Hydrogeology Journal

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-019-02093-x

PAPER

Hydrogeological implications of fault behaviour from in situ pressure

measurements of the Horrane Fault in the Surat Basin (Great Artesian
Basin, Australia)
Robin Viljoen 1 & Brad Pinder 1 & Saswata Mukherjee 2 & St John Herbert 1

Received: 18 March 2019 / Accepted: 2 December 2019

# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
In order to assess the impact of faulting on the production and compartmentalisation of a coal seam gas (CSG) reservoir, seismic
reflection surveys and subsequent drilling were undertaken to locate and then intersect the Horrane Fault in the eastern Surat
Basin, in the Great Artesian Basin of Australia. The investigation of the Horrane Fault in the area of Cecil Plains on the Darling
Downs identified faulting at depths of 50–600 m within the Walloon Coal Measures. Pressure data collected during the drilling
show differential pressures on each side of the fault. The differential is interpreted to show depletion on the western side of the
fault due to the CSG production field located west of the fault. On the eastern side of the fault, the pressures were near hydrostatic,
and thus the fault is acting as a lateral seal. Regional modelling currently simulates faults as having permeability based upon the
fraction of the units off-set across the fault. This would lead to exaggerated predictions of impact not supported by the data from
this study. Conceptual models of the Surat Basin are currently based upon the premise that connectivity by direct linkages due to
the faults enhances groundwater-level changes due to water extraction and that the behaviour of the faults is poorly understood.
This study represents the first detailed evaluation of fault behaviour in the eastern Surat Basin and can be used to update current
conceptual models and inform regional groundwater impact assessments.

Keywords Faults . Groundwater flow . Gas migration . Lineaments . Australia

Introduction conventional reservoirs; these techniques included fault zone

Basic understanding of fault-zone hydraulic properties and
fluid transmissivity in sedimentary basins in various in situ
conditions (e.g., pressure, temperature, stress and wettability)
has been mainly developed through conventional oil and gas
exploration and hydrogeological and ecological research on
groundwater springs (Underschultz et al. 2018a). As part of
these research efforts, several procedures and techniques were
developed to infer fault-zone hydraulic characteristics for
Published in the special issue “Advances in hydrogeologic understanding
of Australia’s Great Artesian Basin”
* Robin Viljoen
rviljoen@arrowenergy.com.au
1
Arrow Energy, GPO Box 5262, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia
2 was disrupted (Cowley and O’Brien 2000; Gartrell et al.
School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of
Queensland, Steele Building 3, Staff House Road,
Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
architecture and juxtaposition analysis, mechanical seal ca-
pacity and fault reactivation potential, capillary fault seal ca-
pacity and hydrodynamic analysis, and subseismic strain anal-
ysis. In the hydrogeological domain, groundwater tempera-
ture, flux and geochemical composition of springs along the
faults are mainly utilized for fault zone characterisation
(Underschultz et al. 2018a).
Although faults can provide seal capacity through juxtapo-
sition of reservoirs against the seal and low-permeability fault
gouge or cataclastic material in the fault zone (Watts 1987),
the seals can be breached by the fault zone architecture in a
prevailing stress regime, or during capillary leakage or fault
reactivation (Watts 1987; Heum 1996; Brown 2003;
Underschultz et al. 2018a). Potential seal leakage was often
found to occur in structurally complex areas and at the inter-
section of steeply dipping faults (Craw 2000) or at relay ramps
(Underschultz et al. 2003) where the fault plane continuity
2004). This is observed in the Western Canadian
Sedimentary Basin (Underschultz et al. 2005) where hydraulic

head discontinues across the thrust faults, displacing the
Mississippian sedimentary sequence, while vertical transmis-
sivity between Mississippian and Devonian aquifers is noticed
along the lateral ramps associated with the faults. Another
example, from the foothills of the eastern part of the Rocky
Mountains’ main ranges (Canada), showed hydraulic continu-
ity around the fault tips of en echelon faults where strain
shifted to the next subparallel fault (Underschultz et al. 2005).
Fault zone permeability is an important factor for the hydrau-
lic connectivity across the fault. If the permeability of the fault
material is lower than the host rock, then it presents a capillary
barrier. These barriers can compartmentalise a reservoir by
allowing regions of differing hydraulic head; this is observed
in Australia’s faulted Plover Formation in the Vulcan subbasin
(Underschultz et al. 2003), in the Barrow aquifer in proximity to
the Pyrenees-Macedon oil and gas fields (Bailey et al. 2006),
and in the Permian sedimentary sequences of the Gloucester
Basin (Underschultz et al. 2018b), and also in the shallow
groundwater systems in the Lower Rhine Graben, Rohr Valley
in Europe (Bense and Van Balen 2004). The ability of a fault to
retain a seal is influenced by formation pressure distribution
across the faults (Brown 2003; Underschultz 2007). The water
pressure differential across a fault can indicate a sufficiently low
fault zone permeability to sustain that pressure gradient over
time (Underschultz et al. 2018a). In coal seam gas (CSG) units,
the fault seal capacity also depends upon the transient compo-
nent of the CSG development cycle, where effective stress
changes over time due to progressive pressure decline of CSG
reservoirs and may affect the seal capacity. Reactivation of the
fault and breaks in fault seal over time can be subject to the
overall fault zone architecture, mechanical strength of the faults,
in situ stress and pore pressure changes (Mildren et al. 2002;
Gartrell et al. 2005; Underschultz et al. 2005).
Assessment of fault zone permeability is important in under-
standing fault-zone hydraulic properties in the regional ground-
water models (Bense 2004; Underschultz 2007). Fault-derived
permeability can be estimated through clay smear potential
(CSP) (Bouvier et al. 1989, Fulljames et al. 1997) and the shale
smear factor (SSF) (Lindsay et al. 1993), and more recently
through the shale gauge ratio (SGR) (Yielding et al. 1997,
Manzocchi et al. 2009, Yielding 2002, Bretan et al. 2003).
SGR is generally considered the preferred method due to its
reliable algorithm as well as the availability of well log data
(Vshale) for the calculation (Underschultz et al. 2018a). SGR
values are dependent on depth. At lower SGR values, lateral seal
capacity is effectively lost. At values greater than 0.5, SGR has
less impact on the fault seal capacity (Yielding et al. 2010).
Although the various methods described in the preceding
can be implemented in a groundwater model, the effect of fault
systems on groundwater flow paths is often uncertain. Rare
availability of subsurface hydrodynamic data (e.g., pressure,
temperature, fluid chemistry) within a fault zone creates un-
certainty in the evaluation of fault-zone hydraulic properties.
Hydrogeol J
There is also an added difficulty of scale in representation of
hydraulic head distribution, formation water chemistry and
temperature in faulted strata (Underschultz et al. 2018a).
Therefore, in most cases, fault-system effects on the ground-
water flow are assessed through model simulations assessing
the impact of faults as permeable pathways or sealing struc-
tures (Turnadge et al. 2018; Arrow 2013) or simulation to
assess specific potential behaviour (Ortiz et al. 2018). The
default position for assessments of the impact of faults in
groundwater is often an assumption that they play an impor-
tant role in regional groundwater systems. Previous work from
the Office of Groundwater Impact Assessment (OGIA) on
springs and risk of CSG development in the Surat Basin
(Queensland-Water-Commission 2012) suggested that faults
act as a hydraulic conduit under certain conditions and provide
significant flux up to the surface. A recent OGIA study (OGIA
2019) in the context of CSG impact assessment in the Surat
Basin, assumed that the faults with sufficient displacement,
which can connect permeable coal seams with the adjacent
aquifer units, are more important. The study also assumed that
the interaquifer connecting faults in the Surat Basin influence
the vertical connectivity through fracturing in the fault dam-
age zones and horizontal connectivity through juxtaposing
aquifers across the faults (OGIA 2019). The OGIA study
was focused in and around the shallower alluviums of the
Surat Basin and therefore has limitations as a comparison to
the Horrane Fault study. Additionally, the OGIA study was
based on numerical simulations versus direct measurements
associated with the Horrane Fault study. Despite the assertion
of the role faults play in regional systems, it is a modelling
simulation methodology and not direct investigation that is
undertaken to assess the impact of faults as barriers or conduits
for flow. Depending upon how the fault system is represented,
significantly different simulation outcomes can be derived
(Turnadge et al. 2018). This study undertakes direct investi-
gation of a fault system in the Surat Basin, Queensland, to
identify the faults’ size and likely behaviour.
Australian coal seam gas company Arrow Energy (Arrow)
undertook seismic reflection surveys to locate the Horrane
Fault, subsequent drilling to intersect the fault, and then fur-
ther testing to understand the hydraulic nature of the fault. The
primary objective was to better understand the potential im-
pact of faulting on vertical gas and fluid migration, and the
degree of compartmentalisation of a coal seam gas reservoir.
The investigation of the Horrane Fault identified faulting at
depths of 50–600 m and included offsets of up to 100 m in the
Walloon Coal Measures, Fig. 1.
Study area
The Surat Basin has historically been described as an
intercratonic sag basin with very limited structural disturbance
Hydrogeol J
Fig. 1 Walloon Coal Measures stratigraphy, modified after Scott et al.
(2007); Sliwa and Esterle (2008); Hamilton et al. (2014); Wainman et al.
(2018)
(Exon 1976). More recent work has suggested the basin for-
mation was driven by dynamic platform tilting (Smith et al.
2019), and the structural style is more complex than earlier
recognised, with elements of extension, compressional, and
oblique-slip faulting (Ryan et al. 2012). Many structures occur
where a pair of conjugate faults exist, creating flower-type
“keystone” structures; these are interpreted as being
transpressional or transtensional in nature (Copley et al.
2017).
One of the most significant faults to penetrate the eastern
Surat Basin sequence is the Horrane Fault, located south of the
town of Dalby (Day et al. 2008). The fault was likely initiated
during the Permian, and has resulted in the preservation of a
Permo-Triassic subbasin beneath the Surat Basin sequence
(the Horrane Trough). The movement continued throughout
the deposition of the Surat Basin, with possibly 80 m of move-
ment between the Precipice Sandstone and Hutton Sandstone
time of deposition (Day et al. 2008). There is limited informa-
tion in the literature as to the later history of this fault.
The study area, detailed in Fig. 2, includes: one exploration
well which was fully cored over the Horrane Fault, then con-
verted to a water monitoring well (well 1); an additional water
monitoring well (well 2) to the west; appraisal wells towards
the east; and seismic lines shown in Fig. 2. To the west of the
study area there is a CSG production field which has been
producing from the Juandah Coal Measures since 2007 and
the Taroom Coal Measures since 2008. Production from the
Juandah Coal Measures is occurring within 2 km of well 1,
and production from the Taroom Coal Measures within 5 km.
The Horrane Fault in the study area is expressed in the
Walloon Coal Measures interval as the western arm of a “key-
stone” structure. Smaller unnamed faults comprise the eastern
arm. Consistent with the description of these “keystone” struc-
tures in Copley et al. (2017), there is a net downward move-
ment in the central block; however, the main Horrane Fault
appears to take the majority of the movement along the length
of the structure—more than the 5–10 km, as described by
Copley et al. (2017). At depth, the conjugate faults appear to
converge (although seismic imaging of the fault is poor below
the base of Walloons) into the single east-dipping Horrane
Fault penetrating the basement/Surat Basin interface.
Methodology and data acquisition
Arrow embarked on a data acquisition program to assess the
hydraulic nature of the faults in its asset area. Seismic data
were acquired to refine the location and offset of the Horrane
and other faults, followed by a program of drilling to directly
measure fault properties. A core was collected in one well
(well 1) to obtain direct samples of fault material, and mea-
surement of coal properties both above and below the Horrane
Fault. Desorption analysis on samples of coal was undertaken
 Hydrogeol J

Fig. 2 a Map showing the study wells and seismic lines along with the section along the study area, showing the wells and stratigraphic position
interpreted major faults within the Walloon Coal Measures; the inset across the interpreted major faults
maps show the location of the study area; b Schematic west–east cross-
Hydrogeol J

to measure gas contents, while samples of fault gauge were Juandah from the Taroom Coal Measures at the fault intersec-
analysed to determine mineralogy via XRD and XRF. Drill tion point.
stem tests (DSTs) were carried out to measure both formation An additional water monitoring well (well 2) was drilled
permeability and instantaneous reservoir pressure of the coal further east of well 1, which was further isolated by regional
seams, with a step rate test carried out to directly measure the faults that cut through the WCM (Fig. 2). Well 2 had seven
fault permeability over the short term. Pressure monitoring DSTs conducted and the zones depths were mimicked as far as
gauges have also been installed in the wells to measure reser- possible with the locations in well 1. Well 2 was completed
voir pressure changes over time, in order to identify longer with a pressure and temperature sensor placed at the lowest
term permeability of the fault or alternative flow paths. perforated zone in the Condamine Member of the WCM, and
A two-dimensional (2D) seismic section (line B on Fig. 2) it will assist in understanding how reservoir properties will
was acquired in 2016 to delineate and characterise the Horrane change over time as the appraisal pilot produces gas. Water
and regional faults in the area. The 2016 survey was acquired pressure was monitored by telemetered 1500PSI probe multi-
along existing roads and tracks to complement a previous 2D drop pressure gauges on 10 min logging intervals. This mon-
seismic survey acquired in 2010 (line A and line C on Fig. 2). itoring is ongoing at the time of writing.
To facilitate the understanding of interconnectivity be- In summary, seismic interpretation was used together with
tween the faults, the wells had been placed between regional physical and spectroscopic core logging to characterise the
faults that cut through the Walloon Coal Measures (WCM; fault zone and its architecture. DSTs together with gas content
Fig. 2). The objective is to understand the potential of lateral and saturation results were used to understand and interpret
migration of pressure and fluid. reservoir pressures around the Horrane Fault. The micro resis-
Well 1, an exploration well, was positioned over the Horrane tivity borehole image data were used together with XRF and
Fault with the intention to intersect the fault within the WCM. XRD samples to understand local permeability in the fault
The well was cored from the middle of the Kogan Member zone, and a step rate test was conducted to measure potential
down to the Eurombah Formation below the base of the permeability along the fault. An SGR was calculated for the
WCM. A lithological and fracture log was conducted on the fault zone intersected in well 1, utilising the equivalent section
core on site during drilling activities. Coal samples were taken preserved in well 2. The same interval was assessed for SSF.
to test for gas content and saturation. Gas content measure-
ments were undertaken in accordance with Australian
Standard AS3980–1999. The well was logged with an ad-
vanced suite of logs that included a borehole micro-resistivity
Results
imager. The micro-resistivity log was used to quantify and
qualify the fractures as permeable or impermeable. The core The 2D seismic data acquired in 2016 had sufficient resolution
to identify both minor and major faults. The minimal fault
was scanned offsite by a rapid spectroscopic logging and im-
throw resolution was considered to be approximately 6–8 m
aging system (Hylogger spectral scanner) that uses continuous
visible and infrared spectroscopy and digital imaging. This is based on the seismic acquisition parameters. The seismic data
used to quantify the surface mineralogy of the core.
Two samples of fault gouge were taken for x-ray diffraction
(XRD) and x-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis. This was to
measure the mineralogy and element distribution of the fault
gouge to determine the existence, or not, of secondary mineral
precipitation that might indicate fluid movement in the fault.
A total of five DSTs were conducted in well 1, three above
the fault in the Juandah Coal Measures and two below the fault
in the Taroom Coal Measures. Pressure build-up measurements
from DST analysis were interpreted by extrapolation of a
Horner Plot to provide an interpretation of reservoir pressure.
An additional step rate test was conducted to calculate potential
permeability along the fault. This was conducted by
pressurising a coal zone above the fault in increasing incre-
ments whilst straddling the fault zone with a pressure gauge.
The fault zone was isolated with packers above and below.
Well 1 was converted to a water-monitoring well and com-
pleted with a differential temperature sensor from surface to
the bottom the WCM. A packer was used to isolate the Fig. 3 Example of a keystone structure interpreted from the seismic data

Fig. 4 Well 1 stratigraphic summary and petrophysical interpretation extract. The key fracture feature for the Horrane Fault can be identified at 343 m
depth. The fracture density was calculated from the core logging data
from the 2010 2D survey were of a lower quality but still
sufficient to map the Horrane and other larger faults. The
resolution of the seismic data was considered insufficient to
trace faults above the Walloon Coal Measures with confi-
dence. Due to the inherent nature of regional 2D seismic data,
the degree of continuity or length of these faults cannot be
established with confidence. The structural features typically
consist of narrow complex graben and half graben structures
(Fig. 3). Most of the faults are contained within the Surat
Basin succession, and some show mild compressive
reactivation.
Well 1 had a successful intersect with the Horrane Fault
between 340 and 350 m. The fault was not intersected at a
single point. The fault zone was associated with a decrease in
fracture density moving away from the fault (Fig. 4) and two
distinctive fault gouge zones could be identified (Fig. 5). The
Hydrogeol J
core within 10 m of the fault was clearly more broken (Fig. 5)
when it was brought up to surface, with a general increase in
fractures extending 40 m above and 25 m below the main fault
zone (Fig. 4). Using the seismic transect data and formation
depths in the wells on either side, it was calculated that the
fault was dipping approximately 60° and had a throw of
~60 m at the intersection point.
Measurements taken above the fault show a normal in-
crease in gas content with depth within the CSG reservoir, as
is typical of the same formations intersected elsewhere in the
Surat Basin. Figure 6 shows gas content vs depth plotted for
all samples in Arrow’s database for the Walloon Coal
Measures as background data, with the samples from well 1
highlighted. Samples for this well fall on or above the trend of
background gas content vs depth. Gas content measurements
below the Horrane Fault in the Taroom Coal Measures show a
Hydrogeol J
Fig. 4 (continued)
wider scatter with respect to depth. Samples from the seam
immediately below the fault range from being on trend
(~5 m3/t) to significantly below trend (~2 m3/t). Samples from
the deeper seams are all below trend.
No secondary precipitation minerals could be discerned
with the naked eye. Table 1 details the XRD results for the
samples taken from the fault gouge shown in Fig. 5.
Permeability results for well 1 vary between 100 and
250 mD in the Juandah Coal Measures and 3,484 mD for
the single test in the Taroom Coal Measures. Permeability
results for well 2 vary between 200 and 450 mD for the
Juandah Coal Measures, and between 300 and 1,000 mD for
the Taroom Coal Measures. One of the five DSTs was a failure
on well 1 (Fig. 7); however, the reason for the failure is
unknown.
In the Surat Basin, the standard condition is for reservoir
pressure measured prior to pumping to be very close to the
hydrostatic pressure (Fig. 8). Reservoir pressure results for
tests one to three in Well 1 were very close to the hydrostatic
pressure, while test five was significantly lower than hydro-
static pressure. All tests in well 2 fall within the expected
hydrostatic trend of reservoir pressure with depth for
undepleted coals. See Fig. 8 for a summary of these results.
Details of the set-up, methodology and results for the step
rate test are presented in Fig. 9. Permeability of the coal zone
was not directly measured but was expected to be about 200–
400 mD, based on well 2 permeability results. The coal zone
was pressured up to ~9,000 kPag (~1,300 PSI) and the pres-
sure held for approximately 30 min. Pressure drop within the
completed zone indicated the development of fractures. No
increase in pressure was observed for the pressure gauge po-
sitioned in the fault zone.
Data are available for water pressure in the Springbok
Sandstone and Walloon Coal Measures from several monitor-
ing wells within the study area. Figure 10 shows the pressure
as contours (in meters relative to Australian Height Datum,
mAHD) recorded in the Springbok Sandstone between 2008
and 2014 (note that the adjacent CSG field has been producing
since 2007).
It is apparent that there is a group of significant water pres-
sure values between 322 and 335 mAHD on the eastern side
of the Horrane Fault, whilst on the western side of the fault,
closer to the existing CSG production field, pressures are be-
tween 309 and 321 m AHD. Water pressure data obtained for
Juandah Coal Measures in the Walloon Coal Measures are
detailed in Fig. 11 and also show a difference in pressure
across the fault.
The range of hydraulic conductivities used in regional im-
pact assessment modelling (OGIA 2016) for the Springbok
Sandstone range from 1.21 × 10−3 to 0.186 m/day (with a
median of 4.41 × 10−3 to 7.5 × 10−3 m/day). The Walloon
Coal Measures hydraulic conductivity ranges from 1.41 ×
 Hydrogeol J

Fig. 5 Core photos for Well 1 from 336.72 to 347.99 m depth

10−5 to 1.07 m/day across six model layers with a median wireline logs (utilising a Gamma cut-off of >100 API) returns
from 4.2 × 10−4 m/day to 1.16 × 10−3 m/day. 1.2 m of shale over the 60-m throw zone, resulting in an SGR
The SGR estimate was complicated by a clear definition of of only 2%. If siltstone beds (gamma cut-off >62 API) are also
“shale”. The gross thickness of “shale” as determined from included, the total thickness is 47.9 m, resulting in an SGR of
Hydrogeol J
Fig. 6 Gas content vs depth plot for well 1, separating the Juandah Coal
Measures (above the Horrane Fault) from the Taroom Coal Measures
(below the Horrane fault)
80%. Using a methodology whereby the clay content of the
rock as a whole is considered (by estimating shale percentage
incrementally up the well), SGR is approximately 50%, well
above the 18% SGR threshold sufficient to support an 8-bar
pressure differential identified by Freeman et al. (1998).
Likewise, the SSF applied to the faulted material, when
strictly applied, utilised a maximum shale bed thickness of
0.775 m, yielding an SSF of 77. A more pragmatic approach
of considering both shale and siltstone could utilise a maxi-
mum bed thickness of 11.05 m, yielding an SSF of 5.4. The
latter SSF falls below the threshold of 7 at which shale smears
become incomplete as proposed by Lindsay et al. (1993).
Discussion
The extent and resolution of the seismic survey was sufficient
to map the Horrane and regional fault zone architecture with
confidence. Due to the reduction in resolution of the shallower
seismic survey, it is difficult to determine the timing of the
faults and their reactivation, and subsequently whether they
propagate into the younger Tertiary sediments. The Horrane
Fault was identified for the study, given its large offset (up to
100 m) compared to other faults in the area, and its long
history of activity (Day et al. 2008).
Table 1 Phase concentration estimates (mineral percentage, %) using
XRD results for two fault gouge samples
Mineral Well 1, sample 1 Well 1, sample 2
(depth 342.79– (depth 343.88–
342.81 m) 343.90 m)
Quartz 27.6 25.6
Albite 5.9 7.2
Kaolinite 11.1 11.6
Chlorite 5.6 4
Muscovite 20.7 17.9
Mixed layer illite/smectite 12.5 18.4
Non-diffracting/unidentified 16.7 15.2
The intersection of well 1 with the Horrane Fault shows
that the fault is not concentrated to a single location and that
fractures are spread out above and below the main area of
displacement, extending 40 m above and 25 m below the main
fault. The reasons for the difference on either side of the fault
and the presence of two gouge zones are unknown. No sec-
ondary mineral precipitation such as calcite and quartz were
discernible with the naked eye in the fracture zone. This sug-
gests that there may have been very little or no fluid move-
ment along the fault and its associated fractures. The step rate
test results further suggest that there is no or very little perme-
ability vertically along the fault zone. The injection pressure
test was undertaken for a period of 27 min after injection. The
relatively short period of the test limits the estimation of the
potential hydraulic conductivity of the fault.
The interpreted fault hydraulic conductivity is lower than
the Springbok Sandstone hydraulic conductivity values; this
may explain why pressure differences are observed in the
Springbok Sandstone across the fault. No clear differences
are obvious for the fault permeability and Walloon Coal
Measures hydraulic conductivities used in regional modelling,
which may be due to the innate heterogeneity of the Walloon
Coal Measures.
Beyond the mapped extent of the fault there is not a
clear demarcation of water pressures, possibly suggesting
that the impact of the fault is local. The variable nature of
the water pressure results detailed in Fig. 11 reflects the
difficulty of correlating pressures in discontinuous coal
seams where pressures are affected by both single phase
and dual phase effects.
Results from the micro-resistivity survey show the pres-
ence of “open” fractures that could be interpreted as indicating
local permeability enhancement in the damage zone around
the fault. However, the tool can only sample a very shallow
thickness of the wellbore wall (~2 cm), and may not be rep-
resentative of the whole rock body. When taking into account
the other measurements showing no or limited permeability
enhancement, there are two likely interpretations: either the

Fig. 7 Drill stem test (DST) results for well 1 and well 2. The purple
values are the measured reservoir pressures from the DSTs and the hy-
drostatic values in orange are estimated using a value of 0.434 PSI/ft.
open fractures (and thus any enhanced permeability) are in-
duced by drilling, or the naturally occurring open fractures are
non-connected and discontinuous.
The reservoir pressure readings obtained during DSTs below
the fault in well 1 are lower than those above the fault and
reflect the local water monitoring pressure data (Fig. 11), which
show lower pressure values in the adjacent field than those
monitored to the west of the fault. This strongly indicates that
Fig. 8 Pressure vs depth trends
for basin-wide data highlighting
the lower pressure test in well 1
Hydrogeol J
(freshwater hydrostatic gradient). The black values represent the percent-
age of measured reservoir pressure compared to hydrostatic
the lower zone is in communication with the adjacent produc-
ing field as would be expected in a high-permeability reservoir.
This reduction in reservoir pressure is also seen adjacent to
other Arrow fields in the basin where there has been a long
history of production. The pressure readings above the fault in
well 1, falling within the basin-wide trend of hydrostatic pres-
sure, suggest that virgin pressure conditions are being mea-
sured, and thus the fault is acting as a lateral seal preventing
Hydrogeol J

Fig. 9 a Schematic diagram

depicting the methodology for the
step rate test. The blue arrows
show pressure transmission into
the coal zone, whilst the black
arrows show the potential
transmission of pressure down the
fault. b The results of the step rate
test

drawdown from the neighbouring production field. This inter- drawdown in well 2 in either Juandah or Taroom Coal
pretation is reinforced by the lack of any discernible pressure Measures when compared against the regional dataset (Fig. 8).

Fig. 10 Water pressure contours

(mAHD) in Springbok Sandstone
between 2008 and 2014

Fig. 11 Pressure values in the
Walloon Coal Measures between
2008 and 2014
Gas content results for the coal samples below the fault
were also significantly lower than expected. The lower gas
content is not, in itself, diagnostic of depletion due to produc-
tion, as in many cases the Taroom Coal Measures are naturally
depleted (Hamilton et al. 2012). Gas saturation values calcu-
lated for desorption samples below the fault, using a reservoir
pressure derived from the measured point with a locally
shifted hydrostatic gradient, indicate that gas contents are still
below saturation. This may indicate that gas contents are still
in their initial undersaturated condition. The on-trend gas con-
tents above the fault are indicative of no depletion having
taken place; supporting the DST evidence that the fault is a
lateral seal.
While the step rate test was only conducted over a
short time period, the lack of pressure communication
suggests that there is limited vertical permeability en-
hancement due to fracturing. Longer-term pressure com-
munication however would likely result in a lower pres-
sure in overlying formations with reducing distance from
the fault. As shown in Fig. 10, this is not apparent in the
data currently available.
The study was focused on a single geographical area and
limited to the Walloon Coal Measures; therefore, there are
limitations to the extent at which the results can be translated
to other geological settings or even other areas of the Surat
Basin with similar geological settings. Various factors such as
depth, offsetting lithology, or even fault orientation may affect
the properties of faults.
Both tested methodologies of fault characterisation (SGR
and SSF) were highly sensitive to the definition of “shale”.
Hydrogeol J
As the Walloon Coal Measures are a terrestrial-dominated se-
quence with no clean quartz sands or true marine shales, the
definition of “shale” is subjective. The selection of gamma cut-
offs has a significant influence on both the SGR and SSF, lim-
iting their applicability in interpreting faults in the Walloon
Coal Measures section and leaving a large range of uncertainty.
The value of SGR and SSF within the Walloon Coal Measures
is likely limited to qualitative comparison between faults or
intervals along a single fault rather than a quantitative measure
of fault seal; however, one would require a standardised meth-
odology for determination of “shale”. A larger database of mea-
sured fault flow characteristics (for example from long-term
monitoring around a number of faults), would be useful to
calibrate SGR or SSF. The SGR and SFR methodologies were
also limited to considering lateral flow barriers, and do not
provide any insight into vertical flow parallel to the fault.
Conceptual models are currently based upon the premise
that connectivity by direct linkages due to faults enhances
groundwater level changes due to water extraction and that
the behaviour of faults is poorly understood. Also, the con-
ceptual models are provided with the caveat that significant
permeability may occur in another portion of a fault even
where there is no direct evidence for this. This study repre-
sents the first detailed evaluation of fault behaviour in the
eastern Surat Basin and indicates that in situ fault measure-
ments support local pressure data, indicating that the fault
interrupts the groundwater regime. This suggests that infor-
mative conceptual models where faults interrupt groundwater
movement are possible and it is therefore reasonable to use
these conceptual models in resource assessment.
Hydrogeol J
Further work
The reservoir pressure results suggest the WCM below the
Horrane Fault in well 1 is impacted by the production field
towards the west but the results above the fault suggest they
may not be connected to the production field. This is most
likely as a result of the fault acting as a barrier to the produc-
tion field but could also be related to a higher permeability in
the lower Condamine Member. The DST results from well 2,
gas content results from well 1, and water pressure readings
from various monitoring bores in the study area, strengthen
the barrier interpretation. Well 2 is separated from the apprais-
al pilot by a significant fault (Fig. 2). Once the appraisal wells
are in production, well 2 will provide a better understanding
on the potential connectivity through faults.
Fault barriers could be incomplete based on fault ge-
ometry if the fault exhibits lateral ramps. In a case like
this, 3D seismic surveys would be required to fully un-
derstand the heterogeneity and lateral extent of individual
faults and how they could potentially impact the move-
ment of fluid. The differential pressure sensor placed in
well 1 will, over time, provide further insight into the
vertical connectivity as well as the impact of the adjacent
production field.
Conclusion
The results of the fault investigation indicate that the fault
forms a barrier to lateral flow, and has not created a significant
conduit for vertical flow. A combination of hydraulic testing
and observed pressure data successfully demonstrated the lat-
eral sealing character of the fault, and strongly suggests the
lack of vertical permeability enhancement. The presence of
gouge and fracture zones in themselves is not always an indi-
cation of fault permeability. Faults that exhibit permeability on
a micro scale may still be impermeable on a macro scale as a
result of discontinuous connectivity.
The use of seismic surveys to locate the fault structure,
targeted drilling, geological site assessments and hydrau-
lic testing, together with analysis of local pressure moni-
toring, is shown to be an effective way to assess the likely
behaviour of fault systems. The assumption in desktop
modelling exercises that faults always create conduits for
flow through fracture-enhanced permeability is not always
applicable. It is recommended that direct investigation,
either before or instead of simulation modelling ap-
proaches, is used where significant fault structures are
considered to present a material risk factor for gas migra-
tion in resource impact assessments. This type of data is
needed to assess whether faults are conductive in a re-
gional context, or if faults only have local effects.
References
Arrow (2013) Environmental Impact Statement, Bowen Gas Project,
Appendix M, Ausenco-Norwest groundwater model, Northern
Bowen Basin regional model impact predictions. Arrow Energy,
Brisbane, Australia. https://www.arrowenergy.com.au/
environment/project-assessment-eis/bowen-gas-project-eis.
Accessed Dec 2019
Australian Standard AS3980 (1999) Guide to the determination of gas
content of coal: direct desorption method, vol AS3980. Standards
Australia, Sydney, pp 1–33
Bailey WR, Underschultz J, Dewhurst DN, Kovack G, Mildren S, Raven
M (2006) Multi-disciplinary approach to fault and top seal appraisal:
Pyrenees–Macedon oil and gas fields, Exmouth Sub-basin,
Australian Northwest Shelf. Mar Pet Geol 23:241–259
Bense V (2004) The hydraulic properties of faults in unconsolidated
sediments and their impact on groundwater flow. PhD Thesis,
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 143 pp
Bense VF, Van Balen R (2004) The effect of fault relay and clay smearing
on groundwater flow patterns in the Lower Rhine Embayment.
Basin Res 16:394–411
Bouvier J, Kaars-Sijpesteijn C, Kluesner D, Onyejekwe C, Van der Pal R
(1989) Three-dimensional seismic interpretation and fault sealing
investigations, Nun River Field, Nigeria. AAPG Bull 73:1397–1414
Bretan P, Yielding G, Jones H (2003) Using calibrated shale gouge ratio
to estimate hydrocarbon column heights. AAPG Bull 87:397–413
Brown A (2003) Capillary effects on fault-fill sealing. AAPG Bull 87:
381–395
Copley J, Mukherjee S, Babaahmadi A, Zhou F, Barbosa K, Hurter S,
Tyson S (2017) Faults and fractures in the Surat Basin: relationship
with permeability. The University of Queensland, Brisbane
Cowley R, O’Brien G (2000) Identification and interpretation of leaking
hydrocarbons using seismic data: a comparative montage of exam-
ples from the major fields in Australia’s northwest shelf and
Gippsland basin. APPEA J 40:119–150
Craw D (2000) Fluid flow at fault intersections in an active oblique
collision zone, Southern Alps, New Zealand. J Geochem Explor
69:523–526
Day R, Bubendorfer P, Pinder B (2008) Petroleum potential of the east-
ernmost Surat Basin in Queensland. http://archives.datapages.com/
data/petroleum-exploration-society-of-australia/conferences/003/
003001/pdfs/8.htm. Accessed Dec 2019
Exon NF (1976) Geology of the Surat Basin in Queensland. Australian
Government, Canberra
Freeman B, Yielding G, Needham D, Badley M (1998) Fault seal predic-
tion: the gouge ratio method. Geol Soc Lond Spec Publ 127:19–25
Fulljames J, Zijerveld L, Franssen R (1997) Fault seal processes: system-
atic analysis of fault seals over geological and production time
scales. Norwegian Petroleum Soc Spec Pub. 7(1997):51–59
Gartrell A, Bailey W, Brincat M (2005) Strain localisation and trap ge-
ometry as key controls on hydrocarbon preservation in the
Laminaria High area. APPEA J 45:477–492
Gartrell A, Zhang Y, Lisk M, Dewhurst D (2004) Fault intersections as
critical hydrocarbon leakage zones: integrated field study and nu-
merical modelling of an example from the Timor Sea, Australia. Mar
Pet Geol 21:1165–1179
Hamilton S, Esterle J, Golding S (2012) Geological interpretation of gas
content trends, Walloon subgroup, eastern Surat Basin, Queensland,
Australia. Int J Coal Geol 101:21–35
Hamilton SK, Esterle JS, Sliwa R (2014) Stratigraphic and depositional
framework of the Walloon Subgroup, eastern Surat Basin,
Queensland. Aust J Earth Sci 61:1061–1080. https://doi.org/10.
1080/08120099.2014.960000
Heum O (1996) A fluid dynamic classification of hydrocarbon entrap-
ment. Pet Geosci 2:145–158

Lindsay N, Murphy F, Walsh J, Watterson J, Flint S, Bryant I (1993)
Outcrop studies of shale smears on fault surfaces, chap 6. In: The
geological modelling of hydrocarbon reservoirs and outcrop ana-
logues. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444303957.ch6
Manzocchi T, Walsh J, Bailey W (2009) Population scaling biases in map
samples of power-law fault systems. J Struct Geol 31:1612–1626
Mildren S, Hillis R, Kaldi J (2002) Calibrating predictions of fault seal
reactivation in the Timor Sea. APPEA J 42:187–202
OGIA (2016) Hydrogeological conceptualisation report for the Surat
Cumulative Management Area Office of Groundwater Impact
Assessment. Department of Natural Resources and Mines,
Brisbane, Australia
OGIA (2019) Conceptualisation and characterisation of faults in the Surat
Basin. Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy,
Brisbane, Australia
Queensland-Water-Commission (2012) Underground water impact report
Queensland Water Commission. Brisbane, Australia, 224 pp
Ortiz J P, Person M A, Mozley P S, Evans J P, Bilek S L (2018) The role
of fault-zone architectural elements on pore pressure propagation
and induced seismicity. Groundwater 7(3):456–478
Ryan DJ, Hall A, Erriah L, Wilson PB (2012) The Walloon coal seam gas
play, Surat Basin, Queensland APPEA Jnl. 52: 273e290.
Scott S, Anderson B, Crosdale P, Dingwall J, Leblang G (2007) Coal
petrology and coal seam gas contents of the Walloon Subgroup:
Surat Basin, Queensland, Australia. Int J Coal Geol 70:209–222.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2006.04.010
Sliwa R, Esterle J (2008) Re-evaluation of structure and sedimentary
packages in the eastern Surat Basin. Paper presented at the PESA
Eastern Australian Basin Symposium III, Sydney, 14–17 September
2008
Smith T, Bianchi V, Capitanio FA (2019) Subduction geometry controls
on dynamic topography: implications for the Jurassic Surat Basin.
Aust J Earth Sci 66:367–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/08120099.
2018.1548376
Turnadge C, Mallants D, Peeters L (2018) Overview of aquitard and
geological fault simulation approaches in regional scale assessments
Hydrogeol J
of coal seam gas extraction impacts. Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Canberra
Underschultz J, Otto C, Cruse T (2003) Hydrodynamics to assess hydro-
carbon migration in faulted strata-methodology and a case study
from the North West Shelf of Australia. J Geochem Explor 78:
469–474
Underschultz J, Otto C, Bartlett R (2005) Formation fluids in faulted
aquifers: examples from the foothills of Western Canada and the
North West Shelf of Australia, chap 6. In: Evaluating fault and cap
rock seals. https://doi.org/10.1306/1060768H23171
Underschultz J (2007) Hydrodynamics and membrane seal capacity.
Geofluids 7:148–158
Underschultz J, Esterle J, Strand J, Hayes S (2018a) Conceptual repre-
sentation of fluid flow conditions associated with faults in sedimen-
tary basins. Prepared for the Department of the Environment and
Energy by The University of Queensland Centre for Coal Seam Gas,
Brisbane, Australia, 61 pp
Underschultz J, Mukherjee S, Xu H, Wolhuter A, Copley J (2018b) Data
integration, fault seal analysis and hydrogeological conceptualisa-
tion. In: Integrated analysis of hydrochemical, geophysical, hydrau-
lic and structural geology data to improve characterisation and con-
ceptualisation of faults for use in regional groundwater flow models.
CISRO, Canberra, pp 139–158
Wainman CC, McCabe PJ, Crowley JL (2018) Solving a tuff problem:
Defining a chronostratigraphic framework for middle to upper
Jurassic Nonmarine Strata in Eastern Australia using uranium–lead
chemical abrasion–thermal ionization mass spectrometry zircon
dates. AAPG Bulletin, 102(6):1141–1168
Watts N (1987) Theoretical aspects of cap-rock and fault seals for single-
and two-phase hydrocarbon columns. Mar Pet Geol 4:274–307
Yielding G (2002) Shale gouge ratio: calibration by geohistory.
Norwegian Petroleum Soc Spec 11(2002):1–15
Yielding G, Freeman B, Needham DT (1997) Quantitative fault seal
prediction. AAPG Bull 81:897–917
Yielding G, Bretan P, Freeman B (2010) Fault seal calibration: a brief
review. Geol Soc Lond Spec Publ 347:243–255