost of these organisms generally do
not possess the ability to persist long in groundwater environment.
4) Major lon Chemistry
o
The water well major ion chemistry for the complainant water wells are Na-HCOg
or Na-HCOs-Cl Lwrite our ions as be type water. The complainant water well
chemistries are not unique. They, along withpver 100 other wells in the areas,
have Na-HCOs or Na-HCOo-Cl type water and have methane.
r
For all the D35 wells in the area sodium-bicarbonate (Na-HCOs) and sodium-
bicarbonate-chloride (Na-HCOg-Cl) tlpe waters are strongly associated with the
presence of methane in the water.
ALBERTA RESEAFCH CoUNcIL INc.
Deleted: many
Fomattd: Font: Ibllc
Deleted: many
@
Figure 3 Piper plot of complainant and D35 water wells.
(delete
fioure. too hard for
qeneral
public
to understand)
The analyses show the complainant well suoolies consistently excee( the
aesthetic objectives under the Guidelines for Canadaian Drinkinq Water Qualitv
for total dissolved solids (TDS) and sodium. The maximum acceptable
concentntions for fluodde have sometimes been exceeded. This water chemistry
is typical of water wells in these areas. All complainant wells have maximum
concentrations that are within health related liml the Guidelines for
Canadian Drinking Water Quality (Health Canada 2007) with the exception of
fluodde and coliform bacteria as noted above.
5) Dissolved Organic Chemistry
r
An analysis for USEPA volatile priority pollutants and extractable priority
oollutants are available for three of the 4 complainant wells. All volatile and
extractable organic compounds were below the analytical detection limit with
the exception of two compounds not expected to be related to CBM activities.
These compounds, 2-Methyl-2-Propanol (an alcohol) and phthalates
(plasticizers) were detected at veru may have come
from cleaning of the AENV sampling equipment prior to sampling the well and
from new sample tubing respectively. BTEX and F1-F4 analyses were low or
fuBEHTA HESEARCH CoUNoIL INc.
Ddeted: s
Deleted: s
-11-
6)
SUMMARY oF WATEn WELL CoirpLrNT HE\rEl rs DECFMBFF 30- 2OO7
below detection limit. No Canadian Drinking Water Guideline limits were
exceeded for USEPA priodty pollutants
or CCME hydrocarbons.
o
Dissolved methane analyses were available for the complainant wells with
concentrations ranging from
-11
to 110 mo/l These concentrations are at or
above saturation and methane would be expected to exsolvejlg!!!ry[ from
the water when exoosed to a
surface into a home's water distribution svstem. There is a risk that exsolved
methane can form an explosive mixture with air within confined sp
well shack). A small amount of dissolved ethane (2.2to 3.1
Ug/l)
was detected
in three of the for complainant wells.
Free Gas Compositlon and Carbon lsotope Geochemistry
.
Free atmospheric and hydrocarbon gas analyses were avallable for allthe complainant
wells. All analyses detected the presence of atmospheric gas (nitrogen, orygen and
carbon dioxide), methane (98,000 to 979,000 ppm) and ethane (13 to 300 ppm).
o
One analysisllgho was
!filg!
from one well contained higher order hydrocarbons
(propane
=
0.031 ppm, n-butane
=
0.008 ppm and i-butane
=
0.015 ppm')JPdW,
detection limitl. Re-sampling of this well for both free and dissolved hydrocarbons
found onlyrnethane and ethane?
o
The methane carbon isotope.lElA) values for the complaint wells fall within the general
histogram peak for methane values for all D35 wells (Figure 4). ln other words. the
comolainants' wells had isotope finoerorints similar to # other wells in the area.
.
The complainant water wetl data all have 6rsO methane values that are clearly biogenic
(6tsO vatues more negative that
-60
%" PDB). This means the methane likely formed bv
bacteria at a shallow depth. The GBM and conventionat gas wells have 6r3C methane
values that are less depleted
(less
neoative) than the typical range for biogenic methane.
These values represent a mixed thermogenic and biogenic origin (Figure{).
ALOERTA RESEAFCH CoUNCIL INc.
Delebd! 11,200 io 110,000
Fonnatted: Font: Iblic
Fomatted! Font: Ibllc
Delebd: propane and buhnE.
Deleted! 5
12
10
I
c6
4
2-
0
-64 -60
6rrC Methane
Figure 4 Histogram of carbon isotope values of methane.
(exoand
v axis title
40
45
-50
o--
c -cJ
a
E-ro
C'
-o'Do
-70
-75
-80
:#i
OO
oo
E
oon6.ffi
o o
ooo
o
o
100000 2000@ 300000 400000 500000 60(x)00 700000 800000 900000 1(x)000
0
Methane Concentrataon (ppm)
Figure 5 Methane concentration versus 6r3C of methane. Methane with 613C value more
negative than
-60
%o is usually considered biogenic in origin.
(looks
like onlv
one CBM well. oublic mav not understand. I would remove this fioure)
.
The ethane carbon isotope values for the CBM wells fall within the general histogram
peak for ethane values for all D35 wells in the area (Figure 6).
ALBEFTA RESEARCH CoUNCIL INc.
Format'ted: Normal
-13-
SUMMABY oF WATER WaL CoMPLAINT REuErIvs
.
The 6r3C ethane values of all the water wetls are similar to the values of the CBM wells,
but concentrations are lower (indicating a different odgin or potential mixing, see next
conclusion point).
pEcEMBERso.2ooT
W9
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
6r3c Ethane
lEDa5w"n.
--l
lEComptatnantWels I
lrcgrtr w"rr. I
llconv.
oas
I
IH IEI
lf,
rB l$l lfl lfl Iffi I I IH
-66 -64 -62 -60 -58 -56 -54 -52 -50 -48 46 -4 -42 40 -38 -34
Figure 6 Histogram of carbon isotope values of ethane.
ALBEFTA RESEAFCH CoUNcIL INc.
I
ri
.
The hydrocarbon gas composition and isotopic values can be modified by mixing
between different sources of gases. For example, hypothetical mixing curves 1 and 2
(Figure 7) mix a biogenic gas with typical CBM gas. The two biogenic gas composition
and isotope values were chosen so complainant wells would fall on the curve. These
curves show the composition and isotopic value of the complainant wells could be
produced by mixing with 0.5 to 4% CBM gas. While gas mixing is possible, the gas
composition and dr3Or"s,.n. value of the complainant wells is not statistically any different
from the average D35 water well values in the areas.
Figure 7 Mixing plot of 613C of methane versus the methane/C2+ ratio.
.
A statistical analysis of the methane and ethane ca6on isotope value of the complainant
wells, surrounding D35 water wells and energy well in the area show:
1) The carbon isotope value of the methane in the complainant water wells is the same as
the methane isotope signature of the surrounding D35 water wells.
2) The carbon isotope values of the methane in the CBM wells is different than the
methane isotope signature of the complainant and surrounding D35 water wells.
3) The carbon isotope value oJ the ethane in the CBM wells is the same as the ethane
isotope value of the complainant and surrounding D35 water wells. This does not
indicate the water wells have been lmpacted by ethane from CBM wells. The similarity
between ethane isotope values is expected // as both the CBM wells and the water wells
are completed in the same formation (but different coal members).lone coulO asX tne1
whv is methane ditferent?
-
consider re-wordino)
Overall Conclusion
r
The Alberta Research Council's overall conclusion of the evidence from the reviews of
the AENV and AEUB files, along with a new review and evaluation of addition data and
ALBEFTA RESEARCH CoUNCIL INc.
l.E+06
1.E+05
3
1.E+04
o
s
? t.e*os
N
(.)
o
1.E+02
l.E+0.|
1.E+00
D35 Waterwslls
Complalnant Wells
GOWN Wells
CBM Wells
Conv. Gas
Curve 1
Curve 2
o
E
a
a
A
o
o
of(r'p
o
SUMMARY oFWATEF WELL CoMPLAINT REuan,s DECEMBEB 30.2OO7
aspects, is that energy development projects
in the areas most likely have not adversely
affected the complainant water wells.
7 CLOSURE
This repoil is a summary of four water well complaint reviews carried out by ARC. The reviews
evaluated data from the AENV well complaint files, as well as additional evidence, regarding
Coal Bed Methane (CBM) and conventional gas activities undertaken by energy companies and
the subsequent perceived decrease in water quality of the complainant water wells.
This work was carried out in accordance with accepted hydrogeological practices.
Respectfully submitted,
Albeila Research Council
Permit to Practice P0361 I
Alexander R. Blyth, Ph.D., P. Geol.
Research Hydrogeologist
ALBEBTA HESEAFCH COIJNCIL INC.
D
-16-
I?
"t'
'
Coalbed Methane Related Water Well Complaints
Alberta Environment Incident Reference Nos. 1 61 943, 178988, 21 4287, 21 9646
Summary Report of Albert Research Council Scientific Reviews
Terms of Reference
Background
Alberta Environment (AENV) recently commissioned the Alberta Research Council (ARC)to
conduct separate scientific reviews of four water well complaints allegedly associated with
coalbed methane activity. These include lncident Reference Nos. 161943 (: . ,
),
178988 (J.Ernst), 214287 ( ,..
'-
) and 219646 ( .'. .
').
Purpose
The purpose of the Summary Report is to inform the general public about the findings of the
ARC scientific reviews and to increase public confidence in the AENV complaint investigation
process.
Scope of Work and Deliverables
1. The Summary Report is to be written in a manner that is:
.
Factual
.
Clearly understood by the general public (aim for Grade 8 education level)
.
Transparent
.
Concise (maximum of 10 pages, preferably shorter, including figures)
2. The summary Report shall include clear and concise explanations of the following (not
necessarily in this order):
a. lnvolvement of the ARC in the review of the four water well complaints, including what
type of information was provided to ARC to complete the reviews,
b. Problems encountered with each of the reported water wells,
c. How the water well complaint process was initiated and handled by AENV,
d. Local/regional hydrgeological settings using basic groundwater concepts (eg. geological
formations, aquifer type, groundwater flow directions, etc),
e. Coal bed methane operations within the areas of investigation (eg. number of CBM
wells, number of operators, formations/zones completed in, basic CBM concepts)
I
r1gf:v,tJ6
lr..T-,
,f'
f. The various lines of evidence used by ARC to evaluate the water well complaints
g. Conclusions arrived at by ARC upon evaluation of all the information and data provided
as to whether coal bed methane activity has impacted any of the water wells in question.
h. lmplications of the review findings on coalbed methane activity in general and its
potential effects on water wells and groundwater resources, particularly in the Rosebud
atea.
3. The Summary Report shall incorporate figures, illustrations and maps as a valuable
component of the document to ensure the review information is clearly conveyed to the
general public.
4. Names of any of the complainants or
governnlent officials involved in the water well
complaint rt.
5. The exact locations of the water wells under investigation shall be omitted from the
SummaryReport(limitedtothe@ithintheweIlexists).
6. The Reviewer shall attend and participate in a meeting, to be held in Edmonton, to
discuss the report findings once completed.
@
ALBERTA ENVIRONMENT
SUMMARY REPORT of CBM SCIENTIFIC REVIEWS
PROPOSAL
Prepared by:
Alec Blyth, P.Geo!., Ph.D.
Alberta Research Council lnc.
Prepared for:
Steve Wallace
Alberta Environment
10th Floor Oxbrldge Place
9820 - 106 Street
Edmonton, Alberta TsK 2J6
December 4,2007
Contact lnformation:
Alec Blytr
Alberta Research Council lnc.
3608
-
33 Steet NW
Galgary, Alberta T2L?AG
Phone: 403-210-5345
E-mail: blyth@arc.ab.ca
1 INTRODUGTION
Maintaining groundwater quali$ is an essential part of ensuring sustainable resource extraction
practices.
With growing concems over groundwater contamination from oil and gas exploration
and production, Alberta Environment (AENV) initiates a stepped investigative
process to
address all complaints brought forward to Alberta Environment.
Alberta Environment (AENV) recently commissioned the Alberta Research Council (ARC) to
conduct separate scientific reviews of four water well complaints allegedly associated with
coalbed rnethane activity. These include lncident Reference Nos. 161943 (D.Zimmerman),
178988 (J.Emst), 214287 (F.Lauridsen) and 219646 (D.Signer).
2 OBJEGTIVES
ARC will, in cooperation with AENV staff, produce a report summarizing the findings of these
four CBM related well complaints. The purpose
of this report will be to inform the general public
about the findings of the ARC scientific reviews and to increase public confidence in the AENV
complaint investigation process.
3 SCOPE OF WORK AND DELIVERABLES
The Summary Report written by the Alberta Research Council will be based on factual findings
from the individual well complaint reviews. be clearly understood by the general public, be
transparent and concise (a m aximum of 10 pages including figures).
The report will address the following:
lnvolvement of the ARC in the review of the four water well complaints, including
what
$pe
of information was provided to ARC to complete the reviews.
Problems encountered with each of the reported water wells.
How the water wel! complaint process was initiated and handled by AENV.
Local/regional hydrogeological settings using basic groundwater concepts (e.9.
geological formations, aquifer type, groundwater flow directions, etc).
Coal bed methane operations within the areas of investigation (e.9. number of CBM
wells, number of operators, formations/zones completed in, basic CBM concepts).
The various lines of evidence used by ARC to evaluate the water well complaints.
Conclusions anived at by ARC upon evaluation of allthe information and data
provided as to whether coal bed methane activity has impacted any of the water
wells in question.
ALBERTA RESEARCH CoUNCIL INC
1
@
r
lmplications of the review findings on coalbed methane activity in general and its
potential effects on water wells and groundwater resources, particularly in the
Rosebud area.
The Summary Report shall incorporate figures, illustraiions and maps as a valuable component
of the document to ensure the review information is clearly conveyed to the general public. The
names and exact location of any of the complainants or government officials involved in the
water wellcomplaint process
shall not be included in the Summary Report.
4 BUDGETAND PERSONNEL
The Alberta Research Council scientist that will be involved with the Summary Report is Dr.
Alec Blyth. Curdculum vita is appended to this document.
The estimated costs, by task, for the project
are presented in the following table.
The draft report will be completed by the end of December, 2007. We look forward to working
with you on thls project. lf you have any questions, please contact the undersigned.
Respectf ully submitted,
Dr. Alec Blyth, P.Geol.
Research Hydrogeologi st
Alberta Research Council
ALBERTA RESEARCH CouNcrt lNc.
2
,^.
w)
Alexander Blyth PhD, P.Geol.
Hydrogeologist
ARC - Sustainable Ecosystems
3608
-
33 Street, N.W., Calgary, Alberta, TzL2Ao
Blyth@arc.ab.ca, www.arc.ab.cals usbu/
EDUCATION
2004
-
Doctor of Philosophy
-
Science - University of Waterloo
1993
-
Master of Science
-
Science
-
University of Waterloo
1989
-
Bachelor of Science (Honours)
-
Geology
-
Queen's University
PROFESSIONAL SUMMARY
I am a professionally registered hydrogeologist in Alberta with a Ph.D. from the
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. I have 15 years of work experience
in hydrogeology, geochemisby and exploration geology in Alberta, British Columbia,
Manitoba, Ontario, Northwest Tenitories, Finland, Sweden and Australia. My doctoral
research involved assessing crystalline rock environments for radioactive waste
disposal, and ! have 17 scientific publications and 11 presentations in this field. I also
have teaching experience in over 10 difierent courses (both as a lecfurer and as an
assistant).
EMPLOYMENT
zOM -
-
Alberta Research Council lnc., Hydrogeologist, Calgary, Alberta
2OO4
-
University of Calgary, Dept. of Geology & Geophysics, Sessional
Lecfurer
1996 to 2004
-
University of Waterloo, Department of Earth Sciences, Sessional
Lecturer, Research Assistant and Teaching Assistant, Waterloo,
Ontario
1993 to 1996
-
AGRA Earth & Environmental Limited (now AMEC), Consulting
Hydrogeolo
gist and Geochemi st, Calgary, Alberta
1990 to 1993
-
University of Waterloo, Department of Earth Sciences, Research
Assistant and Teaching Assistant, Waterloo, Ontario
1990
1989
-
Aberfoyle Resources Ltd., Base MetalExploration Geologist,
Melbourne, Vlctoda, Australia
-
Placer Dome lnc., Precious Metals Exploration Geologist, Toronto
1987 to 1988
-
(summers)
-
Placer Dome lnc., Precious Metals Exploration
1986
Geologist, Toronto, Ontado
-
(summer)
-
Sherritt Gordon Mines Ltd., Precious Metals Exploration
Geologist, Lynn Lake, Manitoba
1984 to 1985
-
(summers)
-
Urangesellschaft Canada Ltd., Uranium Exploration
Geologist, Toronto, Ontado
PROJECT EXPERIENCES
Geolooical Storaoe
The focus of my doctoral research was the assessment of past and present
hydrogeological and geochemical conditions in the crystalline rock environment and
their implications to high-level radioactive waste disposal. I employed tools such as
hydrology and water chemistry, isotope geochemistry, fracture mineral petrology, fluid
inclusions, and cathodoluminescence to determine the behaviour of the rock mass
during past geological events (such as glaciation)
to predict the future stability
(performance assessment). During my candidacy, lwas involved in radioactive waste
research for the Finnish, Swedish and Canadian nuclear programs including
hydrogeological and geochemical
review panels for the waste programs.
At the Alberta Research Council I have been involved with ECBM and EOR projects
that are injecting COz to enhance hydrocarbon recovery. I am contrlbuting
hydrogeological, geochemical
and isotope expertise to evaluate the fate and transport
of injected CO2, through environmental monitoring of productlon wells and overlying
aquifers.
Groundwater Suoolv and Dewatedno
I have been responsible for the design, construction and evaluation of over 50 water
wells for industrialuse ln Ontario, Alberta and British Golumbia. Yield requirements
varied trom2O to
>4000 gpm, from depths of 20 to
>300
feet. Several of the water
supply and dewatering wells required complete hydrogeological investigations prior to
well location. I am familiar with all aspects of water well drilling, including cable tool
and air rotary (with casing hammer) drilling methods and all necessary permitting and
licensing requirements.
I have also been involved in the development of monitoring strategies for long-term
assessment of aquifer and well performance. This experience includes the use of
pressure transducers and data logging systems.
Contaminant Hvdrooeoloov
I have been responslble for contaminant site characterization, assessment and design
of groundwater and soil remedial strategies in Ontario and Alberta. I have conducted
soil vapour surveys on gasoline contaminated sites, and am familiar with auger rigs
and sampling devices including Shellry tubes, the Solinist-Waterloo coring device and
split spoons
I am familiar with groundwater and gas sampling protocol in deep boreholes and
shallow multi-level
piezometer, and have performed the laboratory procedure and
protocolfor gas squeezlng equipment designed to sample pore water in clays.
Landfill lnvestioations
My experience also includes extensive evaluation of existing landfills in Alberta.
lnvestigations range from waste delineation and characterization to receptor
identification. I have also been responsible for hydrogeological evaluations of several
potentialsites for landfilloperations. I have worked with many drilling methods
including reverse circulation, solid stem auger, hollow stem auger, and hollow stem
auger with continuous core barrel. Work experience includes government and public
hearlngs, location and drilling of extensive monitoring systems, hydraulic conductivity
testing and evaluation of the data retrieved.
Cofnouter Modelino
I am also familiar with commercially available two and three-dimensional
groundwater
flow and transport models, as well as aquifer testing and seepage analysis models.
These include MODFLOW, MT3D, FLOWPATH, SEEP\W, AQUTFER TEST and
AQTESOLV. I have applied this knowledge to severalprojects such as calculation of
post closure fluxes from tailings ponds,
evaluation of flood potential and evaluation of
contaminant migration and remediation strategies. I also have extensive experience in
inorganic chemical modelling of groundwater
systems, including involvement with the
government of Finland's radioactive waste disposal strategy.
Geolooical Maooino and Mineral Exoloration
I have been responsible for reconnalssance and detailed geological mapping in
Ontario, Manltoba, the Northwest Territories, and Australia. Tasks included mapping
rock type and structure, geochemical
sampling, and supervision of diamond and "air-
core" drills. Mineralexploration included gold, base metals, uranium, zircon, and rutile.
Academic Work Exoerience
Sessrbnal lnstructor
I was a session lnstructor for GLGY 4011601 (hydrogeology) at the University of
Galgary in fall 2004.
While a doctoral candidate at the University of Waterloo, lwas asked, by the head of
the department, to teach several courses. These include: Eal,lh 427 - Crustal
Evolution, Earth232 - lntroductory Petrography and Earth 490 - Geologlcal Field
School(Quebec).
Ieaciing Assisfant
While a student at the University of Waterloo I was a teaching assistant for numerous
undergraduate and graduate courses. I was well respected and sought after as a
teaching assistant. Courses lnclude: Earth232 Petrography, Earth 238 Shuctural
Geology, Earth 331 lgneous Petrology, Earth 332 Metamorphic Petrology, Earth 342
Applied Geomorphology, Earth 390 Methods in Geological Mapping (Field School),
Eafth 427 Crustal Evolution, Earth 440 Quaternary Geology, Earth 471 Mineral
Deposits, Earth 490 Field Course and Earth 653 Contaminant Hydrogeology.
HONOURS AND AWARDS
NaturalSciences and Engineering Councilof Canada (NSERC) lndustrialResearch
Fellowship
Peacock Memorial Prize from the Walker Mineralogical Club (Toronto)
Ontario Graduate Scholarship in Scienbe and Technology (OGSST)
H.Q. Golder Memorial Scholarship
University of Waterloo Schol arship
University of Waterloo Graduate Scholarship
@
@
MEMBERSHIPS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta
National Ground Water Association
Geological Society of America
lnternational Association of Hydrogeologists
LANGUAGES
English
PUBLIGATIONS
Published refereed atticles
Blyth, A., Frape, S.K., Ruskeeniemi, T., and Blomqvist, R., 2004. Origins, closed
system formation and preservation
of calcites in glaciated crystalline bedrock:
Evidence from the Palmottu natural analogue site, Finland. Applied
Geoche misw, 19, 675-686.
Blyth, A., Frape, S.K., Blomqvist, R., and Nissinen, P.,2000. Assessing the past
thermal and chemical history of fluids in crystalline rock by combining fluid
inclusion and isotopic investigations of fracture calcite. Applied Geochemistry,
15,1417-1437.
Frape, S.K., Blyth, A., Blomqvist, R. McNutt, R. and Gascoyne, M., 2004. Deep fluids
in the continents: ll. crystalline rocks, p. 541-580. ln.'Surface and Ground
Water, Weathering, and Soils (ed. J.l. Drever) Vo!. 5 Treatise on Geochemistry
(eds. H.D. Holland and K.K. Turekian), Elsevier-Pergamon, Oxford.
Papers in submission or preparation
Beaton, A., Blyth, A., Pana, C. and Gunter, W. Geological and Hydrogeological
Characterization and Monitoring of a COz Storage
-
Enhanced CBM Production
Micro-Pilot Test Site in the Ardley Coal Zone, West-Central Alberta, Canada.
Blyth, A., Frape, S.K. and Tullborg, E-L. A review and compadson of fracture mineral
investigations and their application to radioactive waste disposal. (Submitted
to Applied Geochemistry)
Blyth, A., Frape, S.K. and Smellie, J. Evolution of groundwater
at the Swedish Nuclear
Fuel and Waste Management Company (SKP) AspO Hard Rock Laboratory with
time: Additionalinformation from kitium and
o'Gl.
(ln prep.)
Blyth, A. and Frape, S.K. Ftuid inclusions, a potential future source of satinity at the
granitic AspO Hard Rock Laboratory, Sweden. (ln prep.)
Blyth, A. and Frape, S.K. A fluid inclusion investigation of fracture calcite at the Skipa
mine site, Sweden: Origins, and past thermal and chemical conditions in
crystalline rock. (ln prep.)
@
Blyth, A. and Frape, S.K. Thermaland chemical history of fluids in mafic crystalline
rock: a fluid inclusion and isotopic study of fracture calcite from the Mfints#ildi
research site, Finland. (ln prep.)
Reports/Proceedings
Blyth, A. and Frape, S.K., 2002. AspO Hard Rock Laboratory Matrix fluid chemistry
experiment - Evolution of Asp6 groundwaters with time: Additional information
from tritium and
o'Cl.
SKB Technical Document TD-02-18, 17p.
Blyth, A., 2001. Asp6 Hard Rock Laboratory Matrix fluid chemistry experiment - Fluid
inclusion investigation of quartz. SKB lnternationalTechnical Document ITD-01-
06,20p.
Blyth A., 2001. Fluid inclusions in quarE from the Asp0 Hard Rock Laboratory. ln:
Smellie, John (Ed.) Asp6 Hard Rock Laboratory - Matrix fluid experiment
workshop. SKB (Swedish Nuclear Fueland Waste Management Co.)
lnternational Techni cal Document. Report ITD-02-02.
Blyth A., 2000. Fluid inclusions in quartz from the AspO Hard Rock Laboratory. ln:
Smellie, John (Ed.) Aspii Hard Rock Laboratory - Matrix fluid experiment
workshop. SKB (Swedish Nuclear Fuel and Waste Management Co.)
lnternational Technical Document. Report !TD-00-17.
Blyth A., 2000. Crush and leach experiments in granite from the Asp6 Hard Rock
Laboratory. ln: Smellie, John (Ed.) Aspii Hard Rock Laboratory - Matdx fluid
experiment workshop. SKB (Swedish Nuclear Fueland Waste Management
Co.) lnternational Technical Document. Report !TD-00-1 7.
Blyth A., 2000. ln: Smellie John (Ed.), AspO Hard Rock Laboratory - Status report of
/the
matrix fluid experiment June 1998-June 2000. S KB (Swedish Nuclear Fuel
and Waste Management Co.) lntemational Progress Report IPR-00-35, 47p.
Blyth, A. and Frape, S.K., 1999. Assessment of the past thermal and chemical history
of fluids atthe Palmotfu research site, by combining fluid inclusion and isotopic
investigations of fracfure calcite. The Palmottu NaturalAnalogue Project.
Technical Report 99-07.
Ruskeeniemi, T., Lindbefg,A., P6rez delVillar, L., Blyth, A., Suksi, J. de Pablo, J. and
Tullborg, E-L. 1999. Uranium mineralogy. Abstractfrom 8'h European
Commission - Natural Analogue working Group Meeting, Strasbourg, France,
23-25 March 1999.
Ruskeeniemi, T., Lindberg, A., PilrezdelVillar, L., Blomqvist, R., Suksi, J., Blyth, A.,
and Cera, E.2002. Uranium mineralogy wlth implications for mobilisation of
uranium at Palmottu. ln: Maravic, H. von & Alexander, W. R. (eds.) Eighth EC
Natural Analogue Working Group Meeting:
proceedings of an international
workshop held in Strasbourg, France from 23 to 25 March 1999. Luxembourg:
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 143-154.
frt'
'
1nr1/
\-,
Blyth, A., Frape, S.K., Blomqvist, R., Nissinen, P. and McNutt, R., 1998. An isotopic
and fluid lnclusion study of fracture calcite from borehole OL-KR1 at the
Olkiluoto site, Finland. Posiva Oy, Report 98-04.
Ruskeeniemi, T., Frape, S.K., Blomqvist, R., Vuorela, P. and Blyth, A. 1996. Silicate
Geothermometry in the Serpentinized Mafic-Ultramafic lntrusion of Ylivieska.
Geological Survey of Finland, Nuclear Waste Disposal Research, Report YST-
94,37 p.
Blomqvist, R., Vuorela, P., Nissinen, P., Ruskeeniemi, T., Frape, S.K., Blyth, A., and
lvanovich, M. 1993. Crustal Rebound-Related Groundwater Flow and Calcite
Formation in the Crystalline Bedrock of the Fennoscandian Shield: New
Observations from Finland.
!q
Paleohydrogeological Methods and their
Applications. OECD, Paris, 161-167.
Frape, S.K., Blomqvist, R., Nissinen, P., Blyth, A., and McNutt, R.H. 1992. The
geochemistry of fracture filling calcite at the Olkiluoto research site, Southwest
Finland.
!4q
Dating of fracture minerals from Olkiluoto, S.W. Finland. lndustrial
PowerCompany, TVO Site lnvestigations, Working Report 92-27,200 p by
Blomqvist et al. 1992.
Frape, S.K., Blyth, A., Jones, M.G., Blomqvist, R., Tullborg, E-L., McNutt, R.H.,
McDermott, F. and lvanovich, M., 1992. A comparison of Calcite Fracture
Mineralogy and Geochem istry for the Canadian and Fennosc andian Shields.
Water-Rock Interaction 7, Kharaka & Maest (eds.) p787 - 791.
PRESENTATTONS
lnvited
Abandoning wells and Groundwater Monitoring Well Construction. lnvited talk for
Wheatland County Watershed Group, Rosebud, AB, August 28,2007.
Potentiat Effects of CBM Development on Groundwater. lnvited talk for the Canadian
Water Resources Association (CWRA), Red Deer, 4pri124,2007.
Developing and Maintaining and Effective Groundwater Supply. lnvited talk for the lAH,
Edmonton, March 21. 2007.
Chemical and lsotopic Signatures of Water and CBM gases from Camrose County.
lnvited talk for the EnCana GBM Workshop, Calgary, November 27,2006.
Water Well Maintenance. lnvited talk for the Alberta Research Council, Vegreville,
October 13,2006.
GO2 Sequestration and ECBM. Invited talk for the Ganadian Prairies Group of
Chartered Engineers (CPGCE), Calgary, May 10,2006.
Geological and hydrogeological characterization and monitoring of a CO2 storage -
enhanced CB M production micro-pilot test site in the Pembina area, west-central
Alberta Plains, Canada. lnvited talk for Ground Water Protection Council -
UIC
Conference, Austin, January 25, 2006.
t.,
@
Radioactive Waste Disposal in Crystalline rock in Scandinavia: Case studies of the far-
field environment. lnvited talk to the Calgary chapter of the lnternationalAssociation of
Hydrogeologists (lAH), Calgary, Alberta, January 20,2005.
Alberta Research Council (ARC) led carbon dioxide storage/enhanced coalbed
methane (ECBM) recovery projects
in Canada. lnvited talk to the Canadian Society for
Unconventional Gas, Calgary, Alberta, December 9,2004.
Radioactive Waste Disposal in Crystalline Rock What fracture minerals tel! us about
the rock fluid hlstory. lnvited talk for Ontario Power Generation, Nuclear Waste
Management Division, Toronto, Ontario, June 6, 2O02.
Fluid inclusion study of quartz at the AspO Hard Rock Laboratory - Final Report. 2001.
Aspii Hard Rock Laboratory Matrix Fluid Chemistry Experiment Workshop, SKB,
Stockholm Sweden.
Radioactive Waste Disposal in Crystalline Rock. Walker Mineralogy Club, Toronto,
Ontario, April 1 1, 2001.
Fluid inclusion study of quarE at the AspO Hard Rock Laboratory - Preliminary Results.
2000. AspO Hard Rock Laboratory Matrix Ftuid Chemistry Experiment Workshop, SKB,
Stockholm Sweden.
other presentations
Characterization and monitoring of aCOZ storage - Enhanced Coal Bed Methane
(ECBM) production micro-pilot test site in the Pembina area, Alberta Plains. Alberta
E nvironment Gonference, E dmonton, Al berta, 2006
Some additionalaspects of the evolution of brines in crystalline rocks gained from
isotope geochemistry. The Geological Society of America 2003 Annual Meeting,
Seattle, Washington, November 3, 2003.
Long-term hydrogeological stabili$ of crystalline bedrock in glaciated tenains:
Evidence from the Palmottu nafuralanalogue research site, Finland. The Geological
Socieg of America 2002 AnnualMeeting, Denver, Colorado, October 30, 2002.
Combining fluid inclusion studies with isotopic investigations of fracture calcite to
assess the past thermal and fluid history of the Olkiluoto research site, Finland. The
Geological Society of America 1998 Annua! Meeting, Toronto, Ontado, October 26,
1 998.
Bedrock geochemistry of southwestern Ontario and its implications to the overlying
fresh water aquifer as a consequence of anthropogenic activities. Porous Media
Research lnstitute, AnnualMeeting, Kitchener, Ontario, November 18, 1997.
A comparison of calcite fracture mineralogy and
geochemistry
for the Canadian and
Fennoscandian Shields. Water-Rock lnteraction 7, Park City, Utah, July 13-18, 1992.