Publicly available groundwater data have been compiled to provide a common information base to inform environmental, resource development and regulatory decisions in the Galilee Basin region. This data guide gives examples of how these data can be used. The data package included with this data guide captures existing knowledge of Galilee Basin aquifers and their properties, including salinity, water levels, resource size, potential aquifer yield and surface water - groundwater interactions. The methods used to derive these data for all Galilee Basin aquifers in the Galilee Basin region are outlined in the associated metadata files. These are described in groundwater conceptual models (Hostetler et al., 2023). The Galilee Basin includes 3 broadly defined aquifer intervals: from deepest to shallowest, these are the Joe Joe Group, Betts Creek beds and Clematis aquifers. Compiled data have been assigned to these intervals and used to characterise groundwater systems at the basin scale. The data were compiled for a point-in-time to inform decisions on potential resource developments in the Basin. The available historical groundwater data can be used to assess the potential effects on groundwater. The data can also be used for other purposes, such as exploring unallocated groundwater resource potential. Data to January 2022 were used for this compilation.

Publicly available data was compiled to provide a common information base for resource development, and environmental and regulatory decisions in the Eromanga Basin. This web service summarises the geological storage of carbon dioxide prospectivity of the Eromanga Basin.

<b>This data package is superseded by a second iteration presenting updates on 3D geological and hydrogeological surfaces across eastern Australia that can be accessed through </b><a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.26186/148552">https://dx.doi.org/10.26186/148552</a> The Australian Government, through the National Water Infrastructure Fund – Expansion, commissioned Geoscience Australia to undertake the project ‘Assessing the Status of Groundwater in the Great Artesian Basin’ (GAB). The project commenced in July 2019 and will finish in June 2022, with an aim to develop and evaluate new tools and techniques to assess the status of GAB groundwater systems in support of responsible management of basin water resources. While our hydrogeological conceptual understanding of the GAB continues to grow, in many places we are still reliant on legacy data and knowledge from the 1970s. Additional information provided by recent studies in various parts of the GAB highlights the level of complexity and spatial variability in hydrostratigraphic units across the basin. We now recognise the need to link these regional studies to map such geological complexity in a consistent, basin-wide hydrostratigraphic framework that can support effective long-term management of GAB water resources. Geological unit markers have been compiled and geological surfaces associated with lithostratigraphic units have been correlated across the GAB to update and refine the associated hydrogeological surfaces. Recent studies in the Surat Basin in Queensland and the Eromanga Basin in South Australia are integrated with investigations from other regions within the GAB. These bodies of work present an opportunity to link regional studies and develop a revised, internally consistent geological framework to map geological complexity across the GAB. Legacy borehole data from various sources, seismic and airborne electromagnetic (AEM) data were compiled, then combined and analysed in a common 3D domain. Correlation of interpreted geological units and stratigraphic markers from these various data sets are classified using a consistent nomenclature. This nomenclature uses geological unit subdivisions applied in the Surat Cumulative Management Area (OGIA (Office of Groundwater Impact Assessment), 2019) to correlate time equivalent regional hydrogeological units. Herein we provide an update of the surface extents and thicknesses for key hydrogeological units, reconciling geology across borders and providing the basis for a consistent hydrogeological framework at a basin-wide scale. The new surfaces can be used for facilitating an integrated basin systems assessment to improve our understanding of potential impacts from exploitation of sub-surface resources (e.g., extractive industries, agriculture and injection of large volumes of CO2 into the sub-surface) in the GAB and providing a basis for more robust water balance estimates. This report is associated with a data package including (Appendix A – Supplementary material): • Nineteen geological and hydrogeological surfaces from the Base Permo-Carboniferous, Top Permian, Base Jurassic, Base Cenozoic to the surface (Table 2.1), • Twenty-one geological and hydrogeological unit thickness maps from the top crystalline basement to the surface (Figure 3.7 to Figure 3.27), • The formation picks and constraining data points (i.e., from boreholes, seismic, AEM and outcrops) compiled and used for gridding each surface (Table 3.8).

This data package provides seismic interpretations that have been generated in support of the energy resource assessments under the Australia’s Future Energy Resources (AFER) project. Explanatory notes are also included. The AFER project is part of Geoscience Australia’s Exploring for the Future (EFTF) Program—an eight year, $225 million Australian Government funded geoscience data and precompetitive information acquisition program to inform decision-making by government, community and industry on the sustainable development of Australia's mineral, energy and groundwater resources. By gathering, analysing and interpreting new and existing precompetitive geoscience data and knowledge, Geoscience Australia is building a national picture of Australia’s geology and resource potential. This will help support a strong economy, resilient society and sustainable environment for the benefit of all Australians. The EFTF program is supporting Australia’s transition to a low emissions economy, industry and agriculture sectors, as well as economic opportunities and social benefits for Australia’s regional and remote communities. Further details are available at http://www.ga.gov.au/eftf. The seismic interpretations build on the recently published interpretations by Szczepaniak et al. (2023) by providing updated interpretations in the AFER Project area for the Top Cadna-owie (CC10) and Top Pre-Permian (ZU) horizons, as well as interpretations for 13 other horizons that define the tops of play intervals being assessed for their energy resource potential (Figure 1). Seismic interpretations for the AFER Project are constrained by play interval tops picked on well logs that have been tied to the seismic profiles using time-depth data from well completion reports. The Pedirka and Western Eromanga basins are underexplored and contain relatively sparse seismic and petroleum well data. The AFER Project has interpreted play interval tops in 41 wells, 12 seismic horizons (Top Cadna-owie and underlying horizons) on 238 seismic lines (9,340 line kilometres), and all 15 horizons on 77 recently reprocessed seismic lines (3,370 line kilometres; Figure 2). Note that it has only been possible to interpret the Top Mackunda-Winton, Top Toolebuc-Allaru and Top Wallumbilla horizons on the reprocessed seismic lines as these are the only data that provide sufficient resolution in the shallow stratigraphic section to confidently interpret seismic horizons above the Top Cadna-owie seismic marker. The seismic interpretations are provided as point data files for 15 horizons, and have been used to constrain the zero edges for gross-depositional environment maps in Bradshaw et al. (2023) and to produce depth-structure and isochore maps for each of the 14 play intervals in Iwanec et al. (2023). The data package includes the following datasets: 1) Seismic interpretation point file data in two-way-time for up to 15 horizons using newly reprocessed seismic data and a selection of publicly available seismic lines (Appendix A). 2) Geographical layers for the seismic lines used to interpret the top Cadna-owie and underlying horizons (Cadnaowie_to_TopPrePermian_Interpretation.shp), and the set of reprocessed lines used to interpret all 15 seismic horizons (All_Horizons_Interpretation.shp; Appendix B). These seismic interpretations are being used to support the AFER Project’s play-based energy resource assessments in the Pedirka and Western Eromanga basins.

<div>This document provides metadata for the gross depositional environment (GDE) interpretations that have been generated in support of the energy resource assessments under the Australia’s Future Energy Resources (AFER) project.&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div>The AFER projects is part of Geoscience Australia’s Exploring for the Future (EFTF) Program—an eight year, $225 million Australian Government funded geoscience data and precompetitive information acquisition program to inform decision-making by government, community and industry on the sustainable development of Australia's mineral, energy and groundwater resources. By gathering, analysing and interpreting new and existing precompetitive geoscience data and knowledge, we are building a national picture of Australia’s geology and resource potential. This will help support a strong economy, resilient society and sustainable environment for the benefit of all Australians. The EFTF program is supporting Australia’s transition to a low emissions economy, industry and agriculture sectors, as well as economic opportunities and social benefits for Australia’s regional and remote communities. Further details are available at http://www.ga.gov.au/eftf.&nbsp;</div><div>The GDE data sets provide high level classifications of interpreted environments where sediments were deposited within each defined play interval in the Pedirka, Simpson and Western Eromanga basins. Twelve gross depositional environments have been interpreted and mapped in the study (Table 1). A total of 14 play intervals have been defined for the Pedirka, Simpson and Western Eromanga basins by Bradshaw et al. (2022, in press), which represent the main chronostratigraphic units separated by unconformities or flooding surfaces generated during major tectonic or global sea level events (Figure 1). These play intervals define regionally significant reservoirs for hydrocarbon accumulations or CO2 geological storage intervals, and often also include an associated intraformational or regional seal.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div>GDE interpretations are a key data set for play-based resources assessments in helping to constrain reservoir presence. The GDE maps also provide zero edges showing the interpreted maximum extent of each play interval, which is essential information for play-based resource assessments, and for constructing accurate depth and thickness grids.&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div>GDE interpretations for the AFER Project are based on integrated interpretations of well log and seismic data, together with any supporting palynological data. Some play intervals also have surface exposures within the study area which can provide additional published paleo-environmental data. The Pedirka, Simpson and Western Eromanga basins are underexplored and contain a relatively sparse interpreted data set of 42 wells and 233 seismic lines (Figure 2). Well and outcrop data provide the primary controls on paleo-environment interpretations, while seismic interpretations constrain the interpreted zero edges for each play interval. The sparse nature of seismic and well data in the study area means there is some uncertainty in the extents of the mapped GDE’s.&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div>The data package includes the following datasets:&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div>Play interval tops for each of the 42 wells interpreted – provided as an ‘xlsx’ file.&nbsp;</div><div>A point file (AFER_Wells_GDE) capturing the GDE interpretation for each of the 14 play intervals in each of the 42 wells – provided as both a shapefile and within the AFER_GDE_Maps geodatabase.&nbsp;</div><div>Gross depositional environment maps for each of the 14 play intervals (note that separate GDE maps have been generated for the Namur Sandstone and Murta Formation within the Namur-Murta play interval, and for the Adori Sandstone and Westbourne Formation within the Adori-Westbourne play interval) – provided as both shapefiles and within the AFER_GDE_Maps geodatabase.&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>These GDE data sets are being used to support the AFER Project’s play-based energy resource assessments in the Western Eromanga, Pedirka and Simpson basins.&nbsp;</div><div><br></div>

<div>We have investigated whether water-saturated residual oil zones (ROZs), sometimes associated with conventional Australian hydrocarbon plays, could provide a CO2 storage resource and supplement depleted field storage. Our petrophysical study demonstrates that ROZs occur in Australia’s hydrocarbon-rich regions, particularly in the Cooper-Eromanga Basin. ROZs with more than 10% residual oil saturation are uncommon, likely due to small original oil columns and lower residual saturations retained in sandstone reservoirs than in classic, carbonate-hosted North American ROZs. Extensive, reservoir-quality rock is found below the deepest occurring conventional oil in many of the fields in the Eromanga Basin, potentially offering significant CO2 storage capacity. Multiphase compositional flow modelling was used to estimate the CO2 storage efficiency of typical Australian ROZs. We developed a novel modelling methodology that first captures oil migration events leading to the formation of ROZs. Modelling CO2 storage over a 20-year injection period demonstrates that CO2-oil interactions increase the density and viscosity of CO2, enhancing CO2 sweep efficiency and lateral flow, improving storage efficiency. The extent of these effects depends on the quantity and spatial distribution of residual oil in place and the miscibility of CO2 at reservoir conditions. Presented at the Australian Energy Producers (AEP) Conference & Exhibition (https://energyproducersconference.au/conference/)

<div>This dataset presents results of a first iteration of a 3D geological model across the Georgina Basin, Beetaloo Sub-basin of the greater McArthur Basin and South Nicholson Basin (Figure 1), completed as part of Geoscience Australia’s Exploring for the Future Program National Groundwater Systems (NGS) Project. These basins are located in a poorly exposed area between the prospective Mt Isa Province in western Queensland, the Warramunga Province in the Northern Territory, and the southern McArthur Basin to the north. These surrounding regions host major base metal or gold deposits, contain units prospective for energy resources, and hold significant groundwater resources. The Georgina Basin has the greatest potential for groundwater.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Geoscience Australia’s Exploring for the Future program provides precompetitive information to inform decision-making by government, community and industry on the sustainable development of Australia's mineral, energy and groundwater resources. By gathering, analysing and interpreting new and existing precompetitive geoscience data and knowledge, we are building a national picture of Australia’s geology and resource potential. This leads to a strong economy, resilient society and sustainable environment for the benefit of all Australians. This includes supporting Australia’s transition to net zero emissions, strong, sustainable resources and agriculture sectors, and economic opportunities and social benefits for Australia’s regional and remote communities. The Exploring for the Future program, which commenced in 2016, is an eight year, $225m investment by the Australian Government. More information is available at http://www.ga.gov.au/eftf and https://www.eftf.ga.gov.au/national-groundwater-systems.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>This model builds on the work undertaken in regional projects across energy, minerals and groundwater aspects in a collection of data and interpretation completed from the first and second phases of the EFTF program. The geological and geophysical knowledge gathered for energy and minerals projects is used to refine understanding of groundwater systems in the region.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>In this study, we integrated interpretation of a subset of new regional-scale data, which include ~1,900 km of deep seismic reflection data and 60,000 line kilometres of AusAEM1 airborne electromagnetic survey, supplemented with stratigraphic interpretation from new drill holes undertaken as part of the National Drilling Initiative and review of legacy borehole information (Figure 2). A consistent chronostratigraphic framework (Figure 3) is used to collate the information in a 3D model allowing visualisation of stacked Cenozoic Karumba Basin, Mesozoic Carpentaria Basin, Neoproterozoic to Paleozoic Georgina Basin, Mesoproterozoic Roper Superbasin (including South Nicholson Basin and Beetaloo Sub-basin of the southern McArthur Basin), Paleoproterozoic Isa, Calvert and Leichhardt superbasins (including the pre-Mesoproterozoic stratigraphy of the southern McArthur Basin) and their potential connectivity. The 3D geological model (Figure 4) is used to inform the basin architecture that underpins groundwater conceptual models in the region, constrain aquifer attribution and groundwater flow divides. This interpretation refines a semi-continental geological framework, as input to national coverage databases and informs decision-making for exploration, groundwater resource management and resource impact assessments.</div><div><br></div><div>This metadata document is associated with a data package including:</div><div>·&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Nine surfaces (Table 1): 1-Digital elevation Model (Whiteway, 2009), 2-Base Cenozoic, 3-Base Mesozoic, 4-Base Neoproterozoic, 5-Base Roper Superbasin, 6-Base Isa Superbasin, 7-Base Calvert Superbasin, 8-Base Leichhardt Superbasin and 9-Basement.</div><div>·&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Eight isochores (Table 4): 1-Cenozoic sediments (Karumba Basin), 2-Mesozoic sediments (Carpentaria and Eromanga basins), 3-Paleozoic and Neoproterozoic sediments (Georgina Basin), 4-Mesoproterozoic sediments (Roper Superbasin including South Nicholson Basin and Beetaloo Sub-basin), 5-Paleoproterozoic Isa Superbasin, 6-Paleoproterozoic Calvert Superbasin, 7-Paleoproterozoic Leichhardt Superbasin and 8-Undifferentiated Paleoproterozoic above basement.</div><div>·&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Five confidence maps (Table 5) on the following stratigraphic surfaces: 1-Base Cenozoic sediments, 2-Base Mesozoic, 3-Base Neoproterozoic, 4-Base Roper Superbasin and 5-Combination of Base Isa Superbasin/Base Calvert Superbasin/Base Leichhardt Superbasin/Basement.</div><div>·&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Three section examples (Figure 4) with associated locations.</div><div>Two videos showing section profiles through the model in E-W and N-S orientation.</div>

<div><strong>Output Type: </strong>Exploring for the Future Extended Abstract</div><div><br></div><div><strong>Short Abstract: </strong>Australia's Great Artesian Basin (GAB) is a vital groundwater system extending across parts of Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia, and the Northern Territory, crucial for community water supplies, economic development, indigenous cultural values and groundwater dependent ecosystems. Managing GAB groundwater poses challenges due to the complex structure of the sedimentary basin, requiring a better understanding of aquifers, aquitards, and hydraulic connections at a whole GAB scale. Additionally, inconsistencies in nomenclature and subdivisions across the basin further complicate the definition and description of these strata. This study employs an integrated basin analysis workflow using new and existing data to create a 3D geological model tied to a consistent chronostratigraphic framework and State and Territory hydrostratigraphic classifications. The model refines the characteristics of 18 hydrogeological units, offering insights into aquifer boundaries and connectivity. This comprehensive approach enhances the 'whole-of-Basin' subsurface geological understanding, benefiting groundwater management, resource assessments, uncertainty risk assessment and environmental impact assessments across multiple jurisdictions and the broader resource sector (e.g., Carbone Capture and Storage and hydrogen).</div><div><br></div><div><strong>Citation: </strong>Rollet, N., Vizy, J., Norton, C.J., Hannaford, C., McPherson, A., Symington, N., Evans, T., Bradshaw, B., Szczepaniak, M., Bui Xuan Hy, A., Schoning, G. &amp; Keppel, M., 2024. Great Artesian Basin 3D chronostratigraphic model: providing new insights into hydrogeological variability and connectivity. In: Czarnota, K. (ed.) Exploring for the Future: Extended Abstracts. Geoscience Australia, Canberra, https://doi.org/10.26186/149235</div>

<div>As part of Geoscience Australia’s Exploring for the Future program, the Curnamona Geochemistry project is producing a comprehensive compilation of geochemical data from the Broken Hill region, encompassing rock, regolith and groundwater. As part of these efforts, geochemical data has been compiled, cleaned and standardised to enable more seamless interpretation and exploration of geochemical anomalies. This project improves the quality, accessibility and volume of geochemical data across the Curnamona region and supports our ongoing efforts to define regional geochemical baselines.</div> This presentation was given to the 2022 Geological Survey of South Australia (GSSA) Discovery Day 1 December (https://www.energymining.sa.gov.au/home/events-and-initiatives/discovery-day)

<div>This Geoscience Australia Record reports on Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) processing over the Great Artesian Basin (GAB) to support an improved understanding of the groundwater system and water balance across the region. InSAR is a geodetic technique that can identify ground surface movement from satellite data at a regional scale and is therefore a valuable and widely used technique for measuring patterns in surface movement over time; including the movement of fluids (i.e. water or gas) beneath the surface.</div><div><br></div><div>This Record is the one of two Geoscience Australia Records that describe ground surface movement monitoring Geoscience Australia have undertaken in the GAB in recent years. Namely;</div><div>1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ground surface movement in the northern Surat Basin derived from campaign GPS measurements. (Garthwaite et al., 2022).</div><div>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;InSAR processing over the Great Artesian Basin and analysis over the western Eromanga Basin and northern Surat Basin (this Record).</div><div><br></div><div>We have produced ground surface motion data products, which cover about 90% of the GAB for the period of time between January 2016 and August 2020. The data products were created using Sentinel-1 Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) data and an InSAR processing workflow designed for large spatial scale processing. The large spatial scale InSAR processing workflow includes using GAMMA software to (i) pre-process SAR images to align the pixels, (ii) generate interferograms and short temporal baseline surface displacement maps and PyRate software to (iii) combine these outputs in an inversion to form pixel-wise time series ground surface displacement data and fit ground surface velocities to the displacement data. The raw SAR data and these subsequent data products of the workflow are partitioned into overlapping frames; the final stage of the large scale processing workflow is to combine the partitioned data into a single map using a mosaicking algorithm. The results of this processing chain demonstrate the feasibility of developing a regional scale ground surface movement reconnaissance tool (i.e. subsidence and uplift). </div><div><br></div><div>We provide a summary of the processing chain and data products and a focused assessment for two case study areas in the western Eromanga Basin (South Australia) and northern Surat Basin (Queensland). Over these case study areas we examine the relationship between the InSAR derived ground surface movement and available groundwater level data. We also assess how land use types may influence the InSAR derived ground surface motion data by comparing the InSAR data to the “land types” over the region which we classify using a machine learning algorithm with Sentinel-2 optical imagery data. </div><div><br></div><div>From our analysis we observe little ground surface motion over the western Eromanga Basin. The surface movement rate over the entire area is estimated to be mostly within ±10 mm/yr. Groundwater level time series data from well monitoring sites in the area did not appear to have any significant trends either. However, large and broad scale ground surface motion (both uplift and subsidence) was observed in the InSAR processing results over the northern Surat Basin. A 75 km x 150 km scale uplift signal, with rates of up to 20 mm/yr, was located over an area we classified as cultivated land, where InSAR signals are likely to be influenced by near-surface cultivation activities (such as irrigation) rather than subsurface groundwater level changes. Furthermore, two approximately 75km x 75 km areas were identified which had subsidence signals of up to -20 mm/yr. Over the same area, groundwater level time series data show long-term negative trends in the water head level. For a more direct comparison between the InSAR results and the well data, we fitted a first order poroelastic model to transform the InSAR derived ground surface motion rates into modelled pore-pressure decline/groundwater drawdown rates. We compared the model to the groundwater time series data in the Walloon Coal Measures, Surat Basin, and found good agreement, which indicates that the observed subsidence signals could be attributable to pore-pressure decline due to the falling water head level.</div><div><br></div><div>We finally provide some preliminary analysis comparing our InSAR results to the results from an Office of Groundwater Impact Assessment (OGIA) InSAR study and a Geoscience Australia GPS land movement study to assist in validating the Geoscience Australia InSAR results. Overall, the comparisons are encouraging, showing a high correlation against the OGIA InSAR results and GPS results. Further work, is required to further validate our results and reduce uncertainty in our analysis process.</div>