Verifying the extent of plumes from produced formation water: a Wheatstone case study

Chevron Australia Pty Ltd operates the Wheatstone liquefied natural gas facility in Western Australia under a Joint Operating agreement. Hydrocarbons from Wheatstone, Iago and Julimar-Brunello fields are sent to the Wheatstone Platform (the Platform), located ~50 km north of the Montebello Islands, for dewatering and dehydration before being transported onshore for final processing. Produced formation water (PW) is processed (treated) and, once criteria are met, discharged overboard. PW at Wheatstone is predicted to rapidly dilute in the receiving ocean to concentrations below water quality criteria (Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council guidelines and ecotoxicology), though empirical evidence is needed to verify the actual discharge risk. Seawater (i.e. cooling water, CW) is also abstracted for cooling duty on the Platform, chlorinated and discharged. This paper describes a field verification campaign aimed at understanding PW and CW behaviour in the water column post-discharge, dilution with distance and whether numerical modelling of dilutions is accurate. The campaign was designed to evaluate plume characteristics by monitoring both entrained PW constituents (i.e. hydrocarbons and metals) and using a Rhodamine WT tracer dye. Monitoring of these constituents was done using an array of sampling techniques, including fluorometry, remotely operated vehicles and discrete water samplers. Results indicate rapid dilutions post PW and CW discharge, with dye fluorometry proving a valuable tool for understanding plume characteristics. Water sampling data interpretation indicated dilutions were likely orders of magnitude greater than anticipated, likely due to variable flow effects and turbulence induced by the Platform structure for PW, and the influence of entrained air within the plume for CW.

No effect of dredging on the prevalence of coral disease detected during a large dredging program

The frequency of disease within coral communities was evaluated using an 18-month series of coral photographs taken before, during, and after a major dredging program at Barrow Island, off Australia's northwest coast. Up to 60 corals were assessed repeatedly at each of four dredging 'impact' sites (<1 km from dredging), and four 'reference' sites (>20 km from dredging). Contrary to an earlier report, the frequency of occurrence of coral disease (usually <5% of corals) was not significantly altered by dredging. The pattern of occurrence of coral disease does not constitute a suitable early warning bioindicator of dredging impacts on coral. This study suggests that disease is difficult to measure and evaluate, and is not a key indicator in the potential impacts of dredging on coral health. We propose that environmental monitoring during dredging should continue to focus on known impact indicators.