Introduction Introduction CBM WATERS CBM WATERS CBM WATERS: CBM - PDF document

10/27/2008 Introduction Introduction CBM WATERS CBM WATERS CBM WATERS: CBM WATERS Characterization and Affects on • Water Quality Ecosystem Properties – pH, EC, SAR, Alkalinity, Trace Elements • pH determines acid-base nature of the solution • EC is a measure of salt content (1.0 dS/m = 0.87 ton of salt/acre foot of water (7758 barrels) George F. Vance • SAR is the ratio of Na to Ca + Mg SAR (mmol 1/2 L -1/2 ) = [Na + ]/ [Ca 2+ + Mg 2+ ] 1/2 SAR (mmol 1/2 L 1/2 ) = [Na + ]/ [Ca 2+ + Mg 2+ ] 1/2 Department of Department of - and CO 3 • Alkalinity is a measure of HCO 3 2- Renew able • Trace Elements (Al, As, B, Cl, Se, etc.) Resources – Agricultural water use (Irrigation Standards) University of • EC < 0.75 dS/m • SAR < 10 Wyoming • Residual Sodium Carbonate (RSC) <1.25 - and CO 3 RSC = [HCO 3 2- ] – [Ca 2+ + Mg 2+ ] Introduction Introduction Introduction Introduction • Soil Properties • Plant Responses – Texture and Structure – Salinity (salts) – Mineralogy and Organic Matter • Osmotic effects (water relations) • Specific ion effects (nutrient balance) • Clay mineral type and OM properties – Sodicity (Na) – EC vs ESP EC (dS/m) ESP • Non-essential Nonsaline/nonsodic < 4 < 5 • Nonsaline/sodic < 4 > 15 • Na toxicity • Saline/nonsodic > 4 < 15 • – Plant germination, emergence, root development, • Saline/sodic > 4 > 15 growth, yield – Impacts to soil physical and chemical properties – Plant specific irrigation water use • Infiltration and Permeability • Water logging vs water deficiencies Function of soil texture and structure • Physical disruption - aggregate slaking and clay particle • Infiltration dispersion • Hydraulic conductivity • Crusting • Aeration • Nutrient availability 1

10/27/2008 direct discharge over an outfall rock structure gypsum treatment CBM W CBM Water Q ter Quality lity • High concentrations of soluble salts Electrical conductivities (EC)—0.4 to 4.5 dS m -1 Total dissolved solids (TDS)—300 to 2,800 mg L -1 ( ) , g • High concentrations of Na + Lined/unlined impoundment reservoirs land application using side-roll irrigation SAR—5 to 70 mmol 1/2 L -1/2 • High bicarbonate concentrations Up to 3200 mg L -1 (Rice, Ellis and Bullock, 2000; Wheaton and Olson, 2001; Phelps and CBM Water Management Bauder, 2003; Ganjegunte et al., 2005, 2008) CBM Waters Short-term CBM Water Irrigation Study Soil and Vegetation Considerations Na + and soluble salt accumulation in soils, Soil pits – 9 total Soil s il serie ries particularly on fine textured soils. –Forkwood – od – silty ilty clay l ay loam oam Negative impacts on infiltration rates and –Ulm Ulm Ulm – silty Ulm silty ilty c ilty c clay clay soil w ater flow s il t fl loam oam –Ki Kish shon ona – – loam oam Alteration in relative species composition and dominance of vegetation community • differential tolerances of individual 18 research blocks – 4 plots each. species and life-forms to altered soil environmental conditions Irrigation w ith coalbed natural gas co-produced water. Johnston, Vance and Ganjegunte. 2008. Agricultural Water Management 95:1243-1252. 2

10/27/2008 Irriga Irrigation w ater w ater treatmen treatments and s and Soil-Water Treatment Study surface amendme surfa amendments Site Characteristics Site Characteristics • Treatments/amendment added to CBM • 15 ha irrigated field near 15 ha irrigated field near w ater/soil to reduce soil impacts UCross, WY UCross , WY • Flood irrigated for the Flood irrigated for the • Water treatments included: last 10 years last 10 years 1. No treatment • Used for grazing and hay grass Used for grazing and hay grass Used for grazing and hay grass Used for grazing and hay grass 2. Solution grade gypsum 2 S l ti d • Planted in alfalfa/grass mix in 1995 Planted in alfalfa/grass mix in 1995 3. No. 2 plus S burner (SO 2 production) • Soil amendments included: Plots monitored for Plots monitored for • Effects of gypsum and S on pH, EC, SAR, and Effects of gypsum and S on pH, EC, SAR, and 1. No treatment - concentrations SO 4 SO 2- concentrations 2. Gypsum (3.4 Mg ha -1 ) • Used a split plot experiment Used a split plot experiment 3. Agricultural S (1.1 Mg ha -1 ) • Baseline and post treatment soil samples Baseline and post treatment soil samples collected to 60 cm collected to 60 cm 4. Combination of No. 2 and 3 Irrigation and Irrigat ion and CBM Water CBM Water Irrigati Irriga tion w ater w ater treatme treatments and s and surfac surface amend amendment nts Chemist Chemistry Water Used Surface Applied Water Treatment Abbreviations Soil Treatment Before Irrigation Used Piney Creek (PC) none none PC+NT PC gypsum none PC+G pH EC TDS ALK Na + Ca 2+ Mg 2+ SAR PC sulfur none PC+S Water PC Gypsum & sulfur none PC+GS Sample mmol 1/2 L -1/2 s.u. dS/m mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L CBM none none CBM+NT Piney CBM gypsum none CBM+G Creek 8.3 0.64 470 207 28.1 74.8 29.5 0.69 CBM sulfur none CBM+S CBM 8.3 1.38 910 802 344 8.9 3.9 24.3 CBM Gypsum & sulfur none CBM+GS CBM none gypsum injector CBM-G+NT CBM gypsum gypsum injector CBM-G+G K + Cl - F - - 2- 2- CBM sulfur gypsum injector CBM-G+S Fe HCO 3 CO 3 RSC SO 4 CBM Gypsum & sulfur gypsum injector CBM-G+GS mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mmol (c) /L mg/L CBM none gypsum inj. & sulfur burner CBM-GSB+NT Piney CBM gypsum gypsum inj. & sulfur burner CBM-GSB+G Creek 5.8 100 2.5 0.19 237 7.5 <1 137 CBM sulfur gypsum inj. & sulfur burner CBM-GSB+S CBM 3.1 560 12.8 0.94 853 61.5 15.3 <1.0 CBM Gypsum & sulfur gypsum inj. & sulfur burner CBM-GSB+GS 3

10/27/2008 Saturated Paste Extract EC Saturated Paste Extract EC (dS/m) Saturated Paste Extract SAR Saturated Paste Extract SAR (mmol 1/2 L -1/2 ) Pre Pr Pre Irrigation Post Irrigation (2004) Ir Irri riga gation tion Post Ir Irri riga gati tion on (2004) (2004) Water Soil Soil Treatment Water ter Soi oil Soi oil T l Trea eatment tment Treatment Horizon NT G S GS Trea eatment tment Hori rizon NT G S GS PC A 0.84 - 0.89 0.94 1.5 1.5 2.1 PC A 0.30 - 0.37 0.77 0.54 0.56 0.47 Bt 1 0.61 - 0.62 0.81 1.4 1.0 1.6 Bt 1 0.51 - 0.65 0.73 0.52 0.63 0.60 Bt 2 0.55 - 0.58 0.76 2.1 3.0 2.1 Bt 2 0.43 - 0.62 0.85 0.62 0.67 0.56 CBM CBM A A 0.83 - 1.2 0.83 1.2 1.5 1.5 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.4 2.8 2.8 CBM CBM A A 0.25 0.45 0.25 - 0.45 7.7 7.7 5.6 5.6 6.1 6.1 4.5 4.5 Bt 1 0.54 - 0.76 0.80 1.9 1.2 1.9 Bt 1 0.48 - 0.63 2.3 2.0 2.7 2.4 Bt 2 0.51 - 0.59 0.73 2.0 1.1 2.0 Bt 2 0.58 - 0.64 1.3 0.94 1.1 0.92 CBM-G A 0.73 - 0.87 1.8 2.5 2.4 2.5 CBM-G A 0.28 - 0.38 7.5 5.6 5.7 5.0 Bt 1 0.53 - 0.63 1.3 1.8 1.6 1.9 Bt 1 0.49 - 0.60 2.9 3.2 2.7 2.8 Bt 2 0.50 - 0.55 1.0 2.2 1.7 2.2 Bt 2 0.63 - 0.66 1.0 1.0 0.86 1.0 CBM-GSB A 0.86 - 1.0 2.0 3.9 3.1 3.7 CBM-GSB A 0.32 - 0.39 5.5 3.7 4.4 3.9 Bt 1 0.43 - 0.60 1.8 3.3 2.1 2.6 Bt 1 0.42 - 0. 42 - 0.58 2.7 2.7 2. 3.7 3.4 3. Bt 2 0.47 - 0.53 1.7 2.6 2.1 2.5 Bt 2 0.55 - 0.75 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 RESULTS 2006 Post Irrigation Infiltration Rate (IR) (mm/hr) Soil-Water CBM Study EC and EC and SAR incr SAR increased eased w ith w ith all tr all trea eatments tments Water Soil Amendment in in the top tw the top tw o o soil soil depths depths Treatment NT G S GS Water tr ter trea eatments tments resulted in: sulted in: • CBM CBM w a w ater ter incr ncreasin easing g EC and and SAR i AR in surface surface PC PC 25.3 a 25 3 a 27 1 a 27.1 a 25.0 25 0 24 6 ab 24.6 ab soil soil • CBM-G CBM-G w a w ater ter had no had no ef effect ect on on SAR AR in the A the A CBM 12.2 b 13.5 b 17.7 17.7 b horizon compar hori compared to ed to CBM CBM w a w ater ter • CBM-GSB w a CBM-GSB w ater ter w as w as the the most ef most effectiv ective e CBM-G 13.2 ab 22.1 ab 21.5 23.8 ab treatm tmen ent f t for SAR 2+ w hen HCO - w as r • Hi Higher gher sol soluble uble Ca Ca 2+ hen HCO 3 w as remo moved CBM-GSB 18.2 Bab 25.8 ABab 27.0 AB 33.5 Aa w ith SB w ith SB • CBM CBM w a w ater ter IR l IR low er w er than P than PC contr control Capital letters indicate a significant difference between means of amendments (P ≤ 0.05). Lower case letters indicate a significant difference between means of water treatments (P ≤ 0.05). 4