32 Groundwater

Groundwater bore
deterioration: schemes to
alleviate rehabilitation costs
GHD
Waterlines Report Series No 32, October 2010
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES i

Waterlines
This paper is part of a series of works commissioned by the National Water Commission on
key water issues. This work has been undertaken by GHD Pty Ltd on behalf of the National
Water Commission.
© Commonwealth of Australia 2010
This work is copyright.
Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by
any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth.
Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the
Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Attorney General‘s Department, Robert Garran
Offices, National Circuit, Barton ACT 2600 or posted at www.ag.gov.au/cca.
Online/print: ISBN: 978-0-9807727-8-4

Groundwater bore deterioration: schemes to alleviate rehabilitation costs, October 2010
Authors: Anderson T, Cauchi T, Ibrahimi F, Llewellyn B, Mozina M and Ray E
Published by the National Water Commission

95 Northbourne Avenue
Canberra ACT 2600
Tel: 02 6102 6000
Email: enquiries@nwc.gov.au
Date of publication: October 2010
Cover design by: Angelink

Front cover image courtesy of GHD
An appropriate citation for this report is:

GHD 2010, Groundwater bore deterioration: schemes to alleviate rehabilitation costs,
Waterlines report, National Water Commission, Canberra
Disclaimer
This paper is presented by the National Water Commission for the purpose of informing
discussion and does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Commission.
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES iii

Contents
Executive summary viii
1. Introduction 1
2. Processes of bore casing deterioration 3
2.1 Fouling 3
2.2 Corrosion 10
2.3 Miscellaneous bore deterioration processes 13
3. Bore casing deterioration extent 15
3.1 Information compilation program 15
3.2 Existing case study reviews 16
3.2 Stakeholder consultation—current knowledge status 38
3.4 Bore condition assessment reports and databases 74
3.5 Historical bore construction methods and materials review 75
4. Groundwater quality impacts 89
4.1 Potential aquifer contaminants 90
4.2 Potential aquifer cross-contamination mechanisms 93
4.3 Potential contaminant ingress 94
4.4 Potential impacts to infrastructure and the environment 96
4.5 Water quality indicators 98
5. Groundwater quantity impacts 99
5.1 Potential mechanisms impacting bore yields 99
5.2 Depressurisation of connected aquifers 100
5.3 Indicators of bore yield impacts 101
6. Bore casing condition assessment 102
6.1 Bore performance indicators 102
6.2 Water quality indicators 102
6.3 Review of bore condition assessment techniques 103
7. Bore deterioration economic and cost implications 115
7.1 Casing rehabilitation, replacement and decommission costs 115
7.2 Bore casing deterioration—economic implications 119
8. Bore deterioration abatement and rehabilitation 129
8.1 Appreciation of bore value 129
8.2 Bore casing deterioration abatement activities 133
8.3 Casing remediation and rehabilitation 137
8.4 Bore service life expectancy and timing for rehabilitation 141
8.5 Bore asset management 155
9. Conclusion 158
10. Recommendations 164
10.1 Processes of bore casing deterioration 164
10.2 Bore casing deterioration extent 164
10.3 Bore design standards and bore construction licensing 165
10.4 Groundwater quality and quantity impacts 165
10.5 Bore casing condition assessment 166
10.6 Bore deterioration economic and cost implications 166
10.7 Bore deterioration abatement and rehabilitation 167
Bibliography 168
Glossary 172
Appendix A—Summary of literature review 177
Appendix B—Bore casing deterioration assessment stakeholder consultation
questionnaire 179
Appendix C—Bore casing deterioration assessment electronic questionnaire 182
Appendix D—GSM codes and definitions 191
Appendix E—Bibliography of bore design, construction, rehabilitation and
decommissioning publications 216
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES iv

Appendix F—Bore replacement, rehabilitation, decommissioning and condition
assessment cost estimates 219
Tables
Table 1: Previous research—occurrence of iron bacteria ......................................................... 4
Table 2: Factors involved in particulate fouling ....................................................................... 11
Table 3: Additional corrosive processes .................................................................................. 12
Table 4: Sites with identified fouling ........................................................................................ 17
Table 5: Bore life expectancies (Victorian Study) .................................................................... 25
Table 6: Additional management techniques .......................................................................... 30
Table 7: Summary of bore failure processes and management ............................................. 33
Table 8: Key stakeholders identified and consulted from each state and territory .................. 39
Table 9: Bore deterioration status—summary of stakeholder responses ............................... 43
Table 10: Stakeholder consultation summary ......................................................................... 48
Table 11: Bore condition issues and deterioration processes—key findings .......................... 51
Table 12: Bore condition monitoring and reporting—key findings ........................................... 59
Table 13: Education—key findings .......................................................................................... 63
Table 14: Associated costs—key findings ............................................................................... 67
Table 15: Forward planning (management of future issues)—key findings ............................ 70
Table 16: Knowledge gaps identified from stakeholder responses ......................................... 73
Table 17: Bore casing material selection summary................................................................. 83
Table 18: Common groundwater contaminants and physical characteristics ......................... 91
Table 19: Purposes of grouting groundwater bore casing....................................................... 96
Table 20: Bore performance indicators ................................................................................. 102
Table 21: Analytical testing for establishing hydrogeochemistry ........................................... 103
Table 22: Bore deterioration—water quality indicators .......................................................... 103
Table 23: Assumptions of case study modelling ................................................................... 120
Table 24: Rehabilitation costs ($ per bore) ........................................................................... 125
Table 25: Estimated bore decommissioning costs ($ per bore) ............................................ 125
Table 26: Results of economic modelling .............................................................................. 126
Table 27: Bore life expectancies (Victorian study) ................................................................ 142
Table 28: Criteria for assessing bore life expectancy ............................................................ 144
Table 29: Criteria scoring ...................................................................................................... 146
Table 30: Scoring matrix for service life expectancy determination ...................................... 146
Table 31: Rating scale for condition assessment .................................................................. 150
Table 32: Example of probability of failure rankings .............................................................. 150
Table 33: Example of consequence of failure rankings (such as an urban supply
bore) ............................................................................................................................... 151
Table 34: Risk assessment matrix......................................................................................... 152
Table 35: Strategy summary ................................................................................................. 153
Table 36: Asset standard operations and maintenance fact sheet (example
template) ......................................................................................................................... 157
Table 37: Knowledge gaps identified from stakeholder responses: ...................................... 160
Figures
Figure 1: Encrustation of bore casing ........................................................................................ 4
Figure 2: Geographic variations in bore encrustation ................................................................ 6
Figure 3: Iron fouling of submersible pump ............................................................................... 8
Figure 4: Electrolytic chlorination ............................................................................................... 8
Figure 5: Iron bacteria treatments in the Mallee Prescribed Wells Area ................................... 9
Figure 6: Acid dosing ................................................................................................................. 9
Figure 7: Corrosion process on metal ..................................................................................... 12
Figure 8: Corrosion of bore casing .......................................................................................... 12
Figure 9: Corroded bore casing ............................................................................................... 13
Figure 10: Prevalence of iron bacteria within hundreds of the Mallee Prescribed
Wells Area ........................................................................................................................ 46
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES v

Figure 11: Mallee Prescribed Wells Area survey data ............................................................ 47
Figure 12: Aquifer cross-contamination mechanisms ............................................................. 93
Figure 13: Inter-aquifer flow along inside of bore casing......................................................... 95
Figure 14: Inter-aquifer flow along outside of bore casing ...................................................... 95
Figure 15: Iron bacteria on magnetic flowmeter ...................................................................... 97
Figure 16: Bore screen failure ................................................................................................. 97
Figure 17: Downhole camera ................................................................................................ 104
Figure 18: CPET schematic ................................................................................................... 107
Figure 19: USI tool schematic ............................................................................................... 107
Figure 20: METT schematic ................................................................................................. 108
Figure 21: Neutron log operation ........................................................................................... 109
Figure 22: Biofouling zones within a groundwater extraction system ................................... 113
Figure 23: Schematic concept of groundwater bore asset management
implications ..................................................................................................................... 130
Figure 24: Schematic concept of abatement activities .......................................................... 132
Figure 25: Approach of assessing bore life expectancy ........................................................ 143
Figure 26: Business risk exposure calculation ...................................................................... 148
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES vi

Abbreviations and acronyms
ABS Acrylonitrile butadiene styrene
ADIA Australia Drilling Industry Association
ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Environment and
Conservation Council
ARMCANZ Agriculture and Resource Management Council of
Australia and New Zealand
ASR Aquifer storage and recovery
AWW Australian Water Well
CCTV Closed circuit television
CMA Catchment Management Area
DECCEW Department of Environment, Climate Change, Energy
and Water, ACT
DPIW Department of Primary Industries and Water, Tasmania
DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria
DWLBC Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity
Conservation, South Australia
EC Electrical conductivity
EPA Environmental Protection Authority
FRP Fibreglass-reinforced plastic
GMS Groundwater Management System, Victoria
G-MW Goulburn-Murray Water
GRE Glass reinforced epoxy
GRP Glass filament reinforced plastic
GRWA Grampians Region Water Authority
ICCP Impressed current cathodic protection
ISO9001 International Organisation for Standardisation (Quality
Management Certification)
LWBC Land and Water Biodiversity Committee
MAR Managed aquifer recharge
MDBA Murray Darling Basin Authority
MGI Murrumbidgee Groundwater Incorporated
MSA Methane sulfonic acid
NAPL Non-aqueous phase liquid
NATA National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia
NEPC National Environment Protection Council
NEPM National Environment Protection Measure
NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council
NRETA Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts, Northern
Territory
NRM Natural Resource Management
NRW Department of Natural Resources and Water
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
SA MDB NRM South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural
Resources Management
UAB Ultra Acid Base
UV Ultraviolet
WHO World Health Organisation
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES vii

Executive summary
This project was initiated to define the extent of bore casing deterioration throughout Australia
and to identify schemes to alleviate the cost of rehabilitation.
The project outcomes provide groundwater management agencies, licensing authorities,

industry groups, the private sector and contractors with an update on the extent of bore
casing deterioration issues. The project also examined the risks associated with bore casing
deterioration and subsequent failure and rehabilitation and abatement measures.
The outcomes of this project also facilitate a review and update of industry standards and
practices for bore design, construction techniques, material selection, operation and
maintenance requirements so that appropriately considered design, construction, operation
and asset management practices are specified and employed.
Bore casing deterioration extent

The extent of bore casing deterioration was assessed from an evaluation of existing case
studies, a review of relevant literature readily available in the public domain, feedback
compiled from a stakeholder consultation, and a chronological review of historical bore
construction techniques and material use.
With the very limited information in the public domain on existing bore condition assessment,
and limited access to existing groundwater databases, much reliance was placed on sourcing
and utilising the required information from stakeholders. However, there was a similar scarcity
of information or reports on bore condition assessments from the stakeholder interviews.
Those that had been completed by stakeholders were identified and supplied to this project.
From the available case studies and literature review, the following conclusions on the type
and extent of bore casing deterioration occurring throughout Australia were drawn:
 Iron biofouling of groundwater bores was the most dominant bore failure process
identified. However, in most case studies, the reason for bore casing deterioration was
not documented and presumably was unknown.
 A range of different rehabilitative and preventative measures have been used to manage
bore casing deterioration due to iron biofouling. The most successful rehabilitation and
prevention method identified in managing iron biofouling is chemical treatment (such as
acid dosing).
 The most poorly documented bore casing deterioration processes include plastic
degradation, carbonate biofouling, and aluminium oxide fouling.
 The corrosion of steel cased bores was very common, particularly in ageing groundwater
bores. The frequency of such failures is expected to decrease as groundwater bore
assets are replaced with inert casing materials.
 Rehabilitation measures have generally been introduced once bore deterioration
processes have been identified. In most of the case studies assessed for this project,
preventative measures were not introduced prior to identification of bore deterioration
processes.
 Regarding implementing preventative measures and maintenance, the overwhelming
conclusion identified from the case studies and literature review is that, in most cases,
groundwater bore casing deterioration is managed only once a problem has been
identified.
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES viii

In comparison to the conclusions drawn through the case studies and literature review, the
following summary points from the stakeholder consultation process are made:
 The most common bore condition and deterioration problems noted were bore and screen
clogging, corrosion, and screen siltation.
 Aggressive groundwater leading to corrosion of bore casings was noted as a cause
across all states and territories.
 Biological fouling (most commonly by iron bacteria) was noted as a significant cause of
deterioration in bore condition in Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and
Victoria; and chemical fouling was noted as an issue in Queensland, South Australia,
Western Australia and Tasmania.
 Siltation was reported as an issue in South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania; however,
only Queensland reported issues with saline intrusion.
 Bore casing wall failure, buckling and blowouts were also mentioned (and assumed to
occur due to bore casing deterioration).
 In general, there is little active management of bore deterioration to address potential
future issues, which was often attributed to lack of resources (funding) available to be
more pro-active.
In South Australia, Western Australia, New South Wales and Victoria, stakeholders indicated
that they have in place a regular management program to identify and address bore casing
deterioration problems and are implementing proactive maintenance programs.
Many stakeholders indicated that they were somewhat reliant on the use of minimum
construction standards (embedded design, construction methods and material specifications)
to address any potential and actual bore casing deterioration risks.
A quantitative appraisal of the type and extent of bore casing deterioration presently occurring
throughout Australia cannot therefore be completed. This information is essential for
Commonwealth, state and territory governments to provide guidance and assistance to all
stakeholder categories to improve the life expectancy and maximise the asset value of
groundwater production and monitoring bores and associated infrastructure and to protect the
environment.
Also, any further analysis that is based on existing information of bore casing deterioration
extent may now not be representative of the state of bores constructed, replaced and
managed for the past 15 years. The benefits from use of the Minimum construction
requirements for water bores in Australia (ARMCANZ, updated September 2003),
classification and licensing of drillers, and increased knowledge and use of inert bore casing
construction materials is likely to have improved the current knowledge of bore casing
deterioration as determined from evaluating existing information sources.
Recommendations
 At either a Commonwealth or state and territory level, commission a comprehensive
survey of public and private (stock and domestic, and irrigation) groundwater users to
ascertain the current extent of bore casing deterioration. The survey prepared for the
stakeholder consultation and information gathering component for this project can be
utilised and accordingly modified in the first instance.
 Establish minimum standards for bore casing condition assessment and reporting to
ensure sufficient information is collected and presented for both stakeholder asset
operation and management purposes but is also adequate for future evaluations of the
extent of bore casing deterioration in future regional, state and territory or national.
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES ix

 Groundwater network databases should include attributes to monitor record and
determine bore condition in order to characterise and determine the risks of bores
potentially affected by casing deterioration impacts. The Victorian Department of
Sustainability and Environment‘s current groundwater management systemcontains a
suitable suite of these attributes that can initially be considered for adoption, with the
addition of the following further identified attributes:
– Bore rehabilitation and redevelopment works code—screen flushed, disinfection,
chemical treated, cathodic protection, mechanical scrubbing
– Condition code—screen fouling (microbial, chemical, positional).
 Prepare and maintain current and succinct information on the common types of
processes that can result in bore casing deterioration, symptoms for detection, and
consequential impacts for stakeholder broadcasting and distribution.
This information needs to be presented to stakeholders intending to invest in new bores, and
those who are responsible for existing bore infrastructure. A description of the symptoms to
identify the particular bore casing deterioration process occurring and consequence of no
action needs to be clearly articulated.
Bore design standards and bore construction licensing

With a number of the bore casing deterioration processes identified as being likely to bedue to
poor casing design, material specification, or bore construction methods, the following
recommendations are made to address these aspects.
Recommendations:
 Periodically review the national bore construction guidelines (LWBC 2003) to capture and
share industry and research knowledge gains so that improved bore construction
methods can be applied throughout Australia.
 Introduce a national driller licensing program to set a minimum standard of bore
construction competency and significantly reduce the number of bore casing deterioration
processes initiated by improper construction methods and installation of groundwater
pumps and water level and water quality monitoring equipment.
 Require groundwater bore licensing organisations to develop methods and procedures for
bore owners to monitor and report on compliance with bore construction standards.
Similarly, organisations should be required to demonstrate compliance in meeting
Commonwealth, state and territory legislative assessment guidelines that have been
established for the protection of current or potential beneficial uses of water resources.
 Manufacturers and suppliers are to provide tabulation of the external collapse pressures
for the products they promote for use as bore casing (steel, stainless steel, fibreglass or
thermoplastic). Factors of safety applied, design life strategy, temperature effects, ultra-
violet resistance, and strength regression properties should also be provided. This
information would allow drillers and other bore designers to more easily and effectively
select the type and wall thicknesses most suitable for the wide range of designs used in
water bore construction.
 Conduct further research and development in the area of corrosion testing of steel used
for bore casing to more confidently predict the effective service life of water bores. This
research should also include weld material resistance to corrosion for different rods and
include specifications for welding rods in AS1396 as this is often used for joining bore
casing.
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES x

Groundwater quality and quantity impacts
Succint information on the mechanisms of bore casing deterioration and impacts it has on
groundwater quality and quantity is limited and not readily available for bore asset owners and
groundwater resource management stakeholders. Likewise, information specifically collated
and arranged on the types of techniques commonly available to assess the occurrence and
extent of any potential groundwater quality and quantity impacts is limited.
Without understanding and appreciating how bore casing deterioration can potentially impact
groundwater quality and quantity for extractive requirements and aquifer beneficial use
conservation, bore asset stakeholders will continue to confront any impacts in a reactive
manner. Resources, early intervention and remediation options may not be available or may
be implemented too late to arrest bore casing deterioration and prevent the associated
impacts.
Recommendation:
 Develop and distribute literature that describes the common bore deterioration
mechanisms affecting groundwater quality and quantity and the range of measures that
should be used to indicate this is occurring.
Bore casing condition assessment

Groundwater bore condition assessments can identify potential bore efficiency issues.
Strategies for bore condition assessment can be failure-based, prevention-based or
performance-based. Failure-based strategies represent the highest risk approach in bore
condition assessment, as management strategies usually take place after a failure event.
Performance-based strategies represent a lower risk approach, based on the use of
performance indicators.
Bore performance indicators can be used to identify, monitor or mitigate the potential effects
of bore deterioration processes at an early stage. This may involve the assessment of
groundwater quality and quantity data, structural integrity, economic performance, bore
maintenance and monitoring costs, as well as social and environmental factors. Variations
from baseline data or anomalous trends in monitoring information are simple methods to alert
managers to potential bore casing condition issues. The techniques implemented in
assessing bore casing condition depend largely on the available budget, the type and
implications of the problem, as well as the availability of equipment. There is a balance
between the information gained from investing in an assessment of bore casing condition and
the cost of bore replacement or refurbishment.
Bore performance indicators (such as yield, water quality, structural, economic, maintenance
and monitoring, social and environmental measures) should be established upon
commissioning of a groundwater bore and reviewed periodically. Bore performance indicators
should be used to identify, monitor or mitigate the potential effects of bore deterioration
processes at an early stage.
Groundwater bore condition assessment techniques should be selected according to bore

type, use and replacement cost—a failure-based strategy may be satisfactory for a shallow
monitoring bore that is relatively inexpensive to replace, whereas a prevention-based
management strategy should be employed for a large extraction bore.
A conclusion drawn from the stakeholder consultation process was that there is an overall
lack of detection, monitoring and reporting of bore deterioration processes throughout
Australia, and much of the monitoring that does take place is not adequately documented.
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES xi

Recommendations
 Integrate bore condition monitoring and reporting requirements with groundwater bore
licensing conditions.
 Develop guidelines for bore casing condition assessment that include:
– a diagnosis program based on bore performance indicators
– specified minimum monitoring and data review requirements
– a matrix array of physical and geophysical testing methods for casing condition
integrity assessment.
Economic cost implications of bore casing deterioration

The economic component of this study required:
 a review of the cost of the ‗do nothing‘ scenario
 a review of the cost of contamination in terms of lost productivity due to contamination of
freshwater aquifers.
To enhance this analysis, GHD employed a cost benefit analysis framework to review the
costs and benefits associated with bore rehabilitation.
Due to the nature of the available data, it was not possible to undertake a nationwide
assessment of bore deterioration. For this reason, the cost benefit analysis focused on two
case study areas.
The results of the analysis suggest that there is a net benefit associated with the
refurbishment of groundwater bores; however, the results are not robust due to the data
limitations described.
On the basis of this very limited study, bore rehabilitation appears attractive. To be confident
in this result a more complete study, based on comprehensive data, is required. This could
involve: consultation to investigate and classify the Australian bore network according to
selected characteristics; use of the results of the classification of bores to reduce the number
of bores to a manageable level by obtaining a representative sample; a cost benefit analysis
based on the representative sample of bores; and extrapolation of the results so that the net
impact of bore rehabilitation can be estimated on a national basis.
Recommendation
 Undertake a specific bore casing deterioration economic impact study for case studies
that represent urban, irrigation (intensive horticulture and pasture), domestic and stock,
and mining groundwater users. A key aspect to effectively complete this study will be for
the provision of resources to collate and compile the information and data sets needed to
enable each case study to be adequately appraised in terms of preparing a triple bottom
line assessment.
Bore replacement, refurbishment, decommission and condition assessment costs
Bore costs have been obtained from drilling contractors in several states of Australia. The
purpose was to provide an indication of cost variation between metropolitan and regional
areas, between states, and also between different geological settings. The various bore
drilling, refurbishment, decommissioning and condition assessment costs were compiled for
each state assessed, and a ‗state‘ average was developed for the various cost components.
Data for each state were consolidated to a ‗national‘ average, providing representative costs
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES xii

for bore drilling, condition assessment, refurbishment and decommissioning, based on
identified limitations.
Lack of data for particular bore assessment aspects presented some data gaps within the
consolidation to ‗national‘ average costs. These gaps were filled using indicative costings
provided by GHD‘s technical professionals in the groundwater sector.
Bore casing deterioration abatement, rehabilitation, and bore asset management
Bore casing deterioration abatement activities for proactive implementation have been
presented. They comprise: monitoring and detection; fault investigation; existing failure
mechanisms identification; material selection; bore design; pump design and operation; bore
construction and contractor competency; and preventative maintenance programs.
Reactive measures for casing remediation and rehabilitation have been prescribed, with a
focus on: retro-fitting measures (such as casing re-sleeves, fitting of permanent dosing
systems to control clogging), maintenance actions (such as development and jetting of
screens, mechanical cleaning of screens, chemical dosing); and cathodic protection.
Three common asset management approaches, tailored for bores, have been developed to
assist bore owners to determine the timing for bore rehabilitation, replacement or
decommissioning. These are based on economics, asset risk, and asset age, or a
combination of these factors. A core component with two of these approaches (asset risk and
asset age) relies on determining bore service life expectancy. A qualitative categorisation
approach has been developed to determine this. For proactive management of bores and
associated assets, the development of standard operating procedures and standard
maintenance instructions is recommended.
The formation and use of a replacement and rehabilitation strategy, presented in this report,
allows asset owners and managers to make decisions related to each asset on the individual
merits of each bore.
Dealing with new bores could be considered somewhat easier and more effective than
dealing with existing bores given the opportunity to engineer longevity into the bore
construction, or capacity to cope with deterioration processes. Unlike new bores, which can
be engineered for longevity, dealing with old and existing bores requires managing the asset
to prolong the bore life, identify the residual life remaining, or undertake refurbishment or
retrofitting to achieve the former two objectives.
Recommendations:
 Develop national guidelines for bore asset management that integrates bore asset
valuation, bore casing deterioration abatement measures, bore service life expectancy,
and time for rehabilitation and fundamental bore asset management tools.
 Outline reactive and proactive bore casing deterioration abatement activities that are
required to manage casing deterioration in order for stakeholders to appreciate the
significance of the asset upkeep and replacement in economic, environmental and social
terms.
 Further refine and then broadcast the qualitative methods developed for bore service life
expectancy and time for rehabilitation.
 Develop bore asset management education programs, with the provision of some industry
standard tools such as standard operation procedures and standard maintenance
instructions to demonstrate the merits of and initiate a proactive management regime.
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES xiii

1. Introduction
The purpose of the project is to define the extent of bore casing deterioration throughout
Australia and to identify schemes to alleviate the cost of rehabilitation.
This project aims to identify communities and stakeholders at most risk in order to help state
and territory jurisdictions prioritise funding for required works and measures, and seek out
and implement cost saving strategies that involve extending the life of groundwater supply
and monitoring bore assets.
The specific objectives of this project are to:

 determine the extent of the problem of bore casing deterioration across Australia
 assess the potential for cross-contamination of aquifers from corroded bore casing
 determine the possible economic impact of deterioration and the cost of rehabilitation of
bores.
The outcomes of this project provide groundwater management agencies, licensing

authorities, industry groups, the private sector and contractors with an update on the extent of
bore casing deterioration issues as well as the risks associated with bore casing deterioration
and subsequent failure.
The outcomes of this project also facilitate a review and update of industry standards and
maintenance requirements so that leading management practices are specified and
employed.
A key component of this project is consultation with stakeholders that represent the managers
and beneficial users of groundwater to determine the current extent of knowledge and
management of bore casing deterioration across Australia, through direct consultation
(interviews) with key stakeholders.
Project investigation phases

This project has been completed in three main phases:
Phase 1: Bore casing deterioration extent
Objective: Determine the nature and extent of bore casing deterioration throughout Australia.
Task: Gather and compile information on the extent of the problem of bore casing
deterioration in Australia through:
 stakeholder consultation
 a review of existing bore condition assessment reports
 an appraisal of existing groundwater databases on bore condition aspects
 a review of historical bore construction techniques and material use.
NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 1

Phase 2: Bore failure process and implications
Objective: To define the causes of bore casing deterioration and failure occurring throughout
Australia and to assess and qualify the water quality and water quantity implications of bore
casing failure.
Task: Investigate the processes responsible for bore casing failure and the implications of
bore failure by:
 defining bore casing deterioration and failure processes
 examining groundwater quality impacts due to bore failures
 determining groundwater quantity impacts due to bore failures
 identifying causes of failure (and casing condition assessment)
 categorising bore service life expectancy.
Phase 3: Bore deterioration economic impact and rehabilitation cost
Objective: To determine the economic impact of bore casing deterioration and cost of bore
rehabilitation, and recommend strategies to alleviate current bore rehabilitation and
replacement costs.
Task: Assess the economic impacts and rehabilitation costs associated with bore
deterioration on state, territory and national scales through the following activities:
 assess the ‗do nothing‘ scenario (no preventative measures) using cost and productivity
loss estimates from freshwater aquifer contamination
 assess bore rehabilitation cost and time frame for implementation, and recommend bore
deterioration alleviation strategies.
Structure of this report

The investigation phases and analyses for this project have been presented under the
following headings in this report:
 processes of bore casing deterioration
 bore casing deterioration extent
 groundwater quality impacts
 groundwater quantity impacts
 bore casing condition assessment
 casing deterioration economic and cost implications
 bore casing deterioration abatement and rehabilitation.

2. Processes of bore casing
deterioration
There are different processes that cause or accelerate the deterioration of groundwater bores,
including those used for groundwater extraction, injection and remediation purposes. The
processes involved in bore casing deterioration are identified in the following subsections.
Much of the information presented in this section has been adapted from McLaughlan (2002)
and McLaughlan et al. (1993).
2.1 Fouling
Fouling of groundwater bore casing can accelerate the deterioration of groundwater bore
performance through the formation of biofouling, mineral scale or particulate deposits. Fouling
can occur as a result of the presence of microbial growth, chemical reactions, or particular
aspects of bore design and operation.
The three principle processes of groundwater bore fouling include biofouling, mineral scaling
and particulate fouling, each of which is described below.
2.1.1 Microbial encrustation (biofouling)

Microbial encrustation (commonly referred to as biofouling) principally occurs as a result of
the accumulation of material on a solid surface in an aquifer system (water-bearing geological
formation), due to the presence of micro-organisms (particularly bacteria) in groundwater
systems. Bacteria play a key role in controlling many of the chemical reactions that occur
within groundwater (McLaughlan 2002).
Biofouling of groundwater bores has been considered a widespread issue for some time, both
throughout Australia and abroad. Hasselbarth and Ludemann (1972), Cullimore and McCann
(1977) and McLaughlan et al. (1993). Cullimore and McCann (1977) reported information
from various government agencies worldwide on the occurrence of iron bacteria (refer Table
1). Victoria‘s Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) has noted a rapid increase
in the reported occurrence of iron bacteria in bores throughout Victoria in recent years (DSE
2004).
Biofouling deposits in groundwater bores can occur when biological film (biofilm) accumulates
on solid surfaces (such as bore casing) within a groundwater bore. The major forms of
chemical encrustation include precipitation of calcium and magnesium carbonates or their
sulphates; and of particular note, encrustation from precipitation of dissolved metals in
groundwater, such as iron (Fe) and manganese (Mn), primarily their hydroxides or hydrated
oxides (refer Figure 1).
Bacteria in aqueous media (such as aquifer systems) live within biofilm, which may comprise
both aerobic and anaerobic environments.

Table 1: Previous research—occurrence of iron bacteria
Country Area Specific Problems
Australia Victoria and Queensland Irrigation jets plugged, plugged
pipes. Gallionella dominant in
groundwater
Canada Most provinces Extensive growth in bores
El Salvador Apopa and Soyapango Clogging of bore screens. Iron
bacteria, not specified
India Widespread Reduction in flow rates and potability
Malaya – Contamination of bores and irrigation
water for rice culture
Nigeria Bomore Plugging of screens
Norway Widespread Growths in systems of hydroelectric
power plants
Singapore City Deterioration in water supply
South Africa Widespread Pipe scaling
Sri Lanka Widespread Plugging through water supply
systems
Sweden Widespread Discoloured water, plugged pipes
United Kingdom – Discolouration of water supplies
Unites States of California, Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, 969 communities surveyed. 10% of
America Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, New water assessed could support iron
York, Ohio, South Carolina, Vermont, bacterial infestations
West Virginia.
Source: Adapted from Cullimore and McCann (1977)
Figure 1: Encrustation of bore casing
Source: DSE (2004)

To identify which genus of iron bacteria is contained in a particular water sample, a system of
classification is used based on the physical form of these organisms (Driscoll 1986). The
three general forms recognised include:
1. Siderocapsa—consists of numerous short rods surrounded by a mucoid capsule. The
deposit surrounding the capsule is hydrous ferric oxide, a rust-brown precipitate.
2. Gallionella—consists of twisted bands resembling a ribbon, with bacterial cells at the end
of the band.
3. Filamentous Group—organisms are structurally characterised by filaments composed of a
series of cells enclosed in a sheath. The sheaths are commonly covered with a slime
layer. These organisms typically become encrusted with ferric hydrate, resulting in large
masses of filamentous growth and iron deposits.
The production of extracellular polymers results from the formation of biofouling deposits.
Extracellular polymers assist in bacteria adhesion, nutrient collection and buffering against
environmental change (McLaughlan 2002).
The rate of biofouling that occurs is a function of the following processes:

 bacterial activity within the aquifer system, which is dependent on nutrient availability and
the rate of extracellular polymer production
 particle availability, which is dependent on aquifer characteristics including hydrogeology
and hydrogeochemistry
 biofilm shear forces, which are dependent on flow rate.
The processes involved in bore encrustation have been found to vary geographically, as
identified by Houben (2008). This study suggested that more carbonate encrustation occurs in
Australia than in Germany (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Geographic variations in bore encrustation
Encrustation Types in Germany

2.4% 5.9%
iron oxide "amorphous"
10.6% iron oxide "cryst alline"
iron oxide, sulf ur - r ich
manganese oxide
Fe/Mn mixed
Carbonate
9.4%
57.6%
14.1%
Source: adapted from Houben (2008)
Encrustation Types in Australia

13% 13%
Carbonate
Iron Oxide
Aluminium Oxide
Source: after data from

McLaughlan et al (1993)
74%
Biofouling of groundwater bore casing may occur as a result of bore design and regional
aspects, including the following:
 alterations in groundwater biochemistry (chemical processes occurring in living
organisms) or hydrogeochemistry (groundwater chemistry) over time, as a result of either
natural processes or anthropogenic (human) activities—for example, drilling processes
can introduce or stimulate growth of existing bacteria

 inadequate or incomplete groundwater bore development—bore development aims to
improve bore performance by removing of any drilling materials introduced into the
aquifer; removing fines from the aquifer and filter pack; and by providing a good hydraulic
connection between the bore and the aquifer
 the spread of bacteria introduced to the bore and aquifer by the drilling rig or pumping
equipment
 natural bacteria—these exist in certain groundwaters, but bacteria may be stimulated by
the drilling process or exposure of groundwater to the atmosphere
 airborne bacteria—these have the potential to contaminate unsealed bores (DSE 2004).
Biofouling of groundwater bore casing is exacerbated through poor bore design, such as the
selection of inappropriate bore casing materials for a particular hydrogeological setting or
groundwater biochemistry. This may result in excessive turbulence, and it can precipitate
increased biological action.
Potential symptoms of biofouling of bore materials include:

 decreased flow, for example through clogging of pumps or bore screens
 plugging of the voids in the aquifer, which decreases the yield
 high variability in water quality, with general decrease in quality with regards to taste,
colour, staining and odour
 gradual-to-severe decrease in bore performance
 encrustation on bore casing, screens, reticulation and irrigation systems
 increased metal corrosion of bore components due to increasingly acidic groundwater
 spontaneous slugs of brown, black or red water
 short pump life
 unexpected or unexplained changes in water treatment performance
 sand entering the bore.
Treatment through electrolytic chlorination

Forward (2008) found that iron biofouling affected 16 out of 17 groundwater bores assessed
at Waikerie and 42 out of 49 groundwater bores assessed at Woolpunda. Both of these sites
are situated in South Australia‘s Riverland region and were the state‘s first sites for salt
interception schemes—they were designed to capture saline groundwater using deep
pumping bores near the Murray River and then dispose of the saline water to a purpose built
basin. A loss of pump flow has been experienced at Woolpunda due to iron bacteria
biofouling, as shown in Figure 3.
Preventative maintenance measures employed have included electrolytic chlorination (Figure

4), whereby a chlorine solution is produced by electrolysis of the saline water being pumped.
The daily disinfection of the pump was found to provide excellent control of biofouling.

Figure 3: Iron fouling of submersible pump
Source: Forward (2008)
Figure 4: Electrolytic chlorination

Treatment through acid dosing (chemical treatment)
There are several treatments available for the management of microbial encrustation
(biofouling). The South Australian Murray–Darling Basin Natural Resources Management (SA
MDB NRM) Board (2006) comments that ‗none of them appear to completely cure an iron
bacteria problem‘ and that most rehabilitation attempts result in short-term solutions.
Treatment techniques generally consist of chemical products (primarily chlorine based),

although some non-chemical products are currently available. The most effective treatment
product identified by the SA MDB NRM Board (2006) was ‗Clearbore‘, from a survey
conducted in the Mallee Prescribed Wells Area of South Australia. Other treatment
techniques identified in the SA MDB NRM Board (2006) survey are shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Iron bacteria treatments in the Mallee Prescribed Wells Area
18
16
Number of Land O wners
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Clearbore Chlorine Other Chemical Pump Drill new bore
maintenance or
Tr eatm e nt replacement
Source: SA MDB NRM Board (2006)
Sulphamic acid (NH3SO3) is used worldwide as a common constituent of bore cleaning

chemicals. The acid generally comes in a soluble white crystalline powder, which is poured
down a groundwater bore (Figure 6). The acid dissolves as it is allowed to slowly (at a rate of
0.5–1.0 litres per minute) flow through the pump for approximately 12 hours. The pump is
then restarted to flush the bore. Acid dosing can be carried out easily, and it is a cost effective
option.
Figure 6: Acid dosing

Reapplication of a particular chemical treatment is very much bore specific. It depends on
aspects such as the severity of the problem, the growth rate of bacteria and the source of the
bacteria.
2.1.2 Mineral scaling

Mineral scale deposition may occur within groundwater bores as a result of mixing of
‗incompatible‘ groundwaters or as a result of variations in groundwater temperature or
pressure during pumping.
McLaughlan (2002) considers the most common occurrence of mineral scaling to be due to
the mixing of incompatible waters, such as high carbonate water mixed with high salinity
water, which resultes in an accumulation of mineral scale.
This ‗mixing‘ of waters can occur in groundwater bores that penetrate (screen) different
groundwater chemistries either within the same geologic formation (as a result of localised
variations) or in groundwater bores that penetrate (screen) more than one geologic formation,
each containing a unique chemical signature and characteristics.
The mixing of groundwaters may also occur inadvertently if bore casing deterioration is
prevalent. One such example includes parting or corrosion of the bore casing, which may give
rise to the mixing of groundwaters that previously were not hydraulically connected.
Mineral scaling can also occur through the degassing of carbon dioxide (CO 2) in groundwater
as a result of pumping to the surface. Mineral scale has the potential to precipitate in
response to changes in groundwater CO2 or temperature due to resultant chemical reactions.
2.1.3 Particulate fouling

The build-up of fine particles close to a groundwater bore is commonly referred to as
particulate fouling. The mobilisation of fine particles (such as sand) into a groundwater bore
can result in particulate deposits as well as pump corrosion. Particulate fouling is more
prevalent in injection bores as opposed to extraction bores. Groundwater bore design,
development and operation factors as well as the quality of any injected water are all
important in the development of particulate fouling of groundwater bores, as summarised in
Table 2.
2.2 Corrosion
Corrosion of groundwater bores can significantly affect the integrity of a groundwater bore
network and may call for considerable maintenance and planning requirements. The
degradation of groundwater bore structures can take place on both metal and plastic bore
components.
2.1.1 Metal corrosion

Metal corrosion can occur through electrochemical and physical processes. Electrochemical
corrosion can occur when a metal is immersed in a conductive medium (such as
groundwater) or through galvanic processes, which occur when two metals in contact are
immersed in the same fluid, giving rise to preferential corrosion of one metal. In the context of
groundwater bores, electrochemical corrosion frequently occurs at bore casing joints, as well
as at random locations from localised pitting of metal bore casings.

The corrosion processes that typically occur on metal bore casings are generally governed by
the transfer of electrons. Anodes denote where electrons are generated and where metal
corrodes, whilst the area where electrons flow through the metal to the surface denotes the
cathode. An electric current is formed, with electrons flowing from the groundwater (via
dissolved ions) to the anodic surface to the cathodic surface (Figure 7). The rate of corrosion
is limited by polarisation of the metal surface, which can occur through the accumulation of
iron hydroxide (Fe(OH)), i.e. rust deposits (Figure 8).
Additional corrosive processes identified in groundwater bores are given in Table 3.
The effects of corrosion can be reduced, and in some cases eliminated, by using materials
derived from resistant metals or inert materials (Schlumberger 1992). Furthermore, chemical
inhibitors or cathodic protection can be introduced to reduce corrosive effects (Figure 9).
Table 2: Factors involved in particulate fouling

Principal controlling Details
factors
Bore design Inadequate screen selection or placement for the prevalent physical and
chemical aquifer properties. This may result in screen clogging, which may
prevent entry into the bore, or screen corrosion, which may allow particle entry
into the bore.
Bore development If pump flow rates exceed development flow rates, sand ingression into the bore
may be expected due to the collapse of previously stable sand bridges created
during bore development.
Bore operation Dewatering of the bore screen.
Over-pumping with respect to the design yield of a groundwater bore can result
in: mobilisation of fine particles and dewatering of the upper bore screen, which
can give rise to increased chemical precipitation and cementation of fine
particles within the screen. This is caused by screen entrance velocities being
exceeded or, in other circumstances, water levels being lowered within screen
intervals.
Intermittent pumping can also mobilise fine particles previously bridged during
continuous pumping.
In deeper production bores, rapid shut down of pumps and the momentum of
the water column within a bore can result in ‗water hammer‘ shocks to aquifers
and casing materials. Water hammer is a pressure surge resulting when fluid in
motion is forced to stop suddenly.
Water quality in Injection of sediment-laden water into recharge bores (whereby water is
injection bores ‗injected‘ into an aquifer for storage) may result in the accumulation of particles
outside the screen or within the gravel pack.
The mixing of waters from the aquifer and injected water may give rise to
mineral scale if water chemistries are not compatible.
Source: Adapted from McLaughlan (2002)

Figure 7: Corrosion process on metal Figure 8: Corrosion of bore casing
Source: McLaughlan (2002) Source: McLaughlan (2002)
Table 3: Additional corrosive processes

Corrosive process Details
Bio-corrosion Corrosive effects arising from micro-organisms within biofilm, which may
contain different chemistry (that favours electrochemical corrosive processes),
to the groundwater.
Stray and induced Corrosive effects arising from sources outside the bore casing, such as
currents grounded electrical pumps or high voltage power lines inducing currents in
pipelines.
Erosion Corrosion through the mechanical removal of iron oxides and carbonate films
on surfaces such as bore casing.
Cavitation of bore casing may occur through the formation and collapse of gas
bubbles in water (during pumping or injection). This can damage metal
surfaces by higher pressures removing protective surface films such as iron
oxide.
Physical properties of Salinity—the corrosion rate increases as the salinity of groundwater increases
groundwater Oxygen—a major factor influencing corrosion of bore materials
Carbon dioxide—can form a weak (corrosive) acid in water due to its solubility
Hydrogen sulphide—older bore casings may have sulphide inclusions, which
can act to corrode bore materials
Flow rate—corrosion rates increase to some extent with increasing flow rates
pH—low pH conditions accelerates the corrosion of most metals, and high pH
conditions increased carbonate and hydroxide ions may facilitate the
formation of scales
Temperature—in conjunction with other environmental factors, elevated
groundwater temperatures may increase corrosion rates

Figure 9: Corroded bore casing
Source: Mallee CMA (2005)
2.2.2 Plastic degradation

Synthetic materials used in groundwater bore construction, monitoring or pumping, such as
unplasticised polyvinyl chloride (PVC) can be susceptible to structural degradation at
locations where groundwater is contaminated by organic compounds, such as hydrocarbons.
Degradation in the form of oxidative, chemical, microbial or mechanical processes can alter
the properties of bore materials and result in structural failure. Bore screens are particularly
susceptible, as the screened interval of a groundwater bore commonly contacts the highest
contaminant concentrations in the aquifer.
Design of groundwater bores at locations where organic groundwater contamination in the

form of non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL) (i.e. contaminants that remain undiluted as the
original bulk liquid in the subsurface) is anticipated, should take into account the compatibility
of bore materials in such environments. Bore material compatibility tables have been devised,
such as that compiled by McCaulou et al. (1995).
2.3 Miscellaneous bore deterioration processes

2.3.1 Inadequate bore casing design
An adequate length of appropriate casing is required in water bores to prevent the collapse of
the penetrated strata and to act as a safe housing for the installed pump. As outlined by the
Land and Water Biodiversity Committee (LWBC 2003), ‗the casing must be of sufficient
strength and composition to withstand the pressure exerted by the surrounding strata and
other forces imposed during installation, bore development and any cementing operations,
and to resist rapid corrosion by the soil and water environments. It should provide a secure
and leak proof conduit from the water source to the surface through unstable formations and
through zones of actual or potential contamination. It must be joined and installed so that it is
reasonably straight and free of kinks or twists.‘
Any chosen bore casing must be manufactured to the relevant Australian Standard.
Australian Standards are prepared by committees of professionals from industry,
governments, manufacturers, consumers and other relevant sectors. They reflect the latest
scientific and industry experience and are continuously reviewed after publication; regular
updates are performed to take account of changing technology. The Australian Standards for
various groundwater bore casings are designed to set out the physical and chemical

requirements for the materials used in the manufacturing of materials for bore casing along
with appropriate dimensional requirements.
Common types of casings include steel, thermoplastic, fibreglass and PVC. A summary of the
advantages and disadvantages of these casing materials has been outlined in Section 3.1.2
‗Review of historical bore construction techniques and material use‘.
2.3.2 Miscellaneous bore design aspects

Although not within the scope of this project, it should be noted that several other aspects of
inadequate bore design might be prevalent in promoting the deterioration of groundwater
bores. For completeness, some common processes have been listed below:
 Pump selection—pump, motor and rising-main materials should be manufactured from
materials appropriate for the prevalent groundwater conditions. This measure will
maximise the motor and pump life in potentially corrosive environments and potentially
reduce maintenance costs in the future. In addition, consideration must be given to the
pump operating environment and clearance tolerances within bore casing, i.e. vibration;
soft-starting of electric motors and torsioning of rising mains can lead to mechanical
impact to casing materials.
 Screen design—the materials used for bore screens should take into account:
– potential for material corrosion and encrustation
– large percentage of open area
– non-clogging slots
– sufficient column and collapse strength
– inertness of screen materials
– compatibility of introduced gravel packs with native groundwaters and aquifer
materials.
 Cementing and surface seals—consideration may be given to the incorporation of
additional thicker cementitious seals, addition of oxygen scavenging compounds, or
thicker casing materials to retard casing corrosion rates.
 Construction techniques—the use of stabiliser on drilling rods, centralisers, rubber
protectors, tripping speeds, driller training and competency are other considerations to
reduce the risk of the mechanical impact to an installed bore casing.

3. Bore casing deterioration extent
3.1 Information compilation program
To determine the nature and extent of bore casing deterioration occurring throughout
Australia the following investigative activities were initially proposed:
 stakeholder consultation
 review of existing bore condition assessment reports
 appraisal of existing groundwater databases for bore condition aspects
 review of historical bore construction techniques and material use.
An outline of the approach proposed with each of these activities is provided below.
3.1.1 Stakeholder consultation

Stakeholders were consulted to gather information on the extent of the issue of bore casing
deterioration throughout Australia. Their views were sought through meetings and a
stakeholder questionnaire.
Representatives were contacted from each state and territory, from the key government
departments, urban and rural water authorities, and irrigation districts responsible for
groundwater management. Specific industry bodies that rely heavily on the use of
groundwater were identified. These included the Victorian Farmers Federation, Cattle Council
of Australia, Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia, Association of Mining
and Mineral Industry Consultants Association.
Consultation meetings were limited to five stakeholders in each state and territory, with either
government, industry, private or industry groups responsible for or involved with the beneficial
use and management of groundwater bores.
The Australian Drilling Industry Association (ADIA) and key suppliers of borehole casing
material and submersible pumps were also consulted to gather information on typical and
specific bore casing deterioration processes and also to identify industry management
practices, designs and operation and maintenance procedures used to alleviate or minimise
bore casing deterioration.
A questionnaire to provide an opportunity for a broader cross-section of stakeholder groups to

define the problem and impact of deteriorating bore casings was planned. It was structured to
capture qualitative information on the extent and likely causes of bore casing deterioration
and bore construction details.
3.1.2 Review of existing bore condition assessment reports

A representative cross-section sample of bore condition assessment reports and bore
assessment management programs (if available) were reviewed.
Following discussion with the key state and territory government, rural water authority,
irrigation district and other industry groups, a suitable sample of existing bore condition
assessment reports was identified and selected with the National Water Commission for
review.

3.1.3 Appraisal of existing groundwater databases for bore
condition aspects
A representative cross-section of specifically selected and readily available state, rural water
authority or irrigation district groundwater databases were appraised. Suitable groundwater
databases were identified and selected for interrogation, with selection made following
consultation with the National Water Commission project manager and steering committee.
3.1.4 Review of historical bore construction techniques and

material use
A chronological review was conducted of groundwater bore design, construction techniques
and materials use by referral to appropriate reports and literature covering changes that have
occurred along with collaboration with the ADIA.
With the very limited information in the public domain on existing bore condition assessment
reports and access to existing groundwater databases identified from the outset of the project,
much reliance was placed on sourcing and utilising this information from the identified
stakeholders. However, from the stakeholder interviews, no reports on bore condition
assessments completed by stakeholders were identified or supplied to review. In addition,
only one stakeholder provided groundwater database information to appraise whether bore
condition information that had been collected and stored can be effectively used for bore
casing deterioration assessment.
Therefore, the bore casing deterioration extent determination was limited to that evaluated
from:
 a case study review of readily available existing public domain literature
 the stakeholder consultation program
 review of a bore condition assessment database
 the review of historical bore construction techniques and material use activity.
3.2 Existing case study reviews

This section provides a review of identified case studies relating to bore casing deterioration
throughout Australia and abroad. These case studies have highlighted commonalities in the
occurrence and management of bore casing deterioration, due to fouling, corrosion or
contamination.
Common approaches to the identification, assessment and management of potential bore

casing deterioration processes have been highlighted, along with specific management
techniques.
A summary of the reviewed documents that were relevant to groundwater bore casing
deterioration is provided within Appendix A.

3.2.1 Fouling—case studies
National studies
Fouling and corrosion of groundwater wells (McLaughlan et al. 1993)
This publication includes discussion of a number of case study sites within Australia with
biofouling problems. These case studies are discussed in the following sections, and Table 4
provides a summary of sites with identified fouling.
Table 4: Sites with identified fouling

Site State Type of deposit Site State Type of deposit
Botany NSW Iron biofouling Penola SA Iron biofouling
Sands
Gunnedah NSW Iron biofouling Bordertown SA Iron biofouling
Wagga NSW Iron biofouling Adelaide Plains SA Iron biofouling
Wagga
Wakool NSW Iron biofouling Gwellup WA Iron biofouling
Mildura- Vic Iron biofouling Mirrabooka WA Aluminium
Merbein biofouling
Mineral Vic Aluminium biofouling Toowoomba Qld Carbonate
Reserve biofouling
Basin
Woolpunda SA Iron biofouling Karumba Qld Carbonate
biofouling
Karoonda SA Iron biofouling
Source McLaughlan et al. (1993)
Note: SA = South Australia; WA = Western Australia; Qld = Queensland; Vic = Victoria
Victorian studies
Bore condition assessment, Grampians (GHD 2004)
A water supply bore condition assessment was conducted to collect pertinent data relating to
the construction, condition and operation of groundwater bores in north-western Victoria. The
aim of this program was to enable the development of an asset management program for the
groundwater supply system.
The assessment involved removal of bore pumps and flushing of bores; downhole geophysics
(including caliper, gamma, neutron, casing collar locator, point resistivity and bulk density)
and borehole camera inspection; reinstatement of the bore pumps; and specific capacity
testing.
Criteria (good, fair, poor or failed) were developed for classifying the condition of each bore
casing and screen, based on the presence and degree of corrosion and biofouling, as well as
overall bore integrity.
The assessment indicated that bore condition varied from good to fail for 13 bores assessed.
Poor or failed bores had generally been completed with steel casing and the bore screens
exhibited significant corrosion, encrustation or clogging.
Remedial works were recommended on the basis of the bore condition assessment.
Recommendations included replacement, rehabilitation or further investigation. Bore
replacement was recommended for some bores in poor condition, where the event of total
failure would have significant consequences based on usage.

Replaced bores were completed with PVC casing, rather than steel, in order to increase their
life expectancy. Slotted PVC screens were replaced with stainless steel wire wound screens,
based primarily on:
 bore efficiency—wire wound screens typically have in excess of ten times the open area
as PVC screens
 bore longevity—an increase in screen open area can significantly increase the potential
yield from a bore and can reduce physical and chemical degradation processes on bore
casing due to the effect on screen entrance velocity.
One bore was identified as capable of meeting peak demand, despite significant clogging and
fouling of the bore screen. Rehabilitation works were proposed to avoid the difficulty in
recovering hydraulic efficiency as degradation continues. Also, clogging of the bore screen
could lead to increased entrance velocities through the screen slots, which may increase
abrasion of the bore screen or mobilise sediment.
Overall management recommendations included annual specific capacity testing to assess

the deterioration in the performance of a bore over time. Decreasing specific capacity (over
time) should be used as a trigger for further investigation and, if needed, bore rehabilitation.
On going inspection every five to seven years was also recommended to assess bore
condition and deterioration.
Mineral Reserve Basin (McLaughlan et al. 1993)
The Mineral Reserve Basin is situated on the flat alluvial floodplain of the Avoca River system
in Victoria. The basin consists of lakes with halite and gypsum deposits. Thirteen interception
bores have been installed to manage potential seepage impacts.
Downhole camera inspections identified iron staining from a white precipitate, which blocked
portions of the screened interval. These white precipitates have also been noted during
hydraulic testing of these bores. The mixing of water as it passes the pump impeller as well
as degassing of carbon dioxide at the surface is considered to result in aluminium compounds
(from the aquifer) to become oversaturated and precipitate out.
Water chemistries from both shallow aquifers (around 25 metres depth) and deeper aquifers
(around 45 metres depth) were assessed. Shallow groundwater exhibited acidic (pH 3.6)
conditions and aluminium concentrations of 440 milligrams per litre, and deeper groundwater
exhibited neutral conditions with negligible aluminium.
Bores that were screened through both aquifers identified considerable fouling deposits.
Precipitation of aluminium is considered to be due to mixing of high pH waters of the deeper
aquifer, with low pH and aluminium rich waters of the shallower aquifer.
Mildura-Merbein salinity interception scheme (McLaughlan et al. 1993)
The Mildura-Merbein groundwater interception scheme is situated in north-western Victoria. It

is designed to minimise the inflow of saline groundwater into the Murray River through
groundwater extraction.
It was found that biofouling was most significant on the discharge side of the pumps, rather
than the suction side. Downhole camera work identified that iron staining was most prevalent
in the first (shallowest) slotted interval. Iron concentrations were noted to be higher in the
deeper aquifers, which exhibited lower pH conditions.

South Australian studies
Iron bacteria – Controlling the scourge of groundwater pumping (Forward 2008)
This presentation: provides an overview of iron bacteria related problems in groundwater

bores in the Riverland region of South Australia; suggests management techniques for pumps
and pipeline systems; and identifies long term field management issues. The presentation
outlines bore deterioration processes such as biofouling and iron bacteria.
Iron bacteria were noted to occur widely in Australia, and the international significance of bore
deterioration problems was also identified. It was suggested that 70 per cent of groundwater
bores in the Canadian prairies (approximately 270,000 bores) experience biofouling
problems.
Additionally, a presentation by Houben (2008) was included in the Peter Forward (SA Water)
presentation, and identified the following:
 Biofouling in Australia (from data obtained by McLaughlan et al. 1993) predominantly
consists of iron oxide encrustation (74 per cent of bores), followed by aluminium
hydroxide encrustation (13 per cent) and carbonate encrustation (13 per cent).
 Forward (2008) noted that iron bacteria were found predominantly in areas of high water
velocity or turbulence, such as within gravel pack adjacent to the pump, screened slots,
pump inlet screens, pump internal waterways, discharge components, and pipeline
fittings.
Forward (2008) identified iron biofouling to be affecting bores in the Riverland region of South
Australia, including:
 16 out of 27 groundwater bores impacted at Waikerie, South Australia
 42 out of 49 groundwater bores impacted at Woolpunda, South Australia.
The worst case at these locations resulted in pump flow decreasing by up to 45 per cent
within 50 days of installation. The initial problem was clogging of pumps and as such, a
regular maintenance measure (disinfection) was trialed.
A preventative maintenance measure employed in the Riverland region of South Australia

was electrolytic chlorination. This involved production of a chlorine solution by electrolysis of
the saline water being pumped. The daily disinfection of the pump was found to provide
excellent control of biofouling, with operational costs in the order of cents per day. This
measure was applied to 42 of 49 bores at Woolpunda, 16 of 27 at Waikerie, 11 of 15 at
Qualco, all 22 bores at Bookpurnong, and all 27 bores at Loxton. Results of this application
were as follows:
 the longest trial maintained its pumping performance for six years—this bore had
previously lost 45 per cent of flow within 50 days of installation
 many other bores continue to maintain performance through five years of operation
 iron bacteria deposition in pumps is controlled.
The trial concluded that some deposition is chemical as well as biological. This was identified
through the slow loss of flow despite regular chlorination, increased chlorine concentration
and longer disinfection times.

Forward (2008) identified commercial alternatives for iron bacteria control, which have not yet
been trialed. Anecdotally, they have shown varying levels of effectiveness, but they can be
expensive if large amounts are needed. These products include:
 ‗Pumpmate‘ developed by Biostat Engineering: involves the use of copper electrodes,
1
which are dissolved by an electric current to act as a biocide
 ‗Boresaver‘ liquid: consists of copper salt solution, which is regularly dosed as a liquid
biocide.
An alternative pump—the Mono™ Pump—was suggested in the presentation to reduce the

effects of deterioration processes. This is a positive displacement pump (helicor rotor
displaces a volume within a helical stator), which has a constant flow rate over a range of
discharges. This pump is less prone to losing flow as clogging increases and is inherently self
cleaning. This pump can maintain flow in the presence of aluminium oxide deposition.
Hydraulic losses due to pipeline fouling can be considerable and result in reduced pump flows
and increased power costs, as shown in the following case study sites:
 The Woolpunda Salt Interception Scheme in South Australia experienced iron bacteria
accumulation in a 20-kilometre disposal pipeline and resulted in 10 metres of head loss.
This equated to an additional electricity cost of $25,000 per year.
 The Mildura–Merbein Salt Interception Scheme in Victoria identified some pumps to be
running at almost no flow, due to the 5-kilometre long, 225-millimetre diameter disposal
main having been reduced to a 150-millimetre diameter due to fouling. Performance was
restored following three hours of pipeline cleaning (or pigging).
 The Mineral Sands Mine (undisclosed location) experienced problems as iron bacteria in
pipelines increased system head and decreased flow to a reverse osmosis plant. Reverse
osmosis plant membranes became clogged due to iron bacteria deposits and resulted in
the requirement for a costly pre-filtration system to be installed.
 The Mallee Cliffs Salt Interception Scheme in NSW experienced decreased pump flows,
air vent overflows and increased pumping heads due to a combination of air accumulation
and iron bacteria build up.
It was noted that iron bacteria can adhere to the insides of solid risers. Flexible riser columns
were relatively unaffected as they diametrically expand under pressure and flex considerably
at pump start up, removing iron bacteria deposits in this process.
In terms of rehabilitation, the presentation indicates that based on Canadian research and
experience (not sourced), once a bore loses greater than 40 per cent of its original specific
capacity; it may be difficult to restore the bore to its original performance.
The following notes were provided with regard to chemical bore cleaning products:
 glycolic acid is a good biocide and biofilm dispersing acid; it works better in conditions
where pH is greater than 2
 sulphamic acid (powder) is effective against carbonate scales, but it is not effective
against biofouling on its own
 methane sulfonic acid (MSA) (liquid) can be used as an alternative to sulphamic acid
 some surfactants are not suitable for saline (hard) water; however, the product Sokalan®
is suitable
1. A chemical substance capable of selectively eradicating living organisms to prevent fouling.

 some products contain phosphates as surfactants or dispersants, which may facilitate
growth of bacteria
 if calcium concentrations are greater than 50 milligrams per litre, as in the case of the
Woolpunda scheme (where calcium levels are around 400 to 500 mmilligrams per litre),
oxalic acid can form insoluble precipitates
 products can be expensive.
SA Water has developed a variation technique to the Canadian Ultra Acid Base (UAB)
Technique, which involves abruptly changing the pH environment to disrupt bacteria and
disinfect the bore. SA Water‘s UAB Technique involves:
1. Air surge bore to physically remove deposits
2. Dose bore with surfactant (such as Sokalan) at 1 per cent. Air surge and leave overnight.
Air surge then pump out
3. Acid pre-treatment dose with sulphamic acid (or MSA) and Sokalan at pH<1.5. Air surge
and leave overnight. Air surge then pump out
4. Alkaline dose bore with 1000 milligrams per litre of hypochlorite plus alkaline surfactant
5. Repeat step 3 as an acid treatment dose
6. Repeat step 4 as a final disinfection.
Forward (2008) suggest the following management approaches for iron bacteria problems in
bores:
 anticipate potential problems during design
 design conservatively in terms of bore construction, pump size and capacity, pump
selection and iron bacteria control facilities
 develop a performance monitoring and maintenance strategy.
New South Wales studies

Wakool Subsurface Drainage Scheme (McLaughlan et al. 1993)
The Wakool–Tullakool subsurface drainage scheme is located in the Riverine Plains of

southern NSW, and is designed to reduce waterlogging and land salinisation problems in the
region. Some extraction bores have experienced iron biofouling deposits, which have affected
pump performance and increased maintenance costs.
Biofouling deposits were red in colour, gelatinous in texture and loosely bonded to the bore
casing. Occurrence around the bore casing was uniform, but in general, increased biofouling
was noted at the pumping water level and the riser pipe inlet. Two bores identified thicker
biofouling deposits on one side of the bore casing.
One bore with identified biofouling was brushed and chemically treated, then pumped for
seven days. Biofouling regrowth was identified on bore casing, with a similar albeit sparser
pattern than prior to treating.
An assessment of the occurrence of dissolved iron and salinity (using electrical conductivity
as a measure) was conducted with respect to vertical and lateral distributions within an
aquifer. The occurrence of dissolved iron could not be generalised throughout the area to any
specific water quality or depth. The trend in bacterial numbers indicates a significant decrease

with increasing depth. This trend was considered to be related to dissolved oxygen, iron,
electrical conductivity, or nutrient availability.
Western Australian studies

Mirrabooka borefield (McLaughlan et al. 1993)
This borefield is located in the Perth coastal plain and supplies water to the Perth
metropolitan area. The borefield consisted of 28 bores between 32 metres and 52 metres
deep, extracting from Quaternary sediments consisting of sand and minor limestone.
The major operational problems with the borefield include sand inundation through bore
screens and biofouling of bore casings, pumps and associated pipelines.
The biofouling pattern was relatively uniform, and most significant in the top 4–8 metres to of
the screen. Significant biofouling was also noted on the bore casing above the screens,
covering the entire surface area of the casing (up to several centimetres thick) and extending
from the standing water level to the top of the screens. The upper 15 to 40 per cent of the
screen was considered to be hindered hydraulically by biofouling deposits.
Some bores identified a firm deposit growing inwardly within the bore casing. This deposit
effectively reduced bore diameters from 150 millimetres to less than 75 millimetres.
An anoxic block was installed by the Water Authority of Western Australia at one bore on the
pump column above the pump motor. This resulted in a reduction of biofouling around the
pump motor.
Gwellup borefield (McLaughlan et al. 1993)
This borefield is located in the Perth coastal plain and supplies water for the Perth
metropolitan area. It consists of shallow unconfined and deeper, 32–67-metre deep artesian
bores, which extract from Quaternary sediments consisting of fine to coarse sand.
Biofouling deposits were found to be red in colour, soft and gelatinous and occurred most
heavily near the top of bore screens, often distributed uniformly around the screen. The bore
casing above the screen also identified significant biofouling. With increasing depth, biofouling
deposits were identified as patchy and occurring only on one side of the casing. The lowest
2 metres of screen was relatively free of biofouling deposits. Overall, biofouling deposits were
identified on 30 to 70 per cent of screen lengths.
Queensland studies
Toowoomba region (McLaughlan et al. 1993)
Bore fouling has been identified in some bores in the Toowoomba region, approximately
200 kilometres west of Brisbane. Hydrogeological conditions of impacted bores include shale,
basalt, sandstone and alluvial aquifers. Samples collected from these bores by the
Queensland Water Resources Commission identified deposits to predominantly comprise
calcium carbonate. Deposits were hard and varied in colour from cream to black, with a
distinct hydrogen sulphide odour noted in groundwater at some sites.
Karumba 1967 (McLaughlan et al. 1993)
An artesian bore was installed in Karumba in northern Queensland, with a screened interval
between 720.1 metres and 747.5 metres. The bore is screened in sand and shale, with the

overlying geology consisting predominantly of shale, with sand and clay from the ground
surface to 68 metres depth.
Carbonate deposits in the bore reduced the pump service interval to less than one month.
The source of these deposits was considered to be from corrosion of the casing in the vicinity
of a shallow aquifer, permitting inter-aquifer flow with the artesian water and resulting in
carbonate deposition.
Carbonate deposition was noted to be 2.5 millimetres thick, extending from the ground
surface to 45.7 metres depth. The bore was later relined to 100 metres depth, which resulted
in a reduced rate of carbonate encrustation and a longer pump service interval of nine to 12
months.
International studies
Houben (2008)
A presentation by Houben (2008) was included in the Forward (2008) presentation, and
identified the following:
Biofouling in Germany predominantly consists of iron oxide encrustation, including ‗amorphous‘

iron oxide (57.6% of bores), ‗crystalline‘ iron oxide (14.1%), sulphur-rich iron oxide (9.4%),
manganese oxide (10.6%) and iron/manganese oxide mix (2.4%). The other dominant form of
biofouling is carbonate encrustation (5.9%).
Alford et al. (1986)
This study documents biofouling cases that have occurred in south-eastern United States.
The study estimates that 54 per cent to 58 per cent of groundwater bores across the State of
Arkansas are affected by iron bacteria (Gallionella and Sphaerotilus species).
Valkenburg et al. (1975)
This study correlated the occurrence of iron-related bacteria (Gallionella and Sphaerotilus
species) to environmental parameters. It was considered that bacteria were primarily spread
through drilling and bore maintenance practices.
Hasselbarth and Ludemann (1972)
This involved the study of iron and manganese encrustations in 36 bores located in eight
catchments in Germany. Iron-related bacteria were identified in all bores and included species
of Gallionella, Leptothrix, Crenothrix, Siderocapsa and Siderococcus. The conditions
considered necessary for bore encrustation to occur included:
 presence of iron-related bacteria
 presence of manganese or at least 2 milligrams per litre of iron in the groundwater
 a markedly greater flow velocity than anticipated for the region
 oxygen reduction potential of between –30 millivolts and 10 millivolts.
Undisclosed location (Elshawesh et al. 1997)
A number of groundwater bores were installed in a freshwater aquifer at depths of 500

metres. Type 304 stainless steel screens were used in construction. The bores were not
pumped for two years after installation, at which time failure of the screens was identified.
Downhole camera and microscopic analysis identified isolated pitting along the screen rods,

as well as crack-like ditches. Over 50 per cent of the screen rods had corroded in some
sections, whilst the screen wires remained relatively intact. Deposit samples identified
chloride, iron, sulphate reducing bacteria and iron bacteria present. Iron bacteria and sulphate
reducing bacteria were also identified in groundwater samples.
It was concluded that both microbial influenced corrosion and chloride assisted pitting may
have taken place. Bacterial contamination from drilling fluids and lack of chlorination during
bore development was considered to contribute to the identified bacteria presence. The two-
year period where the bores were not used created stagnant water, which facilitated the
growth of corrosive microbiological colonies.
3.2.2 Corrosion—case studies
National studies
Field studies (McLaughlan et al. 1993)
McLaughlan et al. (1993) conducted field studies consisting of downhole camera surveys and
a corrosion data acquisition program using coupon test rigs set up at sites throughout
Australia.
Sites were selected to sample a wide range of water quality types and bore operating
schedules. A short summary of findings is provided below.
 Effect of water quality on corrosion—sites with high corrosion rates typically had water
chemistries rich in carbon dioxide with elevated temperature and in some cases, low pH
(4.4) water. All high corrosivity sites had a 24-hour pump cycle, which would have
increased the corrosion rate. Sites with low corrosion rates typically had water chemistries
exhibiting neutral pH conditions, with low flow rate and low daily pumping duration
 Effect of rate on corrosion—one bore in the Bundaberg area of Queensland was
evaluated in terms of corrosion rates under both high and low effective velocity
conditions. The three effective velocity rates used were 0.04, 0.035 and 0.01 metres per
second. Similar corrosion rates were identified at the higher (0.04 and 0.035 metres per
second) rates. However, between the high and low rates, an increase in corrosion rate
was identified with galvanised steel couples, and more significant corrosion rates with
mild steel and metal couples. Increasing the effective velocity rate by a factor of three
(0.018 to 0.048 metres per second) resulted in the corrosion rate increasing by 23 to 40
per cent.
The performance of various bore casing types was also evaluated in field studies conducted
by McLaughlan et al. (1993). The results are summarised below:
 Mild steel and galvanised steel—the relationship between galvanised and mild steel
corrosion at day 70 and day 270 of a test indicate that the corrosion rate of galvanised
steel is only slightly less than mild steel. Mild steel and galvanised steel appear to corrode
at a rate that is independent of any water quality parameter. The conclusion made in the
study was that, in certain circumstances, galvanised steel does not offer significant
corrosion protection over mild steel. The circumstances in which this would or would not
be the case were not elaborated in the study.
 Stainless steel (types 304 and 316)—these types corroded only in high salinity water at
one location. It was noted that stainless steels are susceptible to crevice corrosion,
particularly in high chloride environments. Overall the two types of stainless steel had
comparable performance.

 3Cr12—this metal exhibited variable corrosion rates. The conclusion made in the study
was that the localised failure mode of this material and its susceptibility to corrosion
compared with the 304 stainless steel material would not make it a suitable choice for
groundwater bores.
In summary, the rate of corrosion was found to decrease with time due to the build up of a
protective corrosion product. Short-term corrosion data should be evaluated with caution, as
the onset of surface polarisation may vary from 70 days to over 400 days. The long-term field
corrosion tests did not identify a clear relationship between corrosion rate and a measurable
parameter.
Victorian studies
Hydrotechnology (1994)
This study involved the planning and costing of refurbishing or decommissioning 69 deep
groundwater bores in Victoria. Case studies presented in this report show that the average
lifespan for 15 failed deep bores ranged from five to 40 years (Table 5).
Criteria were developed and used to determine the pessimistic, optimistic and best estimate
years of failure for each of these 69 deep bores (Table 5). An average of two to three bore
failures was expected to occur per year between 1994 and 2019. Pumping bores were found
to be at higher risk of failure compared with observation bores.
Table 5: Bore life expectancies (Victorian Study)

Victorian Failure cause (Hypothesis: Factors affecting Failure age (years)—Pessimistic,
Region actual reason for failure bore lifespan optimistic, and best estimate
generally unknown)
Gippsland Hydrogeological Whether the bore Drilled into Not drilled into
environment, particularly intersects the coal measure: coal measure:
corrosive corrosive Latrobe 7 15
Valley coal
measures 20 30
12 22
Mallee High salinity of groundwater Dominant factor High salinity Low salinity
in the upper Murray Basin appears to be (>10,000 EC): (<10,000 EC):
sediments in the Mallee salinity 8 20
region
20 35
15 25
Otway Presence of pyrite and the Dominant factor Pumped Observation

underlying Dilwyn formation appears to be bores: bores:
promoting corrosion of the bore use 15 20
steel cased bores drilled
through these formations 40 45
25 30
Note: 1. 1 EC = 10 deciSiemens per metre; 2.The failure ages indicated in the table above assume that cathodic
protection is not used on these bores. Cathodic protection of bore casing can reduce corrosion along the outside of
bore casing and, as such, can prolong bore lifespans; 3. Source: HydroTechnology (1994).
An assessment was made with regards to decommissioning each of the 69 bores at the end
of their respective life. Based on hydrogeological considerations, the assessment suggested
that 54 of the 69 deep bores were recommended for refurbishment works at the end of their
serviceable life. The remaining 15 bores were recommended to be decommissioned at the
end of their serviceable life, as the implication of decommissioning these bores was ‗of little
concern‘.

The use and characteristics of each particular bore were noted as an important factor in the
immediacy of action required upon failure. Particularly high priority was given to: artesian
bores, which may cause uncontrolled groundwater flow at the ground surface; town water
supply bores; and bores that may cause inter-aquifer contamination.
Western Australian studies

Carnarvon Basin (Astill et al. 2002)
Approximately 120 artesian groundwater bores have been installed in the Carnarvon Basin,
Western Australia since the early 1900s, principally for pastoral supplies. Of these bores,
approximately 40 have failed, 40 exhibit minor flow to the surface, and the remaining 40 retain
substantial flow rates. As well as uncontrolled abstraction, reduced groundwater flow from
these bores also results from inappropriate construction.
Groundwater in this region is aggressive, causing extensive corrosion of bore casings and
fittings. Many of the bores had an operational life of less than ten years. Bores were
constructed using steel casing, with ineffective cementing operations and lack of controlling
headworks.
Replacement bores were completed with 150-millimetres-diameter fibreglass-reinforced

plastic (FRP) casing, with 127-millimetre-diameter stainless steel telescoped screens. FRP
casing allowed for uniform pressure cement grouting of the casing throughout the length of
the bore. This provided a competent seal throughout the bore depth. Inert centralisers were
fitted on each length of casing in the bores to ensure a uniform 15-millimetre grout cover
occurred and to eliminate the possibility of centraliser corrosion in the future.
The study considered that the FRP casing, combined with pressure cement grouting and
telescoped screens, gives these bores a design life in excess of 100 years.
Microbiologically influenced corrosion, North Africa (Roscoe Moss Company 2004)
A major regional water supply development project in North Africa included the construction of
a large-scale bore field. Approximately 125 groundwater bores were installed with stainless
steel type 304, continuous wire-wrapped bore screens. Prior to the commencement of
pumping, some bores had been idle for up to two years since being drilled and constructed.
Initial pumping identified discoloured groundwater and the ingress of sand and gravel. CCTV
surveys identified that approximately 56 per cent of bores had confirmed ruptures and a
further 18 per cent had suspected ruptures.
Failure analyses included materials testing, water quality testing, and structural analysis of
bore screens. Following years of study, the bore failures were concluded to be linked to
aggressive water quality and the effects of iron oxidising bacteria.
Conclusions made include that stainless steel 316L would have been a more appropriate
screen material given the groundwater quality conditions that had been identified.
Design considerations for selecting casing for ASR wells, California USA (Roscoe
Moss Company 2004b)
In the mid-1990s, a major Californian water utility undertook an aquifer storage and recovery
(ASR) program to develop storage in the Los Posas Groundwater Basin. The project included

the construction of 16 ASR bores, constructed with 16-inch outside diameter, mild steel with
0.375 inch wall thickness. The initial bore design specified that each segment of casing would
be joined by threaded and coupled connections to avoid heat damage to the interior
protective coating caused by welding.
The design was changed due to anticipated handling problems with large diameter casing.
Instead, the bore casing was manufactured with half-inch thick, double-weld collars to protect
the epoxy-coated steel casing and to allow for welding of the connections between casing
segments.
Following bore construction, development and aquifer testing, a CCTV inspection identified
that the epoxy coating on the interior of the mild steel casing had been severely scratched by
the bore development equipment. This damage could not be repaired and is expected to
accelerate corrosion of the mild steel casing.
Selection of stainless steel casing and well screen, Arizona USA (Roscoe Moss
Company 2004c)
A study of 34 public supply bores in Sun City and Sun City West, Arizona identified that
corrosion of metallic components and surfaces of steel bore screens was the primary cause
of bore performance problems. Groundwater in the region was slightly corrosive.
Substantial accumulations of scale, sand invasion, and declining extraction rates were
observed in many of the bores. These problems were exacerbated by the combined effects of
the physical, chemical and biological components of bore environments. Scale accumulation
from corrosion by-products often reduced the open area of bore screens, and lowered a
bore‘s production capacity and efficiency. The operational life of groundwater bores in Arizona
typically ranges from 40 to 50 years. The study considered that the use of corrosion resistant
materials such as stainless steel could increase operational life to 100 years or more.
Lihir Island, Papua New Guinea (Williamson and Vogwill 2001)
Lihir Island is located in Papua New Guinea, within a complex tectonic convergence zone
between the Pacific and Indo-Australia Plates. An open pit gold mine commenced at Lihir
Island in 1997. Dewatering of groundwater is required for safe and efficient mining conditions
and geotechnical stability. Groundwater and rock temperatures range from 60°C to 200°C.
Due to the expected groundwater temperatures and corrosive environment, oilfield and
geothermal-type electro-submersible pumps and corrosion-resistant dewatering and
monitoring borehole materials were used.
The first four dewatering bores were completed using 330-millimetre-diameter FRP casing
with centralisers; machined slots through the aquifer zones and with an annular gravel pack.
The selection of FRP casing was based on a 10-year design life and costs comparable to
carbon steel. Carbon-steel casing was not used in the initial bores due to an estimated
corrosion rate of 3 millimetres per year. The use of more exotic alloys, with less predicted
corrosion, was considered uneconomical.
After an unexpected failure of the four dewatering bores in late 1997, the bore construction
materials were modified to consist of L80 grade machine-slotted steel casing with centralisers
but no annular gravel pack (to reduce potential point-source corrosion). This construction
reduced the estimated bore life to three years, but was an acceptable risk based on the cost,
the urgency to accelerate the dewatering, and planned modifications to the dewatering
system.

A trial of glass reinforced epoxy casing was proposed for the last two dewatering bores drilled
during 2000. The study did not comment on its effectiveness.
Groundwater extraction, Spain (Ceron and Pulido-Bosch 1996)
This study links increased drawdown levels in an aquifer with increased groundwater
extraction from bores in Murcia, southeast Spain. The aquifer consisted of conglomerates,
sand, silt and clay and overlies a complex of metamorphic units. Increased salinity and
carbon dioxide in the aquifer has led to increased bore corrosion.
Declining groundwater levels have been experienced in the aquifer, initially in the order of 30–
60 metres depth to 150–250 metres depth. Rapid corrosion of bore equipment and pipelines
has resulted, along with cavitation and precipitation of carbonates due to degassing.
The increased rate of bore deterioration from corrosion was considered to be related to
overexploitation of the aquifer. Declining groundwater levels are resulting in groundwater
users relying more on deeper, more corrosive waters to maintain yields.
Comparison of studies
The crusting and biofouling potential of bore casings can vary depending on the
hydrogeological setting and the type of bore casing used. Wire wrap screens are
manufactured by wrapping and welding a wire around longitudinal rods, which are usually
manufactured from Type 304 stainless steel, galvanised steel or carbon steel. Type 304
stainless steel exhibits excellent corrosion resistance, whilst carbon steel is not corrosion
resistant. Roscoe Moss Company (1990) identified that the continuous slot design offers the
highest percentage of open area of any screen, which also increases the surface area
exposed to corrosion in the order of three times. Wire wrap screens are difficult or impossible
to repair to their original structural integrity if damaged.
Driscoll (1986) considered that the large open area of wire wrap screens reduce the potential
for corrosive water to attack bore screens, as only a small quantity of water can pass through
an individual slot. The corrosive effect of water is directly related to the volume of water
passing through the screen. Driscoll (1986) identified that FRP and plastic screens are
generally as susceptible to incrustation (biofouling) as metal screens.
FRP casing is considered corrosion resistant and extremely competent in deep and corrosive
bore conditions. PVC and Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) casing are also considered
corrosion resistant, but they are limited in terms of structural integrity at depth, and the small
open area in slotted PVC pipe screens.
3.2.3 Contamination—case studies
Victorian studies
Industrial facility (GHD 2008)
The following case study is presented as an example of the effect of groundwater

contamination on groundwater bore materials. The setting is a confidential industrial facility
west of Melbourne, Victoria.
Dense NAPL was historically identified in several groundwater monitoring bores at this site, in
both a perched basalt aquifer and a regional basalt aquifer system. Dense NAPL consisted of
mainly nitrobenzene, benzene and chlorinated nitrobenzenes. Damage to the PVC casing of
a bore was suspected following the recovery of PVC fragments during NAPL removal events.

This bore had been installed less than 12 months prior to identification of this deterioration. A
downhole camera survey was undertaken, which identified:
 apparent damage to the PVC riser casing above the standing water level in the bore
 ‗breached‘ casing in at least three identifiable locations, with groundwater observed
flowing into the bore at these locations.
A potential pathway was identified for vertical migration of dense NAPL from the perched
groundwater table to the deeper regional aquifer system. The occurrence of this pathway was
potentially due to inappropriate design of the gravel pack interval surrounding the bore
screen.
In order to prevent further migration of dense NAPL, the bore was replaced by removing the
degraded 50-millimetre diameter PVC casing using wash boring techniques, and
reconstructing the bore using a stainless steel screen and casing (as a precaution). The bore
was developed thoroughly, to attempt to remove residual dense NAPL that potentially
remained in the formation at depth. It was some time before the bore could be considered to
effectively represent conditions in the regional aquifer system, and initial sampling of the bore
was considered to represent potential ‗worst case‘ contaminant concentrations.
Superfund site, USA (McCaulou, Jewett and Huling 1995)
There are several distinct types of coal tars resulting from manufactured gas plant processes.
PVC casing used in contaminated coal tar sediments under non-pressurised conditions
appeared to function properly. However, the PVC screened intervals in some bores situated
in coal tar sediments exhibited compromised integrity following prolonged exposure.
Screened intervals can also become clogged with coal tar, presumably due its viscous nature.
NAPL groundwater contamination at a Superfund site in Texas (USA) identified partial

solvation of PVC bore casing due to the incompatibility between the PVC material and the
NAPL. NAPL consisted of chlorinated solvents including dichloroethane, trichloroethene and
styrene. The bore was decommissioned and replaced using compatible bore construction
materials. The case study considered PVC to be incompatible for use when dichloroethane,
styrene and trichloroethene are expected in groundwater.
Field information obtained from a Superfund site in Texas (USA) also identified groundwater
was contaminated with chlorinated solvents including 1,1,2-trichloroethane, vinyl chloride and
1,2-dichloroethane. Groundwater extraction bores were installed with FRP casing for its
predicted superior performance. Within one month of installation, the pumps in two bores with
dense NAPL failed due to clogging with fragments of fibreglass. This was followed by
complete deterioration of the bore screen and casing. To overcome this, the pumps were
cleaned and the bores retrofitted with smaller diameter stainless steel screens and casing.
3.2.4 Additional management approaches

The following techniques to identify, assess and manage bore casing deterioration have been
acknowledged through the case study review, although the literature review earlier in this
report did not cover them. These additional management approaches are summarised in
Table 6 below.

Table 6: Additional management techniques
Site State Bore failure Type of technique Comment
process (identification, assessment or
management)
Not specified SA Aluminium oxide Management, through use of This pump can
an alternative pump (Mono maintain flow in the
Pump) presence of aluminium
oxide deposition.
Not specified SA Iron bacteria within Management, through Performance restored
hydraulic pipelines pipeline cleaning or pigging following a few hours of
cleaning
Not specified SA Several Management, through the Particular chemical
use of chemical bore product used varies on
cleaning products to groundwater chemistry
rehabilitate affected bores as well as the amount
of specific capacity lost
Wakool NSW Iron biofouling Management, through Re-growth of biofouling
brushing of the bore prior to became sparser
chemical treatment
Mildura- VIC Iron biofouling Assessment, through –
Merbein collection of groundwater
samples and analysis of
multi-aquifer groundwater
quality data
Mineral VIC Aluminium fouling Assessment, analysis Precipitation of
Reserve assessment of groundwater aluminium was due to
Basin chemistry in both shallow mixing of high pH
and deep aquifer systems waters of the deeper
aquifer, with low pH
and aluminium rich
waters of the shallower
aquifer
Mirrabooka WA Iron biofouling Management, through This resulted in a
Borefield installation of an anoxic block reduction of biofouling
on the pump column above around the pump motor
the pump motor
Karumba Qld Carbonate deposits Management, through Resulted in a reduced
relining of the bore rate of carbonate
encrustation and longer
pump service interval
Several All Corrosion Identification that corrosion The extent of corrosion
Australia rates increase with increased depends on bore
flow rate / pump cycle casing materials used
Note: SA = South Australia; WA = Western Australia; Qld = Queensland
3.2.5 Summary
Review summary and comparisons

This section provides a summary of identified bore failure processes and subsequent
management techniques and approaches that have been adopted (Table 7) for both the
literature review and the case study review conducted as part of this investigation. From the
sample of bore casing deterioration cases considered, the following conclusions, contrasts
and comparisons can be drawn:

 From the cases considered, iron biofouling of groundwater bores was the most dominant
bore casing deterioration process identified. The most successful rehabilitation and
acid dosing).
 The corrosion of steel cased bores was also very common, particularly in ageing
groundwater bores. The frequency of such failures is expected to decrease as active
groundwater bore assets are replaced with inert casing materials.
 The least documented bore casing deterioration processes include plastic degradation,
carbonate biofouling, and aluminium oxide fouling.
 A range of different rehabilitative and preventative measures have been used to manage
bore casing deterioration due to iron biofouling.
 Bore casing materials were often not specified in identified case studies and literature.
 In most case studies, the reason for occurrence of bore casing deterioration was not
documented and presumably was unknown.
processes have been identified. In most of the case studies assessed, preventative
measures were not introduced prior to identification of bore deterioration processes.
In many cases, the literature review identified typical problems associated with a bore failure
process as well as management techniques as alleviation or preventative measures. Case
study samples generally focused on the rehabilitation of identified bore failure processes,
rather than the prevention (see Chapter 6 of this report—‗Bore casing condition assessment‘).
Both literature and case studies were not identified for all specific bore casing deterioration
and failure processes.
Preventative measures and maintenance

The overwhelming conclusion identified through a review of case studies and identified
literature is that, in most cases, groundwater bore casing deterioration is managed only once
a problem has been identified. In some cases this stage is too late to successfully manage
bore casing deterioration and failure processes. In other cases, bore performance is
decreased, whilst ongoing maintenance costs are increased.
Several preventative measures can be considered at the onset of groundwater bore design or
establishment of a new groundwater bore. Some measures may include:
 Anticipate potential problems during design through preventive design and material
selection. Forward (2008) recommends conservative design in terms of bore construction,
pump size and capacity, pump selection and iron bacteria control facilities.
 Develop a performance monitoring and maintenance strategy. Preventative maintenance
measures should commence as soon as the bore is commissioned. Bores should not be
neglected until there is a problem.
 Regularly monitor bore deterioration indicators (maintenance monitoring) to identify
changes that may signal the onset of groundwater bore or bore system deterioration.
Forward (2008) considers that groundwater bores should be monitored every three
months. Monitoring should include the following bore performance parameters:
– pump discharge pressure
– flow meter
– bore water level

– pipeline flows and pressures.
 Use preventive chemical treatments to control bore and pipeline fouling.
 Use alternative materials, such as alternative pumps or flexible riser columns. However,
experience with flexible risers in coal mines has resulted in twisting and mechanical
impact of bore casing.
 Take note of reductions in specific capacity by more than 5 per cent as these should be
taken as a warning signal of bore deterioration (Forward 2008).
These preventative measures and maintenance will assist in reducing the frequency and
magnitude of potential bore casing deterioration and failure processes, which in turn will
increase the operational life of a groundwater bore and reduce the requirement for costly
rehabilitation or replacement.

Table 7: Summary of bore failure processes and management
Bore Failure Process Site location/ Bore Typical Setting Rehabilitative Preventative Reasons for
source casing symptoms/problems measures measures occurrence
material
Iron bio- Case Riverland, Not Reduced pump flow Areas of high water Electrolytic Electrolytic
fouling studies South specified Clogging of pumps velocity or chlorination—regular chlorination
Australia Iron bacteria adhering turbulence (e.g. chlorination, Anticipate potential
to the insides of solid within gravel pack increased chlorine problems during
risers adjacent to pump; concentration and design
screened slots; longer disinfection Design
pump inlet screen; times conservatively in
pump internal Disinfection using terms of bore
waterways; ultra acid base construction, pump
discharge technique size and capacity,
components; and pump selection and
pipeline fittings) iron bacteria control
facilities.
Develop a
performance
monitoring and
maintenance
strategy
Use of an alternative
pump (Mono Pump)
Wakool, Not Biofouling deposits Riverina Plains; Brushing and None
NSW specified were red in colour, shallow chemical treatment,
gelatinous in texture groundwater then pumping for
and loosely bonded to seven days
the bore casing.
Increased biofouling
was noted at the
pumping water level
and the riser pipe inlet.
Mirrabooka Not Biofouling of bore Coastal plain. Bores Installation of an
Western specified casing, pump and extracting from anoxic block
Australia pipelines sand and limestone
aquifers

material
Literature Canadian Not High corrosion rates High corrosivity None mentioned – –
review research specified associated with high sites had a 24-hour
(not carbon dioxide waters, pump cycle, which
sourced) elevated temperature would have
and in some cases, low increased the
pH water corrosion rate
McLaughlan – Plugging of the voids in The rate of Sampling and – Inappropriate
(2002) the aquifer, resulting in biofouling depends analysis of water or selection of bore
decreased yield on nutrient solid material—to construction
High variability in water availability, particle provide an indication materials based on
quality, with general availability as to whether hydrogeology and
decrease in quality with (dependent on corrective groundwater
regards to taste, colour hydrogeology and maintenance may be chemistry
and odour hydrogeochemistry) required as a result Bore materials
Encrustation on bore and biofilm shear of bore deterioration reached their
casing, screens or forces (dependent processes lifespan
reticulation systems on flow rate) The use of water Alterations in
Increased metal quality indicators to groundwater
corrosion of bore identify potential biochemistry or
components, due to bore deterioration hydrogeochemistry
increasingly acidic over time
groundwater Inadequate or
Spontaneous slugs of incomplete
brown, black or red groundwater bore
water development
Short pump life Spread of bacteria
Unexpected or introduced to the
unexplained changes in bore via the drilling
water treatment rig or pumping
performance equipment
Sand entering the bore Natural bacteria may
can damage or rupture exist in certain
bore casing or result in groundwaters
bridging of the gravel
pack

material
Corrosion Case Several – – – – – –
study throughout
Australia
Bundaberg, Galvanise Corrosion of bore Corrosion rate None mentioned Design bore casing –
Queensland d steel casing evaluated under material with
and mild both high and low groundwater
steel flow rate conditions chemistry and
proposed pumping
regime in mind
Literature Not specific Metal Can occur between – – – Galvanic processes,
review bore casing joints as bio-corrosion
well as from localised (corrosive effects
pitting of metal bore arising from micro-
casings. organisms within
biofilm), or erosion
(mechanical removal
of iron oxides and
carbonate films on
surfaces such as
bore casing)
Aluminium Case Riverland, Not Clogging of pumps and – Use of an alternative – –
Oxide study South specified reduced pump flows pump
Australia
Literature – – – – – – –
review
Partic- Case Mirrabooka Not Sand inundation Coastal plain. Bores Not mentioned - -
ulate study Western specified through bore screens. extracting from
fouling Australia Occurred in conjunction sand and limestone
with biofouling of bore aquifers
casing, pump and
pipeline

material
Literature Not specific - Mobilisation of fine - - Appropriate -
review particles can result in groundwater bore
particulate deposits as design, development
well as pump corrosion, and operation
as particulates enter a factors; as well as
bore the quality of any
Silting up of the bore injected water.
Bore blockages Analysis of bore
Formation of bacteria performance data
through conduct of
specific capacity
tests
Mineral Case - - - - - - -
scaling study
Literature McLaughlan – Potential to precipitate – – – May occur within

review (2002) in response to changes groundwater bores
in groundwater CO2 or as a result of mixing
temperature, due to of ‗incompatible‘
resultant chemical groundwaters, or
reactions. due to variations in
groundwater
temperature or
pressure during
pumping
Carbonate Case Karumba, Not Carbonate deposits Shale, sand and Bore was relined, – –
biofouling study Queensland specified formed due to inter- clay geology resulting in reduced
aquifer flow in the bore. carbonate
Deposition reduced the encrustation and
pump service interval to longer pump service
less than one month. interval
Literature – – – – – – –
review

material
Plastic Case – – – – – – –
degraded study
Literature Not specific unplastic- Structural degradation Contaminated None identified The compatibility of Due to oxidative,
review ised PVC groundwater bore materials in chemical, microbial
(particularly with such environments or mechanical
organic should be processes
compounds) considered in bore
design. Bore
material compatibility
tables, such as that
compiled by
McCaulou et al.
(1995) can be used

3.2 Stakeholder consultation—current
knowledge status
3.3.1 Process
Two approaches were proposed for stakeholder consultation; interviews of key stakeholders
in each state and territory and an online questionnaire designed to obtain information from a
broader range of stakeholders not engaged in the interview process.
Stakeholder interviews
GHD hydrogeologists located around Australia conducted the stakeholder interviews. The
consultation process involved contacting and meeting with stakeholder representatives in
each state and territory from key government departments, urban and rural water authorities,
and irrigation districts responsible for groundwater management. Specific bodies that rely
heavily on the use of groundwater were also contacted as well as organisations involved in
bore maintenance, monitoring and rehabilitation. The ADIA representatives in each state were
also approached.
Consultation meetings and contact was limited to a maximum of five key authorities and
industry groups from each state and territory. A full list of stakeholders nominated and those
contacted for interviews from each state and territory is provided in Table 8 below.
Note, stakeholders in grey and italics in Table 8 were considered in the original list of
stakeholders, but were not interviewed following consultation and advice from the National
Water Commission to shorten the list to expedite the time for receipt and processing of
stakeholder responses. Where a stakeholder was approached but no response has been
provided to date this is also indicated.
Online questionnaire
A questionnaire was also originally proposed as an option to gain additional information from
a broader cross section of stakeholder groups to help define the problem and impacts of bore
casing deterioration. However, based on the limited number and extent of information
provided in the responses received from the interviews with the initial identified key
stakeholders, and in consultation with the National Water Commission, it was decided to not
undertake the online questionnaire. Distribution of the questionnaire could be reconsidered at
a later stage, possibly as a validation exercise.

Table 8: Key stakeholders identified and consulted from each state and territory
Key stakeholder Stakeholder interview
completed
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
ACT Department of Territory and Municipal Services 
New South Wales
NSW Department of Water and Energy
Murrumbidgee Groundwater Inc 
Riverina Water 
Goldenfields Water County Council
ADIA NSW Response
requested, not
provided
NORTHERN TERRITORY
Department of Natural Resources, Environment, Arts and Sport 
(NRETAS)
ADIA Northern Territory 
Power and Water Corporation, Essential Services
NT Cattlemans Association
Daly Regional Land Management/Water Advisory Committee
QUEENSLAND
Department of Natural Resources and Water (NRW) 
Whitsunday Regional Council
Yabulu
South East Queensland (SEQ) Water
Roma Regional Council
IAH Members
ADIA Queensland Response
requested, not
provided
SOUTH AUSTRALIA
SA Water 
Department of Water Land Biodiversity and Conservation Response
(DWLBC) requested, not
provided
CSIRO
Arid Lands NRM 
Centre for Groundwater Studies Response
requested, not
provided
Central Irrigation Trust
Landcare South Australia

completed
Local Action Planning Groups
Grundfos South Australia 
ADIA Response
requested, not
provided
TASMANIA
The Department of Primary Industries and Water 
Mineral Resources Tasmania 
University of Tasmania 
Drillers – KMR Response
requested, not
provided
Irrigation Development Board
Northern Midlands Council
Southern Midlands Council
Glamorgran-Spring Bay Council
Waterwatch and Landcare
Barry Cox – Groundwater Maintenance Consultant Response
requested, not
provided
WESTERN AUSTRALIA
DAFWA
Water Corporation 
Department of Water 
Department of Environment and Conservation 
Water Resources Redevelopment 
Department of Agriculture 
ADIA (Western Australia) Response
requested, not
provided
VICTORIA
Goulburn-Murray Water 
Southern Rural Water 
Department of Sustainability and Environment 
Department of Primary Industries 
ADIA (Victoria) Response
requested, not
provided
MaCalister Irrigation District
Gippsland Coal

completed
Victoria Farmers Federation
NATIONAL
Cattle Council Response
requested, not
provided
AUSIMM (Australian Mining and Mineral Council) Response
requested, not
provided
Stakeholder interviews
In the interviews, the stakeholderswere asked a series of questions that were designed to
ascertain bore use, the extent of deterioration issues and processes currently in place to deal
with bore deterioration. In particular, stakeholders were asked questions under the following
sub-themes:
 Bore deterioration status—jurisdiction, region or area of understanding of extent.
Questions related to the current knowledge on the extent of bore deterioration, the main
groundwater users impacted by deterioration, and hydrogeological settings where
deterioration occurs
 Bore condition issues and the deterioration process—common condition issues, causes
of deterioration, consequences of deterioration, measures in place to maximise bore
longevity
 Bore condition monitoring and reporting—monitoring undertaken (if any) to assess the
extent of bore deterioration and reporting processes
 Education—information available to bore users on care and maintenance, construction,
rehabilitation, etc.
 Associated costs (social, environmental and economic)—perceived cost and estimates of
monetary costs, if undertaken
 Forward planning (management of future issues)—actions planned to prevent future
issues from re-occurring.
The full questionnaire used in the stakeholder consultation process is provided in Appendix B.
The online questionnaire contained questions under the same headings as those used for the
stakeholder interviews (see Appendix C).
3.3.2 Key findings on extent of bore casing deterioration for

stakeholder consultation
This section summarises the main findings and issues for each sub-theme of the bore casing
deterioration interviews:
 bore deterioration status—jurisdiction, region, area understanding of extent
 bore condition issues and deterioration processes
 bore condition monitoring and reporting
 education

 associated costs (social, environmental and economic)
 forward planning (management of future issues)
 information sought or requested.
For each state and territory, the number of responses received to compile the summary is
noted in brackets next to the heading: for example, Western Australia (5) indicates that five
responses were received.
The extent of knowledge gaps noted from the stakeholder consultation process is also
presented.
Bore deterioration status—jurisdiction, region, area

understanding of extent
Overall, the depth of knowledge on the extent of bore deterioration varied between
organisations and states. Information provided was detailed for only one stakeholder who had
conducted audits and other investigations to remedy and manage significant casing
deterioration processes. In the main, few stakeholders have completed adequate
assessments to determine the full extent of bore casing deterioration issues. Generally, the
extent of affected bores are not well understood or documented.
The types of users identified that are affected by bore casing deterioration also varied across
the different states and territories, with farmers and some rural townships noted as the main
users in most states. Mining operations were also noted to be relying on groundwater. It was
noted in the compilation of results that more stakeholders in Western Australia indicated
townships and small-scale domestic users as the main users than in other states and
territories. The Western Australia Water Corporation is also a substantial user of groundwater.
In some cases, the government departments (for example, DSE and the Department of
Primary Industries in Victoria) are the main users, with bores utilised for environmental and
resource monitoring purposes.
Many stakeholders across each of the states and territories have a reasonable knowledge of
what hydrogeological settings specifically impact on bore casing deterioration. In general, the
issues were varied, and dependent on the hydrogeological setting and geographical location,
but covered aquifer hydrogeochemistry characteristics such as highly saline, acidic or alkaline
groundwater. High heat or pressures were also noted. However, where farmers are the main
or sole users of groundwater bores, the hydrogeological settings for bore deterioration was
less likely to be known.
A summary of the compiled responses from stakeholders is provided in Table 9.

Table 9: Bore deterioration status—summary of stakeholder responses
Questions Posed To Stakeholder responses
Stakeholders
What is known about bore Australian Capital Territory (1)—The Department of Environment, Climate Change, Energy and Water (DECCEW) was the only stakeholder
deterioration in your area of contacted from the ACT. Information related to bore deterioration in the ACT is limited because there is no ACT monitoring network and no
interest? (i.e. extent/number local utility managed borefield. Very little is known about bore casing deterioration, with very little formal documentation available—
of affected bores, any responses provided are mainly anecdotal in nature. For this question, the respondent noted that in the past, production bores used to be
documentation?) steel cased but are now largely constructed of PVC.
New South Wales (2)—Riverina Water noted that, since borefields were established in the 1980s, five bores have been replaced and seven
relined. Murrumbidgee Groundwater Inc noted that the oldest bores are 40 years old, but most are no older than 15 years. Some bores in
the Lower Murrumbidgee are only lasting about 11 years. Overall responses indicate that the information available on the extent of bore
deterioration is limited.
Northern Territory (1)—Department of Natural Resources, Environment, Tourism and the Arts (NRETAS) indicated that there was no ongoing
objective data, surveys or reporting conducted in the NT recently. There are only isolated instances of observed bore deterioration and
subsequent rehabilition works only.
Queensland (1)—
o Non-artesian—The stakeholder responses indicated that overall, the extent of bore deterioration is not well known. No details were
provided on whether documentation on the extent of bore deterioration is available. In general, all areas are affected by bore casing
deterioration of some kind or another. The Department of Natural Resources and Water (NRW) noted that many steel cased bores
that are experiencing bore deterioration problems are 20, 30, 40 years old and therefore some deterioration issues may just be ‗age
related‘. NRW does not know which bores have age related issues and which have non-age related issues. Bose casing processes
and issues varied but included iron bacteria, aggressive groundwater and saline intrusion.
o Artesian—NRW identified three areas as having corrosive groundwater—the Flinders, North Cape and Injune areas. In Flinders and
North Cape, the corrosion is due to carbon dioxide in groundwater and the cause in Injune is not known.
South Australia (3)—Stakeholders generally have a good understanding of the extent of bore deterioration within their jurisdiction. For
example, SA Water noted that more than150 bores are affected by bore casing deterioration; clogging due to iron bacteria, which affects
two out of three of these bores. Aluminium clogging and hydrogen sulfide fouling affect the remaining bores. Monitoring and management
of the issue has been internally documented. Bore monitoring for these issues occurs frequently and is specifically managed by SA Water.
In addition, SA Arid Lands NRM stated that an audit has been undertaken in the Great Artesian Basin to determine the number of bores
that require rehabilitation.
Tasmania (2)—Stakeholders indicated that there is no formal process for the documentation of bore deterioration and that overall the
knowledge on the extent of bore deterioration within their jurisdiction is limited.

Stakeholders
Victoria (4)—Stakeholder responses indicated that there is little documented information on the extent of bore deterioration. In general,
keeping track of bore deterioration was generally deemed to be the responsibility of the users of the bores (the farmers). Two of the
stakeholders (Southern Rural Water and DSE) were able to provide estimates on the numbers of bores impacted, with both stakeholders
stating that a significant number of bores (more than 30) were in need of repair (casing failure, or producing a lower yield than when first
constructed). Southern Rural Water noted that the lower yield of bores is likely attributed to the ongoing drought conditions, rather than
bore deterioration. A full assessment of the condition of all bores has not been conducted for any of the stakeholders interviewed, which
means that the extent and the nature of the deterioration could be greater than estimated.
Western Australia (5)—Stakeholders were unable to supply information on the extent of bore deterioration in their area or jurisdiction, related
to extent or number of bores. No documentation that could have detailed this information was noted.
Who are the major users Australian Capital Territory (1)—Most bores in the territory are used for private stock and domestic purposes or small-scale irrigation supply.
being affected by bore
New South Wales (2)—Riverina Water, farmers and the local council.
deterioration in your area?
I.e. farmers, miners, Northern Territory (1)—Town and rural water supplies and horticulture.
townships? Queensland (1)—Predominantly farmers
South Australia (3)—In general, farmers are the major users, with Aboriginal communities and mining also noted as important users of
groundwater. Grundfos noted that clogging and fouling was most common in bores with pumps of a lower flow rate, which means that
smaller scale farms and domestic users and most likely to be impacted.
Tasmania (2)—Farmers and rural townships are the main users of groundwater bores and therefore the most likely to be impacted by bore
deterioration. The Department of Primary Industries and Water also noted fish farmers as a potential major user.
Victoria (4)—Both the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) and Southern Rural Water stated that farmers are the major users most likely to
be affected by bore deterioration. DSE bores, used for groundwater monitoring, are also at risk of bore casing deterioration processes.
Bore deterioration of the DSE State Observation Bore Monitoring Network affects all users of groundwater via the potential reduced ability
to management groundwater resources adequately for all beneficiaries.
Western Australia (5)—Based on the stakeholder responses, townships and domestic supplies are major users to a greater extent in Western
Australia than that in other states and territories. Mining and farming were also noted as significant users of groundwater. The Department
of Water was also a ‗main user‘ of groundwater resources that would be affected by bore deterioration.
In which hydrogeological Australian Capital Territory (1)—Bores are generally constructed into fractured rock on individual farms. Therefore deterioration is most likely
settings is bore deterioration to occur within this geographical setting.
considered a problem?
New South Wales (2)—Riverina Water bores are located in unconsolidated alluvial aquifers associated with the Murrumbidgee River and
tributaries. Murrumbidgee Groundwater Inc irrigators have bores constructed in the Tertiary alluvial aquifers of the eastern Murray

Stakeholders
Geological Basin. The Department of Water and Energy commented that problems commonly occur in areas with shallow saline
groundwater or groundwater high in bicarbonate.
Northern Territory (1)—Poor water quality is the cause of deterioration; no other information supplied.
Queensland (1)
o Non-artesian—NRW noted that bore deterioration is widespread, with deterioration issues varying in different hydrogeological settings.
For example, in North Queensland, most issues are at the Atherton Tablelands where there are high levels of magnesium in the
groundwater. Conversely, in Burdekin/Bowen, there are issues in shallow aquifers with high iron concentrations (iron bacteria). Drillers
sometimes advise NRW about areas with corrosive groundwater but there are no formally compiled records on these observations.
o Artesian—No information was noted by NRW for this question.
South Australia—There is limited information about the hydrogeological settings under which bore deterioration occurs, and in general, there
have been no formal assessments of bore deterioration to determine if geographical, geological or hydrogeological trends in deterioration
exist. Grundfos noted that deterioration often occurs in geographical areas where the quality of the groundwater is poor (for example, high
salinity, acid or alkaline pH) as aggressive groundwater effects the life of pumps used in bores. Arid Lands NRM noted that issues often
occur in the high heat, high pressure and sometimes corrosive aquifers of the Great Artesian Basin.
Tasmania (2)—The Department of Primary Industries and Water stated that bore deterioration is known to occur over a variety of
hydrogeological settings (including the basalts south of Burnie, Iron bacteria in Cambrian sediments and Tertiary sediments). However, it is
not clear whether this information is documented from investigations/audits or is anecdotal. Other respondents were unable to provide
details on the hydrogeological settings under which deterioration is taking place.
Victoria (4)—There is limited information available on the specifically identified hydrogeological setting under which bore deterioration is
occurring. In general, there have been no formal assessments of bore deterioration to determine if geographical, geological or
hydrogeological trends in deterioration exist. Evidence available is therefore mostly anecdotal. DPI noted that there is potential for a
decline in groundwater quality and failure of shallow bores mainly due to the drought. Southern Rural Water noted that bore deterioration
predominately occurs in open boreholes in fractured rock (e.g. basalt) and iron-rich groundwater.
Western Australia (5)—Stakeholder responses indicated that there is a relatively good understanding of hydrogeological settings for bore
deterioration in Western Australia. The Department of Environment and Conservation noted that the causes of bore deterioration varied at
different geographical locations (for example, cross-contamination at Gnangara Mound, iron bacteria in bores around Perth and acidic
water in bores within the wheat-belt regions). Department of Water also were able to provide details on the geographic locations where
deterioration is most likely to occur. Most stakeholders summarised under what conditions bore deterioration was most likely to occur (for
example, poor bore construction and aggressive groundwater chemistry).

Bore condition issues and deterioration processes
The most common bore condition and deterioration problems noted were bore or screen
clogging, corrosion, and screen siltation. Bore casing wall failure, buckling and blowouts were
also mentioned (and assumed to occur due to bore casing deterioration).
Bore condition issues varied amongst states and territories. Aggressive groundwater leading
to corrosion of bore casings was noted as a common cause across all states and territories.
Inappropriate construction of bores in areas of aggressive groundwater was also mentioned
as a cause of ‗accelerated‘ corrosion. Biological fouling (most commonly by iron bacteria) was
noted as a significant problem related to condition deterioration in Queensland, South
Australia, Western Australia and Victoria and chemical fouling was noted as an issue in
Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania. Siltation was reported as an
issue in South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania; however, only Queensland reported issues
with saline intrusion. Inappropriate maintenance (the wrong acids used to clear blockages) or
inadequate maintenance (to prevent root intrusion) were also identified as a contributing
factor.
Both South Australia and Victoria noted that bore failure through casing ‗buckling‘ and ‗blow-
out‘ as a common issue, declining water levels and altered pressure in bores was noted as
the cause of this issue. It was stated that this issue in South Australia and Victoria could be
related to declining groundwater levels during the past decade due to continued, prolonged
drought conditions in these states. A study conducted by the SA MDB NRM Board (2006) in
the Mallee Prescribed Wells Area identified iron bacteria issues to be widespread. Figure 10
indicates that, to varying degrees, groundwater bores in most ―H undreds‖ (see definition of
Hundred on page 174) of the Mallee Prescribed Wells Area are affected by iron bacteria.
Approximately 40 per cent of land owners (including irrigators and non-irrigators) surveyed by
SA MDB NRM Board (2006) reported iron bacteria issues (Figure 11).
Figure 10: Prevalence of iron bacteria within hundreds of the Mallee Prescribed Wells Area
Source: Adapted from SA MDB NRM Board (2006)
Prevalence of Iron Bacteria within Hundreds of the MPWA

35
30
% of Hundred with iron
25
bacteria
20
15
10
0
A
x
oo
t
a
rie
on
e
ld
sk
a
n
ry
n
e
ay
y
llia
len
d
s
PW
eu
ril
in g
so
ic
rk
tto
ic
b
or
Au
re
ar
da
Fi
rs
D
Pr
len
kw
Pa
Bi
ui
Be
Al
in
sf
es
Co
eb
nn
or
he
M
in
Q
ol
ng
Ke
Al
cG
Ch
Pe
M
Pi
cP
al
Ki
t
M
To
M
Hundre d

Figure 11: Mallee Prescribed Wells Area survey data
100
90
80
70
60
50
%
40
30
20
10
0
% of land ow ners surveyed % of land ow ners surveyed % of irrigators surveyed w ith % of non-irrigators surveyed
w ith iron bacteria issues trialing rehabilitation techniques iron bacteria issues w ith iron bacteria issues
f or identif ied iron bacteria
Source: Adapted from SA MDB NRM Board (2006)
For most stakeholders in all states and territories, the cost associated with bore maintenance,
repair and rehabilitation are considered the most significant issue associated with bore failure.
Loss of yield was also considered important, particularly for stock and domestic users and
farmers. Stakeholders involved in environmental management (such as government
departments) noted that cross-contamination of aquifers compromising the resource quality
(and possibly the quantity) was a significant potential issue.
Some patterns and trends in the causes of bore casing failure or deterioration was suggested.
SA Arid Land NRM noted that bore failure is often associated with extremes of pressure and
temperature within the Great Artesian Basin. Interestingly, a groundwater bore pump supplier
noted that bore deterioration is greater in areas where water quality is known to be poor. It
was suggested that trends and patterns in deterioration in Western Australia were related to
frequency of use (heavily allocated areas with greater deterioration), areas where
construction are inappropriate due to aggressive water chemistry and the intended use (rate
and frequency of extraction), and to general neglect of the bore asset.
The main impacts of bore deterioration noted were: cross-contamination of aquifers, yield
reduction, and financial implications for the repair and replacement of the deteriorated or
failed bore assets. Iron bacteria casing deterioration was also noted to be increasing in two
states.
Legacy issues associated with the need to replace steel casing was also mentioned by The
Department of Primary Industries and Water in Tasmania. Some stakeholders have measures
or other guidelines in place to enhance bore longevity, which relate to the choice of materials
and methods for construction. However, other stakeholders were not aware of measures to
enhance bore longevity, and the measures that were mentioned were related almost
exclusively to the construction of new bores, not the ongoing maintenance of those that
already exist.
A summary of the compiled responses from stakeholders is provided in Table 10. Table 11
provides a detailed account of the information that was obtained.

Table 10: Stakeholder consultation summary
Issue Act NSW Northern Territory Queensland South Australia Tasmania Victoria Western Australia
Age of Unknown Mostly <15 yrs Unknown Many old steel bores Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
groundwater bores
Number of bores Unknown 5 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
replaced
Number of bores Unknown 7 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown
re-lined
Number of bores Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown >150 Unknown >30 Unknown
impacted by
deterioration
Identified impacts Reduced Reduced quality Cross- Cross-contamination Reduced quality Reduced Reduced quality Reduced quality
of bore quantity and quantity, contamination of of aquifers, financial and quantity, quality, cross- and quantity, and quantity, cross-
deterioration (potentially cross- aquifers cost clogging, contamination casing contamination of
due to contamination of corrosion, of aquifers corrosion, aquifers, potential
drought aquifers siltation, bore screen impact on human
conditions) failure due to silting/blocking health
‗blow out‘
Bore deterioration Unknown Casing corrosion Failure of bore Iron bacteria, 66% iron fouling, Screen Corrosion of Chemical clogging,
issues and chemical casings. aggressive 33% aluminium corrosion, casings, screen biofouling, iron
precipitation. Significant repair groundwater, saline clogging and clogging from silting/blocking bacteria and acidic
Significant and replacement intrusion, corrosive hydrogen bacteria and and casing wall groundwater.
maintenance costs and groundwater in three sulphide fouling. siltation (in failure, bucking, Significant
and replacement compromised geographically distinct Significant older bores blowouts. To a replacement costs
costs integrity of the regions. Significant maintenance lesser extent and increased
resource rehabilitation and and replacement biological operational costs
replacement costs costs clogging.
Significant
maintenance
and replacement
costs

Causes of bore Unknown Poor water Aggressive Aggressive Corrosion due to Poor and Aggressive Poor water quality,
deterioration quality, groundwater groundwater and poor aggressive inappropriate groundwater and aggressive
inappropriate conditions water quality groundwater bore design, iron bacteria. groundwater,
bore corrode bore corrosion due Buckling caused inappropriate bore
construction casings to aggressive by declining construction,
groundwater groundwater ageing bores
levels and
altered bore
pressure
Hydrogeological Unknown Unknown Unknown Varied, but largely Mostly unknown. Varied Mostly unknown. Sedimentary
setting of identified unknown High Predominantly in aquifers
deterioration temperature, open boreholes (Leederville and
pressure and in fractured rock Yarragadee) in the
corrosive aquifers southwest
groundwaters.
Generally in
poor quality
groundwaters
Are bore Unknown— Some Unknown— Only in the gab, where Yes. Salt Unknown— Yes. Bores with Condition
deterioration assumed automated assumed that a bore rehabilitation interception assumed that identified issues monitoring has
processes that bore monitoring and bore condition is program has been scheme bores bore condition are regularly been undertaken in
monitored? condition is predictive not monitored implemented are monitored is not monitored inspected. Steel the past, mainly for
not modelling using for flow, bores are the artesian bore
monitored downhole discharge monitored for network.
equipment. pressure and condition every Groundwater
Downhole water level to 3 years and quality and level
camera monitor PVC bores monitoring is
inspection every performance. every 5 years. undertaken at
two to three Monitoring The condition of varying frequencies
years frequency varies headworks are (from once yearly
assessed during to every three
periodic bore years)
sampling

Are bore Unknown Unknown Unknown No formal reporting Yes, there is a Incidental Yes. Condition Yes. Formal and
deterioration requirements for non- formal reporting reporting only monitoring is incidental reporting
processes artesian bores. process to a database mandatory for is undertaken
documented? However there is a involving excel state mainly to
formal process for and other observation bore databases, but
artesian bores databases. network (SOBN) occasionally as
Pump condition bores. Includes audit and
noted upon record to assessment reports
repair or database
replacement (GMS), SOBN
monitoring
reports and DSE
decision process
Measures Unknown - Modified Increased use of Unknown - assumed Increased Modified bore Increased use of Unknown -
undertaken to assumed construction inert casing that no formal occurrence of construction inert casing assumed that no
increase bore that no methods and materials in measures currently in chemical methods. materials in formal measures
longevity formal materials. monitoring bores place treatment. Use Increased use monitoring currently in place
measures Increased use of of alternative of inert casing bores.
currently in inert casing bore casing materials. Implementation
place materials materials Preliminary of groundwater
attempts to management
develop asset strategies in
management declared
schemes protection areas
Are pro-active Unknown - No Fact sheets Fact sheets available Limited No Limited ADIA manual
measures in place assumed available on on websites. information information on referenced,
to educate users that no websites Responsibilities not available on website. Media although relevant
about bore measures clearly defined. Bores website. Field campaign information is
deterioration? are usually used until a guide available previously held limited
currently in problem is in SAAL NRM
place encountered; little to region
no preventative
maintenance

Table 11: Bore condition issues and deterioration processes—key findings
Questions posed to Stakeholder responses
stakeholders
What are the most Australian Capital Territory (1)—The information related to bore deterioration in the ACT is limited because there is no ACT monitoring network
common and no local utility managed borefields. Therefore, there was little information available related to bore condition issues and deterioration
condition/deterioration status in the ACT. The stakeholder (DECCEW) noted that it is not clear if reported issues with bore yield are due to bore deterioration or
problems reported with declining water levels due to drought. PVC is becoming the preferred material for bore construction to increase bore longevity.
bores?
New South Wales (2)—Stakeholders noted corrosion at welding joints in steel bores as a common bore case deterioration issue. The Department
of Water and Energy—casing corrosion and chemical precipitation.
Northern Territory (1)—Failure of bore casings.
Queensland (1)—
Non-artesian—NRW noted that the most common condition/deterioration problem was dependent on the geographical area and included
encrustation (Bowen) and aggressive water (tropics). Issues that are not location specific include saline intrusion and biological fouling.
Artesian—Corrosive groundwater was noted as the most common issue.
South Australia (3)—Clogging, corrosion, siltation, bore failure due to ‗blowout‘.
Tasmania (2)—The primary bore condition issues have been identified as screen corrosion, clogging from bacteria and siltation (in older bores).
Victoria (4)—Stakeholders noted a range of issues including corrosion of casings, screen silting and blocking and casing wall failure, bucking and
blowouts. To a lesser extent biological clogging was also noted as a condition issue.
Western Australia (5)—Stakeholders noted that bore deterioration and failure were mainly due to chemical clogging and encrustation (due to
water chemistry—iron, calcium, magnesium), corrosion and biological fouling (iron or sulfur bacteria).

stakeholders
What is the most likely Australian Capital Territory (1)—No information available.
cause of bore
New South Wales (2)—For the corrosion of welded joints, poor water quality (for example, high levels of dissolved carbon dioxide) and
deterioration?
inappropriate bore construction were considered the most likely causes of deterioration. For example, Murrumbidgee Groundwater Inc
considered that electrolysis caused by joining steel casings with stainless steel screens was considered a factor in deterioration.
Northern Territory (1)—Aggressive groundwater chemistry resulting in corrosion of bore casings.
Queensland (1)—
Non-artesian—Aggressive water and poor water quality were noted as the most likely causes of bore deterioration; however, there was no
specific information provided on the specific water chemistry responsible for encrustation or biological fouling.
Artesian—NRW noted carbon dioxide in groundwater, iron and sulphur reducing bacteria as the most likely causes.
South Australia (3)—Corrosion issues were attributed to aggressive groundwater including hypersaline water and hydrogen sulfide. Clogging
issues were attributed to iron, aluminium, carbonate deposition, biological slime and siltation.
Tasmania (2)—Poor and inappropriate bore design, corrosion of metal casing (from aggressive groundwater).
Victoria (4)—Aggressive groundwater chemistry was noted as the most likely cause of corrosion of bore casings. Declining water levels and
altered pressure in bores was noted as the cause of buckling and deformation of bore casings. Iron bacteria were considered the main cause
of biological fouling.
Western Australia (5)—Poor water quality/aggressive water chemistry (high mineral levels such as calcium, magnesium and iron, acidic pH),
inappropriate bore construction and the use of materials and methods not appropriate given the typically aggressive water chemistry were all
noted as significant causes of deterioration. Inappropriate (wrong acids used to clear blockages) or inadequate maintenance (to prevent root
intrusion) were also noted as a contributing factor. Department of Water noted that bore age was a significant factor in deterioration and The
Department of Environment and Conservation noted that deterioration was greatest in areas with the highest extraction (allocation).

stakeholders
What issues are Australian Capital Territory (1)—No information available.
associated with bore
New South Wales (2)—Riverina Water noted the costs associated with bore repair and replacement were important issues as was the linking and
deterioration?
subsequent cross-contamination of aquifers. Murrumbidgee Groundwater Inc noted interruption of water supply and the cost of repair and
(replacement cost to
replacement as significant issues. The Department of Water and Energy note connection of aquifers with dissimilar water quality.
users, etc.)
Northern Territory (1)—NRETAS stated that for the bore owner, reductions in yield and the cost to replace the bore are the main issues, whereas
for the authority, the main issues are increased connectivity between aquifers resulting in cross-contamination and thus the deterioration in
water quality and a compromise in the integrity of the resource.
Queensland (1)—NRW considers the cost of replacement or rehabilitation of bores as the main issue, especially for bores used for irrigation
purposes. A reduced yield due to reduced water levels is also an issue; reduced water levels can also lead to more aeration of the bore and
a subsequent change in water chemistry, which can further accelerate bore deterioration.
South Australia (3)—Replacement and maintenance costs were the most common issues identified by stakeholders. To a lesser extent,
increased power usage due to pressure loss, loss of yield and cross-contamination of aquifers were also noted as issues.
Tasmania (2)—No responses to this question.
Victoria (4)—The cost of replacement, maintenance and decommissioning was noted as the issues most frequently identified by the
stakeholders. To a lesser extent, security of water supply and cross-contamination of aquifers was also noted as important issues.
Western Australia (5)—Stakeholders noted replacement cost and increased operating costs (electricity to run pumps) as a primary issue
associated with bore deterioration. Yield reduction was considered an issue by two of the five stakeholders surveyed and cross-
contamination was noted as a significant issue by the Department of Water.

stakeholders
Is there a pattern/trend Australian Capital Territory (1)—No information available.
in the causes of bore
New South Wales (2)—The Department of Water and Energy noted corrosion problems are often associated with a combination of casing
failures and
material and groundwater quality. Lack of regular maintenance is common, except for borefields managed by water utilities.
deterioration? For
example, related to Northern Territory (1)—No information available
geographical location; Queensland (1)—No information available.
geology; owner neglect,
South Australia (3)—Grundfos noted that bore deterioration is greater in areas where water quality is known to be poor (for example, in areas of
type of bore
high salinity and low pH, which increases pump corrosion). SA Arid Lands NRM noted that bore failure is often associated with extremes of
construction, timescale,
and speed of pressure and temperature within the Great Artesian Basin. There were no other responses for this question.
deterioration, security of Tasmania (2)—No information available.
supply? Victoria (4)—Stakeholders did not indicate any obvious pattern or trend in the causes of bore failure and deterioration and no formal assessments
have yet been undertaken.
Western Australia (5)—Trends and patterns in deterioration were related to frequency of use (heavily allocated areas with greater deterioration),
areas where adopted construction methods are inappropriate due to aggressive water chemistry and the intended use (rate and frequency of
extraction) and bore neglect. Stakeholders also noted a link related to bore geography with different regions possessing different
deterioration issues and therefore rate of deterioration.

stakeholders
What are observed as, Australian Capital Territory (1)—No information available.
or would be the main
New South Wales (2)—The Department of Water and Energy noted:
impacts of
deterioration? changes to groundwater quality so not appropriate for extraction, or potentially inaccurate monitoring readingsand data collection
groundwater quantity loss (flow rate, pumping time, etc.)
contamination and leakage (to other aquifers or land contamination, impacts to other beneficiaries)
Northern Territory (1)—Cross-contamination of aquifers is considered the biggest issue by the NRETAS.
Queensland (1)—
Non-artesian—For the NRW bores, since the main users are farmers (for irrigation) the main impacts are considered to be the financial cost
associated with bore replacement and rehabilitation and reduced on-farm productivity due to reduced access to water.
Artesian—The main issue was noted as water loss from Great Artesian Basin aquifers to other, poorer quality aquifers as a result of bore
casing deterioration. Can also get hot water from Great Artesian Basin migrating into shallow aquifers and hence impacting shallow
bores.
South Australia (3)—The two main impacts of deterioration noted by stakeholders included changes in groundwater quality, so it was no longer
appropriate for the intended purpose, and decreases in groundwater yield.
Tasmania (2)—Stakeholders noted the main potential impacts from bore deterioration as reduced groundwater quality, contamination through
leakage into other aquifers and contamination of the soil and ground surface.
Victoria (4)—The main impacts of deterioration were considered to be groundwater quality and yield. For DSE, the main impact was the ability to
collect groundwater readings and in situ groundwater quality samples. Other stakeholders did not provide a response to this question.
Western Australia (5)—Stakeholders noted that poor water quality, including impacts on human health was a potential main impact as well as
reduced yield. Cross-contamination of aquifers was also indicated as a potential impact by both the The Department of Environment and
Conservation and the Department of Water.

stakeholders
Is there any indication of Australian Capital Territory (1)—No information available.
the issue severity in the
New South Wales (2)—None of the stakeholders were able to provide a definitive answer for this question.
longer-term? Is there a
legacy issue with large Northern Territory (1)—No response to this question
areas to be remediated Queensland (1)—No information available.
or localised (i.e. large
South Australia (3)—SA Arid Lands NRM noted that there was a legacy issue because large areas require remediation. Grundfos and SA Water
area of aged
noted that problems with iron bacteria are becoming more apparent; this may lead to greater bore maintenance issues in the future.
development, only
within certain aquifers in Tasmania (2)—The Department of Primary Industries and Water noted that there is a legacy issue for steel cased bores because 20 of the 70–80
small area or an government bores are still steel cased and these will eventually require replacement and rates of groundwater extraction increase.
emerging issue with Victoria (4)—DSE noted that of the long-term severity had been assessed through the SOBN management and capital replacement program.
development)? There were no other responses to this question.
Western Australia (5)—Only two stakeholders described the potential severity of deterioration issues in the longer-term. The Department of
Water indicated that their artesian network is aging and requires replacing and that a program is now in place to rectify the situation. The
Water Corporation noted that there is an increased iron bacteria issue in some county bore fields, and that there is also an issue with broad
scale land contamination, such as increased nitrate in groundwater associated with agricultural use.

stakeholders
What is being Australian Capital Territory (1)—No information available.
undertaken to maximise
New South Wales (2)—Riverina Water stated that construction methods and materials are being altered to reduce the rate of deterioration.
bore longevity?
Murrumbidgee Groundwater Inc. noted that their irrigators share their knowledge and in the past have invited specialists to the area to advise
on different techniques of cathodic protection. There is also an increased use of PVC and ABS bore casing. MGI also noted that some of the
original bores constructed without stainless steel screens (simple slotted m/s screen) have performed well and lasted the longest. This
method of construction has recently been used to mimic the longevity of earlier bores on one irrigation property.
Northern Territory (1)—NRETAS noted that they use inert materials (PVC) in monitoring bores because it reduces potential corrosion problems
and it is cost effective.
Queensland (1)—No information available.
South Australia (3—All of the stakeholders surveyed were able to provide information on actions being undertaken to maximise bore life.
Measures applied include chloride injection and acid dosing (maintenance) and selection of materials for the construction and design
considerations for new bores to reduce the risk of corrosion, reduced pressure and siltation. Grundfos also noted water testing to determine
the most appropriate pump required to successfully extract groundwater.
Tasmania (2)—The Department of Primary Industries and Water stated that gravel packs are now being used more frequently in bore
construction, and therefore they expect to see a decrease in problems with siltation. PVC casings are now also being used. The Department
of Primary Industries and Water also noted that fisheries have made early attempts to prepare asset management schemes.
Victoria (4)—The Department of Primary Industries stated that bore longevity is maximised by the use of inert materials and the implementation
of groundwater management strategies in declared water supply protection areas. Similarly, DSE noted that there are guidelines for the
construction of new monitoring bores.
Western Australia (5)—None of the stakeholders were able to supply a response to this question. This suggests that currently, there is no formal
measures in place to increase the longevity of the existing bore network.

Bore condition monitoring and reporting
Only a few stakeholders indicated that they have previously completed bore condition
monitoring and subsequently repeated it to determine the degree and extent of bore casing
deterioration.
More recently, regular bore casing deterioration monitoring is occurring for bore networks
managed by South Australia, Western Australia, NSW and Victoria. In Victoria, DSE is
monitoring bore casing condition every three years for steel bores and every five years for
PVC bores. In Western Australia, the Department of Environment and Conservation monitors
all bores at least once every few years; Water Corporation monitor on a yearly basis, and the
Department of Water stated that monitoring is undertaken periodically. NSW stakeholders
noted that camera inspections are carried out every two-three years. SA Water noted that
monitoring occurs regularly but the frequency varies.
Surrogate indicators, such as groundwater quality (and to a lesser extent yield and bore
recovery), are also used as an indicator of potential bore casing deterioration issues.
Methods used to undertake bore condition assessment were stated as downhole cameras
and specific downhole cable tools.
Victorian and Western Australian groundwater management stakeholders are recording the
condition of bore casing deterioration using databases and/or reports. However, stakeholders
in the other states and territories did not indicate having such reporting practice in place.
Where condition monitoring is occurring (Victoria and Western Australia), it is on a formal
basis—it is specified as part of the contractual requirements of bore monitoring contractors.
Incidental monitoring was also noted to be occurring in Victoria and Western Australia. The
other states and territories provided no information regarding whether incidental bore casing
condition issue identified are reported.

Table 12: Bore condition monitoring and reporting—key findings
Questions Posed To Stakeholder Responses
Stakeholders
Has the condition of bores Australian Capital Territory (1)—No information available
been monitored previously
New South Wales (2)—One respondent indicated No. No information available for other respondent.
and if so when? What
methods/techniques are Northern Territory (1)—No information available.
used? Queensland (1)—
Non-artesian—Typically bores used for irrigation and similar purposes are not monitored for water quality by the landowner and
therefore problems with a bore are only identified when it fails.
Artesian—Great Artesian Basin Sustainability Initiative (GABSI)—a bore rehabilitation program (in place since 1999), which is fixing up
uncontrolled artesian bores (installing headworks) and replacing earth drains with pipes. This is an ongoing program. Following
stage 1 of GABSI, an Aquifer Leakage Project was initiated where 100 bores were logged with downhole tools to evaluate the
extent of water loss from the Great Artesian Basin to other aquifers through the bore casing. A report on this work is pending.
South Australia (3)—
SA Water—Salt interception scheme bores for flow, discharge pressure and waterlevel to monitor performance.
DWLBC—Audit through the old arid areas.
Tasmania (2)—MRT—used to be monitored on regular basis; no other information.
Victoria (4)—The Department of Primary Industries (DPI) noted that an audit was undertaken in 2006; Southern Rural Water stated that
regular inspections are taken for bores for issues with reducing bacteria; DSE noted that condition monitoring has been undertaken
previously, some during regular maintenance but that this is limited to when possible issues identified, with no formal audit conducted to
date.
Western Australia (5)—Four out of five of the stakeholders surveyed indicated that condition monitoring has been undertaken in the past in
some form. The Department of Environment and Conservation noted that the nature of this monitoring depends on the individual
recovery catchment, of which there are seven in all. DoW noted that the artesian monitoring network has been monitored for condition,
but not the shallow aquifers. The Water Corporation stated that water quality is continuously monitored on a yearly basis with the bore
yields and drawdowns recorded monthly or more frequently. Not a lot of information was provided on the methods used for this
monitoring, with the exception that Bore Redevelopers provided a summary of the types of services they provide in this regard. The
Department of Environment and Conservation has reports available, which provides details on the condition monitoring undertaken in
each of the seven recovery catchments.

Stakeholders
If monitored, is it undertaken Australian Capital Territory (1)—No information available.
regularly/periodically? What
New South Wales (2)—Riverina Water – Camera inspection every two to three years, considering an automated monitoring and predictive
methods are used?
modelling using temperature and voltage sensors on pumps.
Northern Territory (1)—No information available.
Queensland (1)—
Non-artesian—Bore deterioration is not formally monitored by NRW and there is no specific maintenance program in place to assess
bore deterioration of NRW monitoring bores. NRW monitoring bores are routinely maintained (for example, for cleaning) and
monitored but not for bore deterioration; however, NRW may become aware of an issue through the routine monitoring and
maintenance process.
Artesian—No information available.
South Australia (3)—SA Water—regularly by SA Water staff, frequency varies.
Tasmania (2)—MRT—not known if currently done due to resource restraints.

Victoria (4)—Two of the four Victorian stakeholders were able to answer this question. DSE noted that steel bores are monitored for
condition every three years and PVC bores every five years. The Department of Primary Industries noted that the condition of
headworks are examined each monitoring run and that all bores periodically bailed and sampled.
Western Australia (5)—The frequency of monitoring varied between stakeholders, for example, The Department of Environment and
Conservation monitors all bores at least once every few years, Water Corporation monitor on a yearly basis. The Department of Water
stated that monitoring is undertaken periodically, but no further qualification was provided.
Is condition monitoring Australian Capital Territory (1)—No information available.
undertaken as a formal
New South Wales (2)—No information available.
process (where a defined
number of bores is selected Northern Territory (1)—No information available.
for monitoring and the Queensland (1)—
condition formally
Non-artesian—Bore deterioration is not generally reported by bore owners to NRW and no formal requirements for reporting. NRW may
documented and reported?) or
become aware that a bore needs to be replaced as a result of deterioration though the licensing/application system for resource
as incidental monitoring
development.
(where damage or
deterioration is only reported Artesian—NRW noted that there is a formal process, but no further details were provided.
when detected upon bore

Stakeholders
access? Are incidental South Australia (3)—SA Water - Formal reporting
observations formally Tasmania (2)—The Department of Primary Industries and Water—incidental
recorded?)
Victoria (4)—DSE noted that condition monitoring is mandatory part of the contract to monitor SOBN bores.
Western Australia (5)—The Department of Environment and Conservation, Department of Water, and Water Corporation all noted that bores
are monitored as a formal process (by the definition provided for this question). The Department of Environment and Conservation
noted that incidental condition monitoring is also undertaken. Other stakeholders did not provide a definitive answer to this question.
What kind of bore condition Australian Capital Territory (1)—No information available.
reporting is undertaken –
New South Wales (2)—None, however MGI is considering maintaining a register of bores in the area.
databases, reports,
assessments? Northern Territory (1)—No information available.
Queensland (1)—
Non-artesian—No process for recording bore deterioration issues of private owners.
Artesian—No formal reporting process, but NRW have the Great Artesian Basin Sustainability Initiative (GABSI) so bores in need of
rehabilitation get identified as a result of the GABSI (but not all bores are part of this program). Some reports for monitoring
programs have been undertaken under the aquifer leakage project.
SA Water—Excel and other databases, reported and assessed internally and externally reported papers, meetings, etc.
Grundfos—Condition of pumps documented in reports upon repair or replacement.
Tasmania (2)—The Department of Primary Industries and Water—database; MRT—information available only on old field sheets.
Victoria (4)—Two stakeholders were able to provide a response to this question. DSE noted that bore condition reporting, SOBN monitoring
reports, GMS, DSE decision process flow chart to appraise, determine necessary action, and direct reporting requirements were all
relevant. The Department of Primary Industries noted that database reporting takes place.
Western Australia (5)—All stakeholders indicated that results from bore condition monitoring is undertaken as one or all of databases, audit
reports and assessments. In most cases, the database is the primary means of bore condition reporting, only two stakeholders stated
that formal audit reports are produced.

Education
From stakeholder responses, it was determined that there is very limited public broadcast
information available to groundwater users for construction, condition assessment,
rehabilitation and maintenance purposes. In Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and the
Northern Territory, information that is or has been available to bore users is in the form of fact
sheets, web pages, targeted campaigns and referral advice to the other government
departments and the ADIA, but stakeholders noted that this information is not comprehensive,
consistent or current.
Planned and maintained education programs regarding bore casing deterioration processes,
risk and maintenance requirements is occurring to some extent by some of the consulted
groundwater management organisations. However, the occurrence of education and
awareness programs was limited to stakeholders in South Australia and Western Australia.
Education material, tools and methods employed to convey this information also varied
(factsheets, workshops, conference papers, direct discussions with clients). Information on
bore casing deterioration issues and impacts was often provided to the public only when
specifically requested. A groundwater pump supplier indicated that training and information
sessions are conducted for users and consultants: these sessions provide information on the
types of materials required, typical issues and how to address these, including pump
selection.
Aside from stakeholders in Victoria, the other stakeholders consulted indicated that they do
not provide or recommend guidelines for bore construction and licensing that is relevant or
tailored to local conditions to address known and potential bore casing deterioration risks.
Some stakeholders do receive and record direct enquires from bore users; however, the
response and information provided varies markedly. Those stakeholders who did note receipt
of queries from groundwater users cited that they did not have the resources or knowledge to
respond, and others provided a referral service, directing queries to other state and territory
departments, consultants or drilling contractors. Some stakeholders indicated that they were
not responsible for providong information and advice.
Regarding whether drillers promote or discuss rehabilitation options and explain construction
risk, most stakeholders were unaware what advice or recommendations drillers may be
providing to groundwater users in this regard.

Table 13: Education—key findings
Questions posed to stakeholders Stakeholder responses
Is there information readily Australian Capital Territory (1)—No information available.
available for groundwater users
New South Wales (2)—No
to assist in bore condition
assessment, Northern Territory (1)—Fact sheets available on the website.
operation/maintenance and Queensland (1)—
rehabilitation measures for bores
Non-artesian—NRW provide fact sheets on bore deterioration on the web. Landowners more aware of bore deterioration issues in
affected by a deterioration
groundwater management areas where NRW have contact with landowners.
process?
Artesian—NRW noted that an education program for landowners is needed, covering basic bore maintenance and owner
responsibilities (what the owner should do, what the owner can do, what the owner should get someone else to do).
SA Water—A two-page document on the DWLBC website, pamphlet on the web, but no official place to go for information, limited.
Grundfos—Yes, website with information available, state representatives available to contract for advice.
SA Arid Lands NRM—Yes, a field guide to bore maintenance was developed especially for pastoralists.
Tasmania (2)—The Department of Primary Industries and Water—currently no official information source exists within the organisation;
MRT—More education occurring pre-1970s, not aware of education currently running.
Victoria (4)—The Department of Primary Industries (DPI) and Southern Rural Water both noted that there is no information readily
available about bore deterioration, Southern Rural Water ran a bore deterioration media campaign a few years ago however nothing
since. G-MW stated that there is limited information available on their website, but the topic is not clearly defined. DSE stated that
there is no specific information, except for a few fact sheets available on bore casing deterioration processes.
Western Australia (5)—In general, stakeholders noted that the information available on bore deterioration for groundwater users was
limited. The Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) refer to the ADIA manual and noted that there is some information
in this manual on maintenance, but it is not comprehensive. DEC also stated that they do not have bore deterioration and
maintenance information fact sheets for the public as this is more of an issue for the Department of Agriculture and Food (DAFWA).
Bore Redevelopers educate clients and potential clients on bore deterioration and how to remediate; however, they also noted that
there is limited information available to the public on bore deterioration, effects and remediation options. Bore Redevelopers like DEC
noted that the ADIA Handbook had limited information to assist people with bore deterioration issues. Water Corporation stated that
the corporation has expertise to advise on bore condition assessments and remedial processes.

Is the organisation proactive in Australian Capital Territory (1)—No information available.
the education of bore use, risk
New South Wales (2)—Murrumbidgee Water Inc noted that some knowledge sharing takes place, but no further information was
and maintenance? If so how?
provided.
Northern Territory (1)—NRETA—Not proactive about educating users, provide information only when approached.
Queensland (1)—No proactive measures. In general, the majority of bore owners just use the bore until it stops working/quality no longer
good and deal with the problem then rather than routinely carry out maintenance.
SA Water—Papers, conferences, meetings with clients.
Grundfos—Training and information sessions run for users and consultants. Providing information on the type of materials required
and typical issues and how to address these, including pump selection.
Tasmania (2)—The Department of Primary Industries and Water—Future plans for workshops, induction for drilling licensing,
hydrogeological maps that indicate high risk of siltation regions.
Victoria (4)—None of the stakeholders are currently proactive in education of bore use, risk and maintenance. DSE indicated that there is
some limited info provided to the public on an ad hoc basis and that a website revamp is currently underway to include groundwater
information including factsheets and media releases.
Western Australia (5)—Only two out of the five stakeholders surveyed stated that their organisation was proactive about education of
bore user risk and maintenance. Water Corporation stated that they have asset plans and borefield operation plans, but they are
more likely for internal use than for public education purposes. Bore Water Redevelopers stated that their company has been
involved in the publishing of papers on the subject and have been directly approached by companies on the issue.
Are there any local guidelines Australian Capital Territory (1)—No information available.
(aside from national guidelines
New South Wales (2)—No.
for construction) for bore
construction and licensing local Northern Territory (1)—No specific guidelines only some info for specific requirements that must be met.
to you area and conditions? Queensland (1)—
Non-artesian—NRW role is resource protection not bore rehabilitation. They achieve resource protection through the ‗Minimum
construction requirements for water bores in Australia‘ and driller licensing. NRW also have Queensland bore construction
standards for artesian bores. The construction standards are for resource protection not for consumer protection against bore
deterioration.
Artesian—South Australia has a manual of basic info about Great Artesian Basin bores.
South Australia (3)—SA Water, Grundfos and Arid Land NRM have no guidelines.

Tasmania (2)—None noted.
Victoria (4)—G-MW noted that guidelines exist for bore construction in the Shepparton Irrigation Region. DPI noted that there are local
guidelines used (bore construction) for the Rural Water Authorities operating under the state Water Act.
Western Australia (5)—Only one stakeholder (Water Corporation) provided a response to this question. Water Corporation stated that the
drilling consultancy used by the stakeholder has guidelines for bore construction. It was also noted that different organisations are
responsible for different aspects of the bore commissioning process.
Do you receive direct queries Australian Capital Territory (1)—No information available.
from groundwater users?
New South Wales (2)—Not that respondents are aware of.
Northern Territory (1)—NRETAS—user enquiries only occur occasionally.
South Australia (3)—SA Water and Arid Land NRM receive direct queries from groundwater users.
Tasmania (2)—Queries from users on the topic are received; not enough resources to answers questions asked.
Victoria (4)—DPI receives many queries about bore condition; however, the topic was considered as 'not their responsibility'. Southern
Rural Water receives queries from users; however, there are no details on how enquiries are handled. Enquiries to G-MW are
referred to drillers or the DSE website. DSE get some direct queries from users that are then forwarded to the DSE GMS contractor.
Western Australia (5)—Only the Department of Water indicated that they receive direct enquiries from groundwater users.
Do drillers promote rehabilitation Australian Capital Territory (1)—No information available.
techniques/experience in bore
New South Wales (2)—Not usually, drillers benefit from drilling new bores as required (additional business).
rehabilitation and construction
risk? Northern Territory (1)—No information available.
Queensland (1)—NRW noted that there is a need for education program for landowners and for drillers, as both of these groups appear
to have a limited understanding of what poor water quality could do to a bore, what a properly constructed bore should look like, and
the improper use of pumps.
South Australia (3)—None of the stakeholders were able to answer this question.
Tasmania (2)—None of the stakeholders were able to answer this question.
Victoria (4)—DPI is aware of some drillers promoting rehabilitation.
Western Australia (5)—None of the stakeholders were able to answer this question.

Associated costs (social, environmental and economic)
There is a moderate level of understanding for stakeholders in all states and territories on
what the social, environmental and economic costs of bore deterioration are. In general,
government agencies have an appreciation of the environmental costs, whereas it was
considered that for private users, economic costs were more important. Government agencies
in some stages noted that there is a significant capital cost to replace deteriorated bores.
The stakeholders surveyed have limited knowledge on the specific costs associated with
rehabilitation of bores and bore replacement; only stakeholders in South Australia, Western
Australia and Victoria were able to provide detailed estimates for some of these costs.
Apart from DSE in Victoria, stakeholders consulted did not have programs in place to factor
and take account of ongoing maintenance costs (such as cathodic protection) or bore
replacement costs. DSE has specifically developed a business plan for the asset
maintenance of environmental monitoring bores it is responsible for.

Table 14: Associated costs—key findings
stakeholders
What are the social, Australian Capital Territory (1)—No information available.
economic and environmental
New South Wales (2)—Overall, NSW stakeholders were not able to provide a definitive response, however, MGI noted that the economic cost
implications of bore
of bore replacement to users is large, with replacement of a bore sometimes costing as much as several hundred thousand dollars.
deterioration in your area?
Northern Territory (1)—No costing conducted on the issue, not considered a large enough issue to warrant an investigation.
Queensland (1)—
Non-artesian—Not assessed by NRW for non-artesian bores. No quantitative information recorded on this.
Artesian—Loss of bore control (due to improper maintenance of headworks) leads to water wastage and scalding of ground surface (salt)
and weed growth (environmental). The main issue is water loss from Great Artesian Basin aquifers to other, poorer quality aquifers as
result of bore casing deterioration. Can get hot water from Great Artesian Basin migrating into shallow aquifers and hence affecting
shallow bores.
South Australia (3)—SA Water stated that bore deterioration is economically significant to irrigators as there is little resulting crop damage.
For town supplies, it is the cost of production and loss of production. Arid Land NRM noted that depressurisation of the Great Artesian
Basin when trying to take measures to increase the pressure is a main issue.
Tasmania (2)—The Department of Primary Industries and Water stated that the details of costing methods and practices relating to bore
deterioration unknown. No other answers were provided.
Victoria (4)—The Department of Primary Industries (DPI) acknowledged that there are many and varied associated costs associated with bore
abandonment and failed enterprises from cost penalties of sinking deeper bores, resetting pumps, etc. to wider impacts on groundwater
resources. Southern Rural Water noted costs of bore deterioration not factored in and identified potential environmental impact as drilling
rigs without proper cleaning between sites, when re-drilling of collapsed bores can spread Iron-related bacteria.
Western Australia (5)—Only two stakeholders provided answers to this question. The Department of Water noted that financial costs included
costs to the taxpayer for capital works replacement. Bore Water Redevelopers noted that the impact of less water production from bore
deterioration could result in additional water resources being required, although it is not clear from the response if this is seen as a social,
economic or environmental implication of bore deterioration.
Have there been estimates Australian Capital Territory (1)—No information available.
of the costs involved 1) to
New South Wales (2)—No detailed responses were available for this question.
users due to bore
deterioration or 2) costs to Northern Territory (1)—No costing conducted on the issue, not considered a large enough issue to warrant an investigation.
rehabilitate bores? Queensland (1)—Not assessed by NRW for sub-artesian bores, no qualitative information recorded on this issue.

stakeholders
SA Water—Cost of $10,000 to rehabilitate a bore, energy cost of $1000 for every 10 metres of head loss, cost of a chlorination systems,
re-drilling are in excess of $30,000–$40,000.
Arid Land NRM—Apparently estimated, but no further details provided.
Tasmania (2)—The Department of Primary Industries and Water—Details of costing methods and practices relating to bore deterioration
unknown. MRT—Question in this section not answered.
Victoria (4)—DPI noted that the costs incurred by users or users not factoring in costs due to bore deterioration are not known. DSE stated
that they interrogate the SOBN records to determine project bore maintenance and rehabilitation and decommissioning costs, with these
costs factored into funds (requested/earmarked).
Western Australia (5)—Three of the five stakeholders surveyed were able to provide a response to this question. The Department of Water
noted that the approximate value of the asset (bore network) based on the cost to replace the system is approximately $130 million. The
Department of Water also noted that there was an annual cost of approximately $3 million to replace and rehabilitate bores. Bore Water
Redevelopers stated that there is little information available to them on the full extent of bore deterioration to make an assessment of
rehabilitation costs. Bore Water Redevelopers applied for a government grant to fund research and development into the detection of
borehole deterioration and management techniques, but this grant was not approved. Water Corporation noted that no specific estimates
of costs have been made, but that less water production and increased cost to rehabilitate bores is included in increased operational or
capital budgets for the bore fields.
Are organisations factoring Australian Capital Territory (1)—No information available.
in maintenance/ongoing
costs or bore replacement
costs? Northern Territory (1)—No information available.
Queensland (1)—Not assessed by NRW for sub-artesian bores, no qualitative information recorded on this issue.
South Australia (3)—SA Water noted that SA Water and the Murray–Darling Basin Commission often factor in costs but that farmers and
other users often lack knowledge and do not factor in costs.
Tasmania (2)—No information available.
Victoria (4)—DSE continues to identify, request and earmark funds for these activities. The extent of activities undertaken each year is
determined by state and Commonwealth funding.
Western Australia (5)—None of the Western Australian stakeholders were able to provide a response to this question, indicating that little is
known or is being done to factor in maintenance costs or bore replacement costs.

Forward planning (management of future issues)
In general, there is little active management of bore casing deterioration to address potential
future issues. This was often attributed to lack of resources (funding) available to be more
proactive.
A number of the stakeholders indicated that they were somewhat reliant on the use of
minimum construction standards (embedded design, construction methods, and material
specifications) to address any potential or actual bore casing deterioration risks. These
standards are relatively new and so it is not yet known whether these standards will directly or
indirectly reduce the problems with bore deterioration. It was also noted that, overall, these
standards were not designed to consider the range of potential bore casing deterioration
processes that can occur. Bore decommissioning and abandonment guidelines are also
referred to accordingly.
South Australian stakeholders indicated that they have a bore maintenance and condition
management program. Bore deterioration is actively managed or planned to occur through
regular condition monitoring, repair of damaged bores, user education and updates to
frameworks and guidelines for construction and material selection. In Western Australia,
stakeholders also have in place a regular management program to identify and address bore
casing deterioration problems. Bore redevelopment programs occur through the management
of bore casing deterioration processes; utilising video inspection techniques, chemical
treatment, and surging or brushing.
Two stakeholders in Western Australia also indicated that management and maintenance
options are in place to manage bore deterioration, with the Water Corporation stating that
management activities (condition assessment, bore repair and redevelopment, education) are
planned.
Victorian stakeholders also indicated that bore condition monitoring and assessment is
planned via monitoring contract requirements, with a new program specified in the state‘s
bore monitoring program business plan. Damage to bores is to be assessed as part of the risk
management process. As most of the bores in such a program would be state-owned
groundwater monitoring and observation bores, there would be little benefit in educating users
on such a program.

Table 15: Forward planning (management of future issues)—key findings
stakeholders
What management options Australian Capital Territory (1)—No information available.
are in place to address the
problem of bore deterioration?
Northern Territory (1)—No management structure exists in relation to this topic.
Queensland—(1)
Non-artesian—Managed through the minimum construction standards. The standards are relatively new and so NRW is yet to see
whether these standards will help reduce the problems with bore deterioration (but remember they are not designed for this purpose).
No plans specific to bore deterioration at present.
Artesian—Use of the bore construction standards ‗Minimum standards for the construction and reconditioning of water bores that
intersect the sediments of artesian basins in Queensland‘, Queensland Government NRM (2004).
South Australia (3)—SA Water noted that there are guidelines on materials for bore construction and abandonment and statutory controls on
bore construction and abandonment (Australian Standards). SA Arid Lands NRM noted that there are statutory controls on bore
construction and abandonment, active rehabilitation program.
Tasmania (2)—The Department of Primary Industries and Water (DPIW) noted that there is ad hoc storage of information, and drillers must
adhere to Australian Standards.
Victoria (4)—The Department of Primary Industries (DPI) is largely unaware of any existing or planned management structures in relation to
issue. Impediment to management of the problem is associated with a lack of funds. Southern Rural Water stated that no management
strategies exist to deal with the issue. The web site is currently being updated to include information about bore deterioration in relation to
iron reducing bacteria. G-MW noted that management strategies are focused around the Shepparton Irrigation Region only. There are
incentive programs in the Shepparton Irrigation Region under the Goulburn Broken CMA Regional Catchment Strategy. Impediments to
management are associated with lack of funds and resources, unknown locations of bores and the owner‘s will to decommission bores.
Western Australia (5)—Four of the five stakeholders supplied an answer to this survey question. The Department of Environment and
Conservation stated that training is provided for different recovery catchment groups on how construct a bore to avoid deterioration. A
bore census was undertaken in 2007 for the Lake Tooliban bores. This census found that 20 per cent of bores are giving inaccurate
monitoring readings or are not applicable to the aims of the monitoring. The Department of Water stated that management options
included improved construction techniques and material selection as well as correct decommissioning. Bore Water Redevelopers stated
that they were not aware of any existing monitoring programs being undertaken by government agencies; similarly, Water Corporation
stated that this question was more applicable to the regulator (Department of Water).

stakeholders
Is there any regularised Australian Capital Territory (1)—No information available.
management or maintenance
program in place for the
management of the Northern Territory (1)—No management structure exists in relation to this topic.
deterioration? Queensland (1)—
Non-artesian—Managed through the minimum construction standards. The standards are relatively new and so are yet to see whether
these standards will help reduce the problems with bore deterioration (but remember they are not designed for this purpose). No
plans specific to bore deterioration at present.
SA Water actively undertakes management.
Arid Land NRM – Funding or other financial assistance—trying to look at a ‗bore assurance scheme‘ but this needs in principle support
from the minister before it can be developed, this has not yet occurred.
Tasmania (2)—DPIW plans to educate users and provide or update the framework and guidelines for construction methods, material selection
and operations and maintenance.
Victoria (4)—No responses to this question.
Western Australia (4)—Two stakeholders indicated that there are management and maintenance options in place to manage bore
deterioration. The Department of Water noted that the improved materials being used will increase the life expectancy of the bores
fivefold. Water Corporation stated that management actions implemented are customised to the individual bore field. For example, for the
Perth Metropolitan shallow bores there is a regular assessment, and bore redevelopment program utilising video inspection, chemicals
and treatment and surging/brushing.
Are the following Australian Capital Territory (1)—No information available.

management activities, or
others, planned to occur:
undertake condition Northern Territory (1)—No management structure exists in relation to this topic.
monitoring or assessments; Queensland(1)—
repair damage to selected
Non-artesian—Managed through the minimum construction standards. The standards are relatively new and so are yet to see whether
bores; to educate users;
these standards will help reduce the problems with bore deterioration (but remember they are not designed for this purpose). No
provide or update framework
plans specific to bore deterioration at present.
and guidelines for
construction methods, Artesian—Findings from aquifer leakage project will eventually be used as input into new minimum construction standards for artesian
material selection bores. Previously no consistent method of gathering and collating information, but databases are being implemented to help with this.
This information can then be used to put conditions on bore construction to help minimise issues. Materials audit soon to be

stakeholders
undertaken of bores under Great Artesian Basin Sustainability Initiative (GABSI).
South Australia (3)—SA Water—All management activities listed in the questionnaire occur.
Tasmania (2)—DPIW noted that there is a lack of resources available to undertake management activities.
Victoria (4)—DSE stated that condition monitoring and assessment is planned via monitoring contract requirements and new program
specified in the business plan. There is a low requirement to educate users because bores are mostly monitoring bores. Damage to bores
is to be assessed as part of the risk management process.
Western Australia (5)—Only the Water Corporation was able to provide an answer for this question, stating that all measures listed in the
questionnaire are planned and done to some extent.
What are the impediments to Australian Capital Territory—No information available.
optimal management of the
problem?
Northern Territory (1)—No management structure exists in relation to this topic.
South Australia (3)—SA Water—Information and resources and the lack of a management body that is Australia wide.
Tasmania (2)—Lack of resources
Victoria (4)—DPI noted that impediments to optimal management of bore deterioration include lack of funds to undertake maintenance or
replace bores. G-MW noted the same impediments and also that there is a lack of resources, bore locations are often unknown and that
owners‘ will to decommission bores is also a problem.
Western Australia (5)—Only Water Corporation had a response to this question, stating that area extent of the borefields and variable skill
level of operators are the major impediments to management of this problem.

Information and knowledge gaps
The following table provides a summary of areas where significant data gaps were noted.
This summary is based on the detail of responses provided for each of the sub-themes to the
stakeholder questionnaire, with the gaps identified from the level of detail provided for
questions within each sub-theme. The level of data gaps is categorised according to the
following definitions:
 Very Low—very little information available for areas covered in this sub-theme,
information is disjointed and hard to access, significant data gaps and further work
required in this area.
 Low—little information available for areas covered in this sub-theme, significant data gaps
and further work required in this area.
 Medium—moderate level of information available, further work required.
 High—information provided is relatively comprehensive, demonstrating a good
understanding of issues in this sub-theme.
Further information on specific data gaps are summarised in the separate subsections for
each theme in the sections above.
Table 16: Knowledge gaps identified from stakeholder responses

Sub-theme Level of knowledge of stakeholders
Bore deterioration status Medium—quantification of the extent of deterioration not widely known
– jurisdiction, region, area but occurrence was. Stakeholders have a good general knowledge of
understanding of extent groundwater users affected. Information on the hydrogeological setting
in which deterioration was occurring was also generally known.
Bore condition issues and Low to Medium—for most questions, there were gaps in the knowledge
deterioration processes of the respondents. In particular, for the last five questions in this sub-
theme, many states and territories were not able to provide any
information. Records of occurrence and observations, information on the
analysis of trends and activities to understanding long-term affects was
low.
Bore condition monitoring Very Low to Low—Minimal responses were received or there was only
and reporting very limited bore condition monitoring and reporting. Some reactive and
incidental monitoring was identified. Condition monitoring and reporting
was noted as not being part of bore asset management program.
Education Very Low—There is little information available to bore users that is easy
to access and fully comprehended, especially for farmers and other
private users. Many organisations either were not aware of or had not
identified the need for and value of providing information, advisory
service or keeping a record to assess the extent of bore deterioration
occurrence.
Associated costs Very Low—Most states and territories provide no or very limited
information for this sub-theme. Western Australia could be assigned a
‗medium‘ based on responses and South Australia, a ‗medium to high‘
ranking. Aside from DSE, the other stakeholders were unable to provide
a detailed answer on how on-going costs for maintenance of bores are
factored in budgets.
Forward planning and Low—There is little active management of bore deterioration to address
management issues potential future issues, this was often attributed to lack of resources
available to be more proactive, which was taken to mean a lack of funds
and staff. Western Australia, South Australia and Victoria could be
assigned a ranking of medium for this sub-theme.

3.4 Bore condition assessment reports and
databases
Of the stakeholder interviews completed to date, no reports on bore condition assessments
have been supplied for review. In addition, only one of the stakeholders who were interviewed
has provided groundwater database details on the collection and storage of bore information
to facilitate assessing bore casing deterioration.
Therefore, this part of Phase 1 has been restricted to evaluating only the groundwater
database details provided by that one stakeholder.
3.4.1 Appraisal of existing groundwater databases for bore

condition aspects
DSE (Victoria) operates and maintains an extensive groundwater database (more than
120,000 bores) called the Groundwater Management System (GMS). A list of the current
GMS codes and definitions was provided to appraise how information collected and stored for
each bore can be used to undertake a qualitative (quantitative) evaluation of the extent and
current status of bore casing deterioration. A listing of all the GMS codes and definitions is
provided in Appendix D.
The following GMS codes and definitions were identified relevant to monitor record and
determine bore condition in order to characterise and determine the risks of bores potentially
affected by bore casing deterioration impacts.
Specific codes to define and characterise bore construction details:

 lining material (for both casing and screened lengths of the bore)—for example, stainless
steel, mild steel, steel, bronze, copper, PVC (class), fibreglass
 inner lining—casing, screen, slotted screen
 outer lining—cement, bentonite, seal, packer, gravel
 seal type—rubber, steel, bentonite, no seal
 drilling technique (construction method)—for example, rotary, mechanical auger, cable
tool, rotary (air mud).
Specific codes to assist with assessing bore condition:

 qualifier code (with respect to bore water quality)—for example, dirty sample,
contaminated, sediment, oxidised iron
 condition—for example, external influences, doubt about accuracy, bore destroyed, bore
dry, access and equipment problems, bore has caved in, no water left, saline bore, bore
flooded, maintenance required, site and bore works done, casing blocked or bent
 maintenance method or activity carried out—for example, routine, pumping test,
datalogger
 trace (bore logging activity)—calliper, camera, temperature, sonic, neutron
Specific codes to characterise hydrogeological setting:

 lithology code—for example, clay, silt, basalt, ironstone, gypsum, limestone; and
 formation—specific aquifer or stratigraphic unit—for example, Otway Group, Older
Volcanics, Muddy Creek Marl.

The range of bore codes where information is collected for the GMS provides information on
construction details, actual bore condition and hydrogeological settings that can be used in
search criteria algorithms to identify:
 current bores with an existing bore casing deterioration problem
 historical bores that exhibit bore casing deterioration issues
 patterns and trends of bore casing deterioration as a result of bore construction materials
and / or construction methods and age
 patterns and trends of bore casing deterioration occurring as a result of hydrostratigraphic
or hydrogeochemisty processes
 category and rank of bores on the basis of the risk and likelihood of developing bore
casing deterioration issues.
The following additional groundwater database bore codes are initially suggested to be
collected in aid of evaluating and monitoring the extent of bore casing deterioration and to
provide quantitative information in respect of capital rehabilitation, replacement or bore
decommissioning costs for business planning purposes:
 bore rehabilitation and redevelopment works code—screen flushed, disinfection, chemical
treated, cathodic protection, mechanical scrubbing
 condition code—screen fouling (microbial, chemical, positional).
3.5 Historical bore construction methods and

materials review
A review of historical techniques for bore construction, including material selection and use is
presented. This review considers how construction techniques and materials available for
production (and monitoring) bores have changed over time, with the aim of highlighting some
of the developments, improvements and experiences during the past 60 years.
The assessment also explores issues of varying performance of water bores due to the
selection of materials and understanding the nature and quality of the groundwater resource
being utilised.
Specifically the historical review covers the following aspects:

 regulatory framework and groundwater legislation
 developments in bore design, materials, and construction techniques
 current groundwater bore design and materials selection
 drilling and construction techniques
 future challenges for bore design construction and management.
There have been a number of research documents, bore design and construction guidelines
and specific drilling regulations written to date, which provide valuable information on some of
the problems encountered with groundwater bores. These aim to provide improved quality
control in construction techniques and materials selection for groundwater utilisation
schemes. A bibliography of publications currently available containing relevant information on
bore design, construction, rehabilitation and decommissioning is also provided in Appendix E.

3.5.1 Regulatory framework and groundwater legislation
During the late 1800s and early 1900s, there was a rapid increase in groundwater bores
constructed in the aquifers now known as the Great Artesian Basin. The Great Artesian Basin
is one of the largest groundwater reservoirs in the world and covers almost a fifth of the total
area of Australia, underlying substantial areas of Queensland, Northern Territory, New South
Wales and South Australia. This massive water resource, that was often artesian and of
suitable quality for agricultural and human use, was being developed and utilised rapidly in
the early 1900s. However, there were also problems of water wastage and declining
watertable pressures due to inadequacies of some of the drilling techniques and bore
construction methods used, as well as longer-term casing corrosion problems.
Prior to 1896, the legal regulation of groundwater use was governed by Common Law,
transferred from the system applied in England. It soon became apparent that this type of
regulation was not going to be suitable or relevant for the long-term development of
Australia‘s groundwater resources. Accordingly, the different states and territories developed
their own separate Acts, Regulations and licensing systems, introduced over a time frame
spanning approximately 70 years, to regulate groundwater extraction and use.
the NSW Artesian Wells Act 1897 was the first Act relating specifically to groundwater
extraction—it provided assistance to construct bores that supply a number of adjacent
properties. This was followed by the NSW Water Act 1912, which eventually provided for
statewide bore licensing, bore construction standards and also licensing for drillers.
In Queensland, the Rights in Water and Water Conservation and Utilisation Act 1910 added
some control to drilling and constructing artesian bores and the Water Act 1926 made further
provisions for licensing and bore construction standards.
Western Australia departed from Common Law regulation in 1914.
In Victoria it was not until 1969 that a water Act was released and incorporated groundwater
development and use.
South Australia had no state-wide legislation for groundwater bores until the Water Resources
Act 1976, which defined prescribed areas of the Great Artesian Basin where special driller
licensing was required.
The widely varying time frames for states departing from Common Law controls to state
legislation and producing technical guidelines and information regarding groundwater
development and licensing resulted in a substantial amount of valuable information being
published and utilised.
In 1997 the ‗Minimum Construction Requirements for Water Bores in Australia‘ manual was
published and this document has been accepted and used widely in industries across
Australia involved in groundwater development. This manual was the result of a significant
effort made between ADIA and representatives from all states and the Northern Territory to
combine the vast amount of knowledge and experience gained to publish technical
documentation on a national basis with guidelines for the drilling industry and those involved
in the development of groundwater resources.
Also, a significant amount of technical knowledge and experience was available from the
United States with its long history in constructing and operating water bores and oil wells. This
experience was valuable in bore design and effectiveness of utilising groundwater resources
in areas that were typically marginal for economic agricultural use and mining related water
supplies. Drilling and hydrogeological information was collated into standards, guidelines and

numerous other publications to assist with water bore design and construction methods that
not only provide good quality yields, but would also control the flows from artesian bores and
prevent wastage of water and contamination of the aquifers.
3.5.2 Developments in bore design, materials and

construction techniques
During the 1950s and 1960s, there was significant ongoing development and utilisation of the
substantial groundwater resources of Australia‘s major basins, including the Great Artesian
Basin, Murray–Darling Basin, Carnarvon Artesian Basin, Perth Basin, Otway and Gippsland
basins, and others for agriculture, mining and urban supply. Cable tool drilling was prevalent
early in the century and the predominant material used for bore casing was carbon steel. In
order to provide the mechanical strength required for driving the casing into deeper bores, the
benefits of using of high grade and high strength steels were soon recognised in the drilling
industry. This led to the standardisation, manufacture and use of Australian Water Well
(AWW) casing, having a yield strength of 350 megapascals and Whitworth form tapered
threads. There were, however, issues with availability due to this being a speciality steel
product, and to run it in smaller quantities or at short notice was not always viable for the
manufacturer. The use of this higher strength steel when it was sourced also provided more
effective corrosion resistance than the mild steels or other low-grade steel tube materials.
Bores constructed of mild steel and perforated or slotted casing for the water intake areas
were common prior to the 1940s, but these were particularly vulnerable to corrosion: in some
areas service life could often be only 5–10 years. Bronze screens were available in Australia
from the late 1940s, and the corrosion resistant bronze was utilised for high production
industry, agricultural and town supply bores.
In 1964, wedge wire design stainless steel bore screens were first manufactured and supplied
in Australia for a project in the Darling Downs—they quickly gained popularity for their
corrosion resistance and reasonable cost. Stainless screens are also efficient for water
inflows providing a large percentage of open area.
An Australian Standard for steel casing applicable for use in bores was prepared to increase
the quality control aspects of water bore design. In 1979, AS 1396 – Steel Water Bore Casing
outlined the chemical and mechanical criteria required for steel bore casing, one of the criteria
being the minimum yield strength of 350 megapascals.
In the 1980‘s steel slimline threaded casing was produced to replace AWW casing in
Australia, and this pipe was male threaded each end requiring collars for joining the lengths.
The threads were American National Standard Taper and were interchangeable with threaded
line pipe produced to the American Petroleum Institute Standard API 5L. Slimline was not so
popular for cable tool drilling work due to problems with the collar joints, soAWW threaded
was reintroduced. Availability remained a significant issue.
From the 1980s and onward, the use of stainless steel wire wound screens became prevalent
throughout the drilling industry due to better availability, reductions in cost, increase in open
area and corrosion resistance. Today screens are available in stainless grades of 304, 316
and, for very corrosive environments, 904L. Galvanised steel wedge wire screens are also
available, but these have a shorter service life than stainless screens and are rarely used for
water bores in Australia. These screens are constructed from mild steel and would be
susceptible to corrosion once the zinc coating is damaged.
Stainless steel pipe for casing was available, but the cost of using this material was very high.
This factor restricted it‘s the utilisation of stainless steel other than for extremely corrosive
waters and deep bores.

The use of unplasticised PVC pipes for bore casing gained popularity throughout the 1970s
and 1980s to present, particularly for shallow stock and domestic bores due to its
comparatively low cost, light weight and corrosion resistance. The casing is often solvent
welded with stainless screws supporting joints, allowing quicker installation, or by using
threaded joints. This material is produced to AS/NZS 1477, and has proved durable over time;
however, it can deteriorate through long periods of ultraviolet (UV) exposure and requires
significant strength de-rating with any increased temperatures due to groundwater or cement
grouting of the casing. It is not recommended for service temperatures over 60ºC.
ABS is another thermoplastic that was introduced to the Australian drilling industry and water
reticulation industries in the 1980s. This material also provides corrosion resistance, but it
loses significant strength due to elevation in temperature above the standard 20ºC. It also
needs to be protected from exposure to UV over a long period of time. ABS is manufactured
to comply with AS/NZS 3518 Part 1 and Part 2. Generally it is more costly than unplasticised
PVC and therefore its use has not been as prevalent in bore construction projects.
In the early 1980‘s glass filament reinforced plastic (GRP) casing was used by the South
Australian Department of Mines and Energy for the construction of deep, bores into the Great
Artesian Basin for high temperature and corrosive environments. The manufacture in
Australia of bore casing from GRP commenced in the mid-1980s, and the product was quickly
accepted and successfully used by water authorities, industry and mining clients throughout
Australia, particularly where corrosion problems had previously existed. Due to the higher
cost of the casing, the use of steel and unplasticised PVC continued for a large number of
water bores being constructed by private landholders. GRP was not only corrosion resistant,
but could be used in temperatures from –60ºC to +80ºC without significant strength de-rating.
The casing installation time was reduced due to quick-lock cable and groove joining
mechanisms. There is only a slight strength reduction in GRP required for temperatures up to
85ºC, which is an obvious benefit for use in many situations where the ambient temperature
of the groundwater is between 30ºC and 80ºC. The advent of GRP casing significantly
extended the service life of groundwater bores, and it continues to be used in bores ranging
from 50 metres to more than 500 metres in depth. GRP has good UV resistance and is inert
in most environments; however, cutting and joining in the field is a problem and it cannot be
installed by driving casing into the formation.
Again, the growth in the use of fibreglass in the last 25 years for bore casing and water pipe
was followed up with the issuing of Australian Standard, AS 2634 – 1983 Chemical plant
equipment made from GRP based on thermosetting resins, AS 3571 – 1989, Glass filament
reinforced thermosetting plastics – Polyester based – Water supply, sewerage and drainage
applications and also AS 3572 – 1989, Plastics-Glass filament reinforced plastics (GRP)
method of test. These standards have been referred to for the manufacture and testing of
fibreglass casing and pipe supplied to the drilling industry in Australia over many years.
Continual improvements in bore design and a growing selection of metallic and thermoplastic
bore construction materials on the market, combined with a widening range of groundwater
bore construction methods, plus moves to introduce a national driller‘s licensing system, all
contributed to the demand for national bore construction guidelines for Australia. In 1997 the
‗Minimum Construction Requirements for Water Bores in Australia‘ was issued by the
Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ
1997). These guidelines collated, combined and summarised the vast amount of technical
knowledge and experience gained to date in constructing groundwater extraction bores. The
ultimate aim was to promote bore construction methods that provided good quality yields
while protecting the aquifers from contamination and resource wastage, and promotes
designs and materials that maximise the service life of bores for the owners.

This publication refers to a broad spectrum of bore designs, drilling methods and materials
selection available and used both in Australia and overseas. The Land and Water Biodiversity
Committee published a second edition of this manual in 2003.
Also, the Queensland Department of Resources and Mines produced the ‗Minimum
Standards for the Construction and Reconditioning of Water Bores that Intersect the
Sediments of Artesian Basins‘ in 2004, as a supplementary standard.
3.5.3 Current groundwater bore design and materials

selection
The previous section discusses some of the materials available and developments in water
bore construction during the past 60 years. History has shown that when the standards of
regulation, training, monitoring, drilling methods and quality control of materials have not been
able to keep pace with groundwater development, then groundwater resources in Australia
are at risk from wastage, contamination, bore failures and costly bore rehabilitation and
sealing exercises.
The expected service life of bores should be considered at the design phase and the need for
and type of decommissioning work that will be required in the future to protect the long-term
integrity of any aquifer intersected. The groundwater environment should also be considered
when determining the required corrosion resistance and material strengths of bore casing and
screens. For some areas of Australia, particular materials are stipulated for use in
constructing water bores by regulatory authorities to take account of local groundwater
conditions. Also the drilling method and equipment suitable for the task need to be assessed
to ensure unexpected drilling and installation problems do not arise during the bore
construction. Licensed drillers are trained and experienced, often in a wide range of drilling
methods, and therefore should also be involved with any proposed bore design and selection
of the drilling equipment.
Production bore design firstly involves collating and assessing available hydrogeological data
for the proposed location and determining the expected long-term maximum yield,
notwithstanding extraction limitations that may be part of the bore licence. Test drilling may be
required to provide accurate sampling and particle size gradings in order to select the optimal
slot size and lengths for screens. The internal bore diameter needs to enable suitable
clearances for the anticipated bore pumping equipment to be lowered to a depth where
groundwater levels will remain above the pump following the drawdown of groundwater levels
during pumping.
Aquifers need to be protected from possible contaminates from the surface as well as flow
between aquifers at depth where there is a marked difference in groundwater quality or level.
This often results in two to three separate drill strings of casing being used in the bore and in
some cases grouting back to the ground surface is required.
In designing bores and selecting materials the following aspects should be considered
carefully:
 groundwater quality, assessment of corrosiveness of the environment
 groundwater maximum temperature—particularly for de-rating thermoplastic casing
strength
 bore maximum depths for various casing strings
 volume, extent and method of cement grouting required during bore construction
 estimated maximum external ground pressures and internal water pressures

 checks on external collapse strengths of casing types and factors of safety
 inside and outside diameters of casing selections
 joining mechanisms and adaptability for onsite changes to installation depths
 anticipated bore yield and screen efficiency
 use and selection of gravel packs if required
 headworks and flow control for artesian conditions
 cost comparison of materials and availability checks
 quality control standards for all materials supplied
 federal, state and local regulations and guidelines
 ease and safety of casing installation taking into account the drilling equipment and
method proposed
 consider the anticipated service life required, including ultimately decommissioning of the
bore and protecting the aquifer for long term sustainability.
Following installation of the casing and screens, bore development is important for removing
drilling muds and finer aquifer material that restricts groundwater flows to the screen.
Development can take a few days of airlifting and water jetting the screens. Often this is
followed by pump testing and collecting water samples for comprehensive water quality and
water chemistry analyses.
3.5.4 Drilling and construction techniques

There are a range of drilling methods and bore construction techniques that have developed
over many years and a comprehensive summary of these methods and typical bore design
diagrams are included for reference in the ‗Minimum Construction Requirements For Water
Bores in Australia‘ manual. The Australian Drilling Manual, by the Australian Drilling Industry
Training Committee Ltd. (1992) also provides comprehensive information regarding the
design, drilling, construction and development of water bores.
The drilling methods and equipment used depend on the predicted geology, groundwater
pressures, bore diameters and depths required, and also the types of sampling involved with
the project. The extent and volume of cement grouting may also influence the selection of
suitable equipment and therefore needs to be discussed with the drilling contractor.
The main drilling methods used for construction of water bores are:
 cable tool or percussion
 rotary mud drilling
 reverse circulation mud
 rotary air and down hole hammer for rock formations.
Cable tool drilling was prevalent early in the century before the use of rotary rigs, and it had
the advantage of providing reasonable sampling throughout the drilling process. The hole is
drilled by raising and dropping a drilling tool attached to a steel cable, which is continually fed
out with depth. As cuttings mix with water a bailer is then required to remove the material, this
uses a separate lighter weight cable. Steel casing is driven by drop weight blows to support
the hole and screens were often telescoped through the bottom of the casing by over driving
and pulling back the outer casing string to expose the slotted pipe or screen.

Rotary mud drilling is a commonly used method for water bores with the use of drilling mud,
pumped down the drill string, providing wall support for the bore prior to inserting the casing
and the removal of drill cuttings from the borehole. This type of drilling does not generally
provide high quality sampling due to mixing during flow of the mud up the borehole and test
bores may be needed in order to allow effective bore design. Geophysical logging assists in
delineating strata however screen selection should not be made without visual logging and
physical grading tests on strata samples.
Reverse circulation mud or water is used mainly for larger diameter bores and by injecting
compressed air into the bore at depth the mud and cuttings are forced up the inside of the drill
string at high velocity. This type of drilling requires a significant and ready supply of water.
The bore is kept filled to the surface during drilling to provide water pressure support until the
permanent production casing is installed.
The use of compressed air drilling whether rotary or downhole hammer is applicable for bores
in hard rock strata. This method is sometimes used in combination with mud rotary where
geology is a combination of rock and sediments. An advantage with this method is that no
water or mud is added to the bore so water encounter will be detected at once and
approximate flow measurements can be made.
3.5.5 Future challenges for bore design construction and

management
The preceding sections provide a broad view of developments in groundwater extraction
during the past 60 years and the background to why there has been such a diverse array of
guidelines and technical information used throughout the different states and territories. The
introduction of national driller licensing remains unresolved, although there has been progress
made with particular states. The publishing of national bore construction minimum guidelines
probably marked the clearest turning point in trying to combine so much data and experience
into one practical and concise text for the drilling industry and others involved in groundwater
development projects. There remains to be supplements created and it would be preferable to
continue to combine these into the one document for minimum guidelines in Australia rather
than continue to produce concurrent technical and regulatory information.
It would be extremely helpful if manufacturers and suppliers were to provide tabulation of the
external collapse pressures for the products they promote for use as bore casing, be it steel,
stainless steel, fibreglass or thermoplastic. Also, manufacturers should supply information
regarding any factors of safety applied, design life strategy, temperature effects, UV
resistance, and strength regression properties. This would allow drillers and other bore
designers to more easily and effectively select the type and wall thicknesses most suitable for
the wide range of designs used in water bore construction. Presently, some manufacturers do
provide this information; however, this is an area than can be improved and would assist in
maintaining effective national guidelines that are practical to apply across all states and
territories.
Further research and development is needed in the area of corrosion testing steel used for
bore casing to more confidently predict the effective service life of water bores. There appears
to be a lack of practical corrosion testing and analyses on high strength carbon steel
nominated for use in water bores in AS1396-2000. There are a number of high strength steels
sourced from Australia and overseas that meet the strength and in many cases the chemical
composition parameters of the standard; however, this desktop study has been unable to
locate examples of corrosion testing on this material. Some experience in Gippsland indicates
that the high strength steel fares better in corrosive aquifer and coal environments than mild
steel with a service life of over 25 years, although controlled testing in a range of water
qualities is needed to establish useable comparisons. This research should also include weld

material resistance to corrosion for different rods and include specifications for welding rods in
AS1396 as this is often used for joining bore casing. Welding results in heat affected zones
and possible changes to the steel structure; this could also be assessed through long-term
field tests. Steel remains significant as a selected material for water bores, particularly in
deep, high temperature and high load installations, and therefore it is warranted to quantify
the predicted service life for differing aquifer conditions.

Table 17: Bore casing material selection summary
Material Bore Material selection basis Deterioration threats Material integrity impact Rehabilitation / Comments
construction (cost / environment / alternative measure
purpose serviceability needs)
Mild Steel Casing, welded Lower cost, good availability, Corrosion attack, Reasonable, but joints May be possible to Not suitable for many
more likely to have welded particularly at welds, can damage under heavy realign bore with corrosive aquifer
joints, robust material, can severe in some areas, driving with cable tool rig, smaller diameter areas, does not
take rough handling relatively short service and not suited to casing, material will comply with steel
life. Promotes iron machining threads eventually corrode quality in Aust.
bacteria activity, leading further and lose its Standards for water
to further corrosion strength bores.
Mild Steel Slotted, Low cost, can be slotted High risk of early Basically high strength Possible to install Probably better value
perforated onsite if necessary, can corrosion does not initially but will screen inside and to replace bore in
screen easily slot various depths provide large deteriorate with time, gravel pack, many cases and
without using crossover percentage of open heavy-duty grinders, or corroded slotted provide increased
adaptors area. Sand ingress as drills required to casing will continue yields
slots and perforations perforate casing lengths to restrict intake flow
corrode on site
High strength, Casing, welded Complies with AS1396 steel Corrosion in certain Provides high strength Possibly realign Material is selected
low carbon steel or threaded casing for water bores, need areas, wall thickness for use in very deep bore with smaller for high strength
(350 MPa) to maintain these quality can be increased to bores, can be pulled diameter casing. If particularly with deep
standards if selecting carbon provide better service back at high loads with bore has bores or in difficult
steel, can be installed in life, supports iron lower risk of damage, deteriorated from drilling conditions.
deeper bores, not affected bacteria growth leading suited to threading and corrosion should use More likely to be
by higher temperature to corrosion and machining, and can be inert casing of welded joints due to
aquifers or UV, cost is possible bore cleanouts. driven effectively by suitable collapse availability issues with
reasonable, availability, percussion rigs strength, as the threaded joints, and
especially threaded, is not original steel casing can provide many
always good will lose its strength years service life in
over time low corrosive
environments

High strength, Slotted / Lower cost, can be slotted Corrosion risk increased High strength steel even Possible to install Probably more
low carbon steel Perforated onsite if necessary, and can at intake zone, does not with perforations, screen inside, effective to use
(350 MPa) Screen easily slot various depths provide large heavy-duty grinders or corroded slotted stainless screens due
without using cross-over percentage of open drills required to casing will continue to larger open area;
adaptors area, sand ingress risk perforate casing lengths to restrict intake flow will be more
as slots or perforations on site susceptible to
corrode, quality control corrosion than solid
issues in slots or holes casing
Stainless Steel Casing, welded Expensive, will require High chlorides can High strength for Need to rehabilitate Useful in deep and
304 / 316 /316L welding by experienced cause corrosion of machining, impact or should be rare if difficult wells prone to
tradesmen; high strength, SS304, less damaging high load removal with suitable grade corrosion attack, cost
corrosion resistant for many to SS316. Stress drilling machinery stainless is selected is a major
conditions including high corrosion cracking consideration, and
salinity possible provides long service
life
Stainless Steel Wire wound Costs have effectively High chlorides can Screens available in Need to rehabilitate Provide excellent
304 / 316 / 316L screen reduced during the past 20 cause corrosion of different strengths to suit should be rare if degree of open area
years with increased SS304, less damaging depth settings, can only suitable grade for well yield, highly
production and availability. to SS316. Stress sustain lower indirect stainless is selected. corrosion resistant,
Proven serviceability, corrosion cracking impact or removal loads If slot size is wrong reasonable cost and
corrosion resistance, and possible. Selection of from drilling rigs may be able to long service life
strength over many years correct slot size most install inner screen
important consideration
Galvanised Casing, Rarely used due to In many environments Material strength as for May be possible to Not suitable for many
steel threaded additional costs, threading will not prove better mild steel reline bore with corrosive aquifer
will be rough, welding would than normal mild steel smaller diameter areas; may not
burn off protective as coating is attacked in casing, material will comply with steel
galvanising the bore eventually corrode quality and strength
further and lose its required in Aust.
strength Standards for water
bores

Galvanised Wire wound Rarely used due to In many environments High strength initially but Possible to install Probably better value
steel screen or additional costs; threading will not prove better will deteriorate with time; screen inside and to replace bore in
slotted will be rough, welding would than normal mild steel heavy duty grinders or gravel pack; many cases and
burn off protective as coating is attacked in drills required to corroded slotted provide increased
galvanising the bore. perforate casing lengths casing will continue yields.
on site to restrict intake flow
Unplasticised Casing, glued Cost is comparatively low Can be affected by UV Joints and tube cannot Should not require Low cost and no
PVC pressure and screwed or however availability in larger if exposed long term; withstand normal impact rehabilitation unless corrosion problems in
pipe (uPVC), threaded diameter and thicker wall is loses significant or tensile loads often material selected service; material
AS1477 restricted. Light and easy to strength in higher used in drilling has unsuitable commonly used for
handle, prone to pre- temperature aquifers operations; holes need to strength for depth water supply pipes,
installation damage, (de-rating required be in excellent condition setting and availability becoming
mechanical or UV, joining above 20ºC) and can prior to installing casing temperature. a problem with newer
very quick, inert, corrosion buckle from excessive as unlikely to be able to PVC compounds
resistant external pressure drive or remove if bore maintenance and
collapses. operation that are
unsuitable for bores.
Unplasticised Slotted / Low cost option; restricted Can be affected by UV Joints and screen cannot Should not require Low cost option; more
PVC (uPVC) perforated QA on slot apertures, open if exposed long term; withstand impact or rehabilitation unless suitable for
pressure pipe, screen area if slotted/drilled onsite; loses significant tensile loads often used material selected observation wells or
AS1477 strength of screen zone, strength in higher in drilling; holes need to has unsuitable shallow low yield farm
corrosion resistant, can be temperature aquifers be in excellent condition strength for depth bores; threaded
slotted onsite. (de-rating required prior to installing as setting and factory slotted and
above 20ºC) and can unlikely to be able to temperature, or yield threaded available in
fail from installation or drive or remove. low due to open some states. Care
earth pressures area restrictions required in assessing
collapse strength,
non-corrosive, inert .

Fibre Casing, quick Cost is comparable with high Very long term Fibreglass not suitable to Should not require FRP has been used
Reinforced lock cable & grade steel, significant exposure to UV can impact forces; can rehabilitation unless widely for its relatively
Plastic (FRP) groove joints strength compared to damage casing, casing withstand significant material selected high strength,
unplasticised PVC (uPVC) resin surface and wall removal forces due to has unsuitable corrosion resistance
and ABS, corrosion thickness can be cable lock joints, requires strength for depth and easy installation
resistant, does not require damaged during high good hole condition for setting and Factors of safety
strength de-rating for low or pressure jetting used in installation; resin coating temperature used for external
high temperature conditions; bore development; needs to be protected collapse strength
high UV resistance; long joints difficult repair or from rough handling prior vary, as do internal
service life, quick installation alter onsite to installation and outside
method diameters for different
manufacturers, and
crossover adapters
are specialised and
quite expensive.
FRP Slotted casing Cost is comparable to Very long -term Slotted fibreglass not Should provide Slotted FRP not often
stainless steel so not often exposure to UV can suitable to impact or reasonable service used due to low open
used; corrosion resistant; damage casing, casing removal forces, requires life, however, slotted area, lower strength
low open area, lower resin surface and wall good hole condition for area may cause and relatively high
strength than casing thickness can be installation, resin coating ingress of water into cost when compared
damaged during high needs to be recoated by fibreglass if not with stainless steel
pressure jetting used in manufacturer after sealed properly. screen option.
bore development; slotting, collapse strength Lower yields due to
joints difficult repair or would need assessment. restricted open area.
alter onsite.
Acrylonitrile Casing, Cost is reasonable and good Affected by UV if Joints and tube cannot Should not require Threads can be
butadiene threaded and availability in various exposed long term, withstand normal impact rehabilitation unless damaged easily; UV
styrene (ABS) glued collars diameters and wall loses significant or tensile loads often material selected exposure can cause
thicknesses. Joints strength in higher used in drilling has unsuitable bowing of lengths
threaded; solvent weld temperature aquifers, operations. Holes need strength for depth making installation
possible but not practical for de-rating required to be in good condition setting and water difficult, long term
bores; prone to pre- above 20ºC; and can prior to installing casing temperature strength needs to be
installation damage, buckle from excessive as unlikely to be able to assessed carefully in
mechanical or UV, inert and external pressure drive or remove if bore particular with high
corrosion resistant. collapses water temperatures

ABS Slotted screen Lower cost option; restricted Affected by UV if Cannot withstand normal Should not require Threads can be
quality assurance on slot exposed; loses impact or tensile loads rehabilitation unless damaged easily, UV
apertures if slotted or drilled significant strength in often used in drilling material selected exposure can cause
onsite; low open area, lower higher temperature operations. Holes need has unsuitable bowing, and long
strength in slotted zone; aquifers; de-rating to be in good condition strength for depth term strength needs
corrosion resistant, joints required above 20ºC, prior to installing setting and water to be assessed
threaded, prone to pre- and can buckle from temperature carefully in particular
installation damage; and excessive external with high water
mechanical or UV, inert, pressure temperatures
corrosion resistant

4. Groundwater quality impacts
Groundwater in Australia has significant value for its economic, social and, in some cases,
cultural uses. These may include ecosystem protection, recreation and aesthetics, potable,
agricultural, and industrial. At both a Commonwealth and state or territory level in Australia,
legislative requirements have been established for the protection of current or potential
beneficial uses of water resources. The following guidelines for water resources are
recognised and provide support to legislative requirements in all states and territories of
Australia.
These guidelines provide support to evaluating and determining the risk that potential or
actual bore casing failure can pose to beneficial uses of water resources, including
groundwater, and inform water resource managers on appropriate measures to protect the
current or potential water resource.
National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) (2004) Australian drinking
water guidelines
The 2004 Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (ADWG) has been developed by the National
Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) in collaboration with the Natural Resource
Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC). The ADWG incorporates a framework for the
management of drinking water quality and provides the Australian community and the water
supply industry with guidance on what constitutes good quality drinking water.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) (2006) guidelines for drinking water quality, 3rd
edition, WHO
The guidelines for drinking water quality are used globally by developing and developed
countries as the basis for regulation and standard setting to ensure the safety of drinking
water. They provide guideline values for a large number of chemical hazards as well as risk
assessment and risk management.
Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) (2000)
Australian guidelines for fresh and marine water quality
The main purpose of the ANZECC guidelines is ‗to provide an authoritative guide for setting
water quality objectives required to sustain current, or likely future, environmental values
(uses) for natural and semi-natural water resources in Australia and New Zealand‘.
National Environmental Protection Measure (NEPM) (1999) assessment of site

contamination
The NEPM (1999) establishes a nationally-consistent approach to the assessment of site

contamination to ensure sound environmental management practices by the community,
including regulators, site assessors, contaminated land auditors, land owners, developers and
industry.
The NEPM contains two schedules:

 Schedule A identifies the recommended process for the assessment of site contamination
 Schedule B comprises ten general guidelines for the assessment of site contamination.

4.1 Potential aquifer contaminants
Aquifer contamination or other changes to aquifer groundwater quality may be derived from a
variety of sources. Contaminants naturally occur in rocks and sediments as part of their
formation, and they can influence groundwater chemistry as a result of release through
natural processes such as dissolution and adsorption. Anthropogenic (human induced)
activities such as industrial discharges, urban activities, agriculture, groundwater extraction or
injection, and disposal of waste can all affect groundwater quality.
A common pathway for groundwater quality to be affected is through the downward migration
of contamination from a source at the ground surface. The rate and extent which infiltration
occurs depends on the geological and hydrogeological setting. For instance, a shallow
groundwater bore monitoring in an unconfined aquifer is considered to be more at risk from
surface infiltration contamination than a deeper groundwater bore developing a confined
aquifer. Geographic setting and land use are also important factors in identifying higher risk
areas in terms of contamination.
Cross-contamination (or co-mingling) of waters from different aquifers may result in

detrimental effects in water quality to a particular aquifer and may lead to migration of
chemical contamination from one aquifer to another. A borehole creates a pathway for co-
mingling to occur.
The term ‗contaminant source‘ is commonly used to define a location where a chemical
substance or waste has been added to land or water at levels above natural background and
may potentially represent an adverse health or environmental impact. Table 18 provides a
summary of common contaminants found in groundwater.

Table 18: Common groundwater contaminants and physical characteristics
Contaminant and Description Potential effects on groundwater quality
physical
characteristic
Salinity Derived geologically from leaching of surface and underground deposits of salt Reduced groundwater quality due to an accumulation of salts in the
and decomposition of various minerals. root zone of crops and pastures, which may lead to subsequent
The accumulation or depletion of salts in geologic formations may be caused by losses in yield production.
both natural and human-induced processes. The mobilisation and transport of The health of groundwater dependent ecosystems may be
salts may occur through groundwater movement, capillary rise and evaporation, adversely impacted by changes in groundwater salinity.
as well as leaching and biological activity. Changes in groundwater salinity will adversely impact the potability
Salinity may increase as a result of saltwater intrusion, mineral dissolution, of groundwater to humans and livestock, increasing health risks.
industrial and domestic waste, or aquifer cross-contamination due to corrosion of
bore casing.
Turbidity Turbidity is caused by the presence of suspended or dissolved matter such as Increased turbidity results in decreased clarity of groundwater.
clay, silt, finely divided organic matter, plankton and other microscopic Following rainfall, variations in groundwater turbidity may be an
organisms, organic acids, and dyes (ASTM International 2003). Turbidity is a indicator of surface contamination.
measure of how much light can filter through a water sample. Increased turbidity may not adversely affect beneficial uses, but
may cause need for additional treatment.
Increased turbidity can lead to aquifer clogging and reduce the
efficiency of injection bores, e.g. artificial recharge or disposal
bores.
Odour Certain odours may be indicative of organic or non-organic contaminants that Effects to groundwater quality are dependent on the presence and
originate from municipal or industrial waste discharges or from natural sources. type of potential contaminants.
Inorganics These compounds occur naturally but may be identified in significant Concentrations exceeding established health investigation
(including heavy concentrations due to leaching of waste materials, chemical spillage, etc. guidelines or aquatic ecological investigation guidelines may lead
metals) Migration of inorganics is dependent on pH conditions and the particular to adverse human health or environmental effects, respectively.
inorganic compound in question. Slightly acidic conditions are common in saline
environments; these conditions are conducive to increased mobility of inorganic
compounds.
Nutrients Nutrients may occur naturally in mineral deposits, but may also be resultant from Elevated nutrients in surface water may cause algae to flourish or
anthropogenic activity. Nutrients such as nitrate and phosphorous are used bloom, which subsequently decreases dissolved oxygen and may
commercially in the production of fertilisers and detergents, and in sewage or adversely affect marine organisms, groundwater dependent
industrial waste. Nutrients facilitate the growth cycle of algae. ecosystems or the potability of a supply.
Hydrocarbons and These compounds are typically associated with petroleum derived fuel products Concentrations exceeding established health investigation
or manufacturing processes. Hydrocarbon compounds can absorb to soil guidelines or aquatic ecological investigation guidelines may give

Contaminant and Description Potential effects on groundwater quality
physical
characteristic
volatile organics particles, the extent of which depends on soil type and conditions. Vertical rise to adverse human health or environmental effects,
downward migration of these compounds may result in dissolved contaminant respectively. Toxicity varies depending on chemical compounds,
concentrations in groundwater or the formation of light NAPL or dense NAPL although many hydrocarbons are known carcinogens.
contaminant plumes in groundwater.
Pesticides / The application of pesticides may result in contaminant migration to surface Adverse human health and environmental effects may be
herbicides water, deeper soil or groundwater, the extent of which is dependent on leaching associated with elevated pesticide and herbicide concentrations
and adsorption processes. (above established assessment guidelines) in the environment.
Bacteria Dissolved minerals such as iron, are consumed by bacteria, which excrete the Growths plugging the bore screens; coating of bore casings, piped
minerals on a solid surface, resulting in encrustation. systems, impellers and motors and subsequent reduction of flow
Escherichia coli (or E. coli) are bacteria commonly found in the lower intestine of rates; and reduction in water quality and potentially beneficial use.
warm-blooded animals. Potential impact to groundwater may occur from Most E. coli strains are harmless, but some can cause serious food
domestic sewage, septic effluent, animal waste, or plant and soil material. poisoning in humans. Some bacteria, viruses, and parasites can
cause polio, cholera, typhoid fever, dysentery and infectious
hepatitis.
Radionuclides May occur from naturally occurring radioactive geologic formations, or through All categories of radionuclides have the potential to damage human
anthropogenic sources such as weapons testing, nuclear reactors, mining etc. and animal tissue and bone marrow.
Dissolved gas Gases are more commonly released in aquifers through groundwater extraction Processes that cause the release of gas from or into an aquifer,
and the reduction in water pressures or oxygenation of waters. However, can lead to the clogging of aquifers, or promote clogging by other
injection of incompatible waters or geosequestration are other potential processes stimulated chemically or through biological activity.
mechanisms that can result in increased gas concentrations in aquifers.
Temperature Localised temperature changes in an aquifer could be derived from the injection Changes to the background temperature of an aquifer may lead to:
of water, e.g. through artificial recharge schemes. changes to the rates of chemical reactions
changes to the rates in biological activity
loss or reduction in geothermal resource
loss of strength of ABS and PVC casing materials.

4.2 Potential aquifer cross-contamination
mechanisms
As bore casing fails, vertical pathways are established that may lead to the migration and
interaction of groundwaters of differing quality. This can most obviously occur in bores that
penetrate a multi-aquifer sequence; however, it can also occur in bores penetrating a single
aquifer that is subject to groundwater quality stratification.
Shallow aquifers have the potential to cross-contaminate deeper aquifers (or vice versa)
through penetration of an intervening aquitard. Common mechanisms of aquifer cross-
contamination are considered below and shown in Figure 12.
 Penetration of an aquitard—this may occur via sandy intervals in the aquitard. The
hydraulic properties of an aquitard may be altered by specific contaminants; for example
contaminants that have a greater density than water, such as dense NAPLs. Saline
waters for instance, can reduce the permeability of clay, whilst other rocks can slake and
become increasingly impermeable.
 Aquitard discontinuities—Discontinuities within aquitards such as sandy zones and
palaeochannel deposits can act as contaminant migration pathways, which potentially
create cross-contamination between aquifers. Aquitard discontinuities may be due to
natural breaks in the aquitard; anthropogenic holes through an aquitard after drilling
activities; or through a reduction in thickness (pinch-out) of the aquitard.
 Seepage along bore casings—Imperfections along bore casing seals, lack of adequate
seals (in terms of placement, or permeability) or across long bore screens.
 Hydraulically connected aquifers—Potentially significant migration of contaminants from
an overlying to an underlying aquifer may manifest as leakage to the underlying aquifer
during a pumping test (Santi et al. 2005). The potential for this to occur and the extent of
migration depend on the hydraulic connection between the aquifers in question, as well
as other variables such as site-specific aquifer characteristics.
Figure 12: Aquifer cross-contamination mechanisms
Source: Santi et al. (2005).

4.3 Potential contaminant ingress
In terms of groundwater quality impacts due to bore casing failures, the following potential
migration pathways are also considered relevant:
 Contaminant seepage along the inside of the bore casing—As defined in Section 4.1,
seepage may occur via imperfections along bore casing seals and materials or across
long bore screens. Cracks or holes in the bore casing may allow water that has not
infiltrated through the overlying geology to enter the groundwater bore (Figure 13). The
New York State Department of Health (2004) considers seepage along bore casings to be
common in groundwater bores made of concrete, clay or brick.
 Contaminant seepage along the outside of the bore casing—This pathway involves
vertical contaminant migration as a result of inadequate or absent grouting of the annulus
between the drilled hole and bore casing, during bore construction (Figure 14). Many
older groundwater bores may not have been sealed with grout when they were initially
constructed, and they may be gravel-packed through various aquifers and even up to
groundsurface. This most commonly results in surface water or groundwater from an
overlying aquifer migrating downwards along the outside of the bore casing under gravity.
Upwards migration can occur in circumstances where deeper aquifers are under greater
pressure than overlying aquifers.
 A missing or defective bore cap—this pathway primarily applies to groundwater
monitoring bores, which are generally sealed at the surface bore casing by a removable
cap. Seals around wires or cabling, pipes and the bore cap to bore casing interface may
be cracked or otherwise defective, potentially permitting the ingress of contaminants at
the ground surface.
 Bore flooding—this may occur at bores constructed with the bore head located below
ground level or in an area that is poorly drained or prone to flooding. Pooled surface water
has the potential to seep either along the inside or the outside of the bore casing (by the
mechanisms discussed above), potentially transporting contaminants into the
groundwater bore.
 Inadequate decommissioning—Exploration boreholes that were drilled but not cased, or
abandoned without appropriate decommissioning (i.e. placement of plugs and seals) may
constitute a pathway for the co-mingling of waters in holes that penetrate a multi-aquifer
profile, or lead to the introduction of contaminants from surface sources.
Many potential contaminant pathways from the ground surface or near surface may be
eliminated by constructing groundwater bores (particularly with respect to cement grouting) to
at least minimum standards, as defined in LWBC (2003). MDBC (2004) considered poorly
constructed bores to be a key issue in the management of groundwater resources in Victoria.
Inter-aquifer contamination has been identified in the Tintinara-Coonalpyn Prescribed Wells

Area, in South Australia's Southeast region within the Murray–Darling Basin (MDBC 2004). In
this case, corrosion of uncemented casing by saline water in the overlying Murray Group
Subsystem has caused contamination of some deeper bores within the Renmark Subsystem.
Many ageing groundwater bores may not have been constructed with effective grouting,
which has many purposes (Table 19).

Figure 13: Inter-aquifer flow along inside of bore casing
Source: DWLBC (2008)
Figure 14: Inter-aquifer flow along outside of bore casing
Source: DWLBC (2008)

Table 19: Purposes of grouting groundwater bore casing
Subartesian or non-flowing Artesian or flowing bores
bores
To seal off aquifers with poor To seal off the annular space between the casing and the borehole
water quality. above pressured aquifers, to control flow and prevent lateral
leakage, either at the ground surface or downhole.
To protect the bore casing from To seal the annular space in the casing to prevent the mixing of
corrosive soils and waters. waters between high-pressure and low-pressure aquifers.
To prevent surface runoff or To seal off poor quality aquifers.
shallow subsoil contamination
migrating the monitored aquifer.
To prevent lateral leakage. To protect the casing from corrosive soils.
To provide a safe platform for establishment of drilling plant, or
emergency flow control devices during drilling.
Source: Adapted from LWBC (2003)
Implications for beneficial users as a result of potential contaminant migration and ingress
have been discussed in this section, and primarily relate to:
 impacts on bore infrastructure
 reduced water quality
 compromising current or potential groundwater beneficial uses—the benefits of
groundwater use or non-use cover a range of exploitative benefits as well as a range of
environmental and conservation benefits and values (NRM Standing Committee 2002).
Beneficial uses may include but are not limited to ecosystem protection, recreation and
aesthetics, potable water, agricultural use, and industrial use
 potential for adverse effects to potential sensitive receptors—a sensitive receptor may be
defined as any ecological or biological organism potentially exposed to contaminants
migrating towards them by a contaminant migration pathway; and
 sensitive receptors may be adversely affected by chemical contaminants, the extent of
which depends on the type and concentration of the source, natural attenuation potential,
susceptibility of the receptor, physical setting and biological environment.
4.4 Potential impacts to infrastructure and the

environment
4.4.1 Impacts to infrastructure
The processes of bore casing deterioration such as fouling and corrosion may also impact
ancillary infrastructure associated with a groundwater bore, including the following:
 Pumps—impellers and motors may become clogged, subsequently resulting in reduced
flow rates and discharge pressures as well as increased electricity costs (Forward 2008).
As pumps clog or begin to corrode, the potential for damage to the pump may also exist.
 Pipeline flows and pressures—iron bacteria build up faster with higher flow rates, as rapid
growth is associated with more water turbulence, which occurs as velocities increase.
Increased sediment loads in failed bores can erode pump impellors and clog reticulation
infrastructure, such as pipes, metering, valving and silting up of storage tanks.
 Flowmeters—flow meters may be affected by accumulating iron deposits (Figure 15),
which may subsequently result in a reduction in flowmeter accuracy.

 Post treatments—increased turbidity from failing bores may interfere with water treatment
process such as UV disinfection or lead to increased clogging rates in filters.
 Direct use impacts—water quality changes may impact equipment directly connected to
the bore such as hot water services, kettles, boilers, requiring a need for increased post
treatment.
 Bore screens—biofouling environments are often subject to mechanical and chemical
treatments in attempts to manage bore deterioration. Failure of bore screens can occur in
some instances, particularly if fouling in low pH groundwater requires dosing with large
quantities of acid as a management strategy to control biofouling. Figure 16 presents an
example of this type of failure on a stainless steel screen.
Figure 15: Iron bacteria on magnetic flowmeter
Figure 16: Bore screen failure
Source: McLaughlan (2002)

The effects of bore deterioration processes may also result in bore failure. Groundwater bore
failure may result in costly further investigations to determine the extent of the problem, which
in many cases may ultimately result in the decommissioning and replacement of a bore or, on
a regional scale, a bore network.
On an regional scale (‗aquifer‘ scale), bore deterioration through inappropriate construction

may compromise the integrity of groundwater level, quality and quantity data obtained from
groundwater monitoring networks, groundwater extraction systems and may also impact
managed aquifer recharge systems.
4.4.2 Impacts to the environment

The processes of bore casing deterioration such as fouling and corrosion can occur on both a
local scale (impacts on one bore) and regional scale (impacts on all bores intersecting a
particular aquifer in a region).
In addition to the impacts to infrastructure noted previously, potential impacts to the local and
regional environment can occur as a result of regional bore casing deterioration problems.
Impacts may include decline in regional aquifer quality. On a regional or ‗aquifer scale‘,
corrosion and biofouling may result in alteration of the natural groundwater chemistry, which
potentially affects:
 beneficial use of the aquifer—the beneficial use of an aquifer may be reduced due to
increased concentrations of chemical compounds or undesirable physical parameters as
a result of bore casing deterioration. This may affect neighbouring or down-gradient users
of an aquifer
 the biodiversity of groundwater dependent ecosystems, which are ecosystems that rely
on groundwater to survive—these may include terrestrial vegetation, terrestrial fauna,
wetlands, river base flow systems and aquifer / cave systems. Groundwater dependent
ecosystems may be affected through variations in groundwater physical parameters or
chemistry, such as increased iron, as a result of iron biofouling.
4.5 Water quality indicators

A decrease in water quality extracted from a groundwater bore can provide an indication as to
whether corrective maintenance may be required as a result of bore deterioration processes.
The sampling and analysis of water or solid material (such as sand) can help to identify the
nature of the problem.
A detailed discussion of water quality indicators and the importance of groundwater

monitoring programs are provided in Chapter 6 ‗Bore casing condition assessment‘ – water
quality indicators‘.

5. Groundwater quantity impacts
Along with alterations to groundwater quality, the other impact of bore casing deterioration is
the decrease in water quantity, reflected as reductions in bore yield.
5.1 Potential mechanisms impacting bore yields

Groundwater bore yield and performance are dependent on the effectiveness of the bore itself
(including bore casing and screen design), as well as the aquifer and the pump. The analysis
of bore performance data is required to establish whether a potential decline in bore yield is
due to pump deterioration or bore deterioration (McLaughlan 2002).
A decline in pump performance may be associated with fouling deposits in the pump and riser
pipes, or deterioration of pump impellers (rotating components of a centrifugal pump). In the
case that the pump performance is satisfactory, the aquifer or pipeline may be responsible for
reducing bore yields.
In the context of bore casing deterioration, reductions in bore yields might be due to the
following mechanisms:
 Silting of the bore screen—fine particles from the geologic formation (or entrained within
injectant fluid) fill the sump or block the screen. This can be readily diagnosed through
‗depthing‘ a bore and comparing results to ‗as-constructed‘ designs. It may be necessary
to clean out and redevelop the bore. Continuous ingress of sand and sediment may
indicate holed or partially collapsed screen, faults with casing packers, or incorrect gravel
pack or screen aperture selection. The latter generally require bore replacement.
 Collapse of bore screen—corrosion leading to the collapse of bore screen intervals can
lead to a reduction in performance. In deep bores, lower screen intervals tend to corrode
and collapse in preference to the shallower screened intervals.
 Bore blockages—these may occur as a result of collapse of the geologic formation or due
to corrosion of the bore casing. Collapse of the geologic formation can occur as a result
of:
– rapid de-mudding or development of bores in unconsolidated formations
– induced stresses (such as earthquake loads, ground movement imposed by mining
activities)
– slaking of materials in uncased portions of bores constructed in competent or
consolidated formations.
Bore blockages usually result from fine particles in unconsolidated formations becoming
liberated during pumping and moving towards a bore screen. In consolidated formations,
dislodged rock fragments can block flow in uncased sections of a borehole, or wedge
against pumps or other in-bore infrastructure.
 Formation of bacteria—chemical encrustation or biofouling of the screen may clog the
intake portion of a groundwater bore. Reductions in water quality may also arise as a
subsequent result and as such, water quality analyses and disinfection or chemical
treatment of the bore may be required.
In deep bores, chemical encrustations may increase the surface roughness of bore casing, or
reduce the internal diameter of casing, resulting in increased skin friction and bore inefficiency
(increased drawdown).

There are other processes not attributed to bore casing deterioration that may reduce bore
yields. These processes may include the following:
 Reduced regional groundwater levels resulting from:
– climatic variations, such as drought conditions or longer term change
– aquifer over development, intensive development or water resource mining
– aquifer depressurisation or mine dewatering
– altered recharge conditions due to agricultural practices, land clearing, plantations,
urbanisation or other activities.
 Reduced local groundwater levels—for example, bore pumping interference with other
nearby groundwater bores.
 Subsidence induced mechanical failure—the depressurisation of compressible aquifer
materials may lead to regional subsidence and additional stress on bore casings. This is
common in mining environments (such as open cut coal mines) and can significantly
reduce the lifespan of mine dewatering networks.
Dewatering of aquifer systems as a result of bore casing deterioration also has the potential
to impact bore yields.
5.2 Depressurisation of connected aquifers

Bore casing deterioration may give rise to ingress of groundwater from an overlying (or
underlying) aquifer system. This can adversely affect groundwater quantity as well as
groundwater quality.
Deteriorated bore casings may permit groundwater in an overlying aquifer system to migrate
vertically; usually this occurs under gravity to deeper aquifer systems. This can result in
depressurising or ‗dewatering‘ of an overlying aquifer, which can present the following effects:
 Groundwater levels may be affected through the lowering of local or regional groundwater
2
levels in the overlying aquifer system. Perched groundwater systems can be drained.
 Pump off-take levels may be affected, as established submersible groundwater pumps
may require lowering, due to reducing groundwater levels.
 Reduced or variable bore yields may occur in the dewatered aquifer, as groundwater
migrates to the other (usually underlying) aquifer in the vicinity of the deteriorated bore
casing.
 Nearby users of the groundwater resource may be severely affected if established bores
cannot deliver required flows, or go dry.
 Sustainability may be reduced as groundwater may be extracted in excess of sustainable
yields if losses from the overlying aquifer to the underlying aquifer are not accounted for.
 If groundwater levels are significantly reduced, the potential exists for groundwater
dependent ecosystems to be affected, as detailed in Section 4.4. The extent of the effect
will depend on site characteristics and the degree of dependence on groundwater
resources.
 Waste disposal or injection bores might cease to direct fluids to the intended aquifers.
2
Groundwater in a localised saturated zone, separated from regional groundwater by an
impervious geologic layer

In ‗discharging‘ environments where groundwater has the potential to flow from deep to
shallow aquifers, deteriorated bore casing may result in saturated or inundated conditions at
the headworks of artesian bores. This can result in the unintentional development of wetlands
or creeks.
5.3 Indicators of bore yield impacts

Fluctuations in bore efficiency can be identified through assessment of specific capacity data
from the groundwater bore. Specific capacity is defined as the rate of discharge of a bore per
unit of drawdown, which can vary with the duration of discharge. The specific capacity is a
function of the bore construction and associated energy losses (such as frictional losses), and
it is a function of the aquifer itself.
The assessment of specific capacity is a straightforward and reliable method of determining

significant fluctuations in bore performance. Assessment techniques such as ‗step drawdown
tests‘ can be used to determine whether reduced efficiency of a bore is due to blocking of the
screen, or blocking of the aquifer (McLaughlan 2002).
Other techniques for assessing changes in bore yields include analysis of instantaneous flow
rates or daily volume pumped (for example, through metering) or pump operation times (for
example, by increasing the frequency of operation to deliver the same volume, or shortening
operation times).
Techniques in bore casing condition assessment are outlined in the physical testing section in
Chapter 6 ‗Bore casing condition assessment‘.

6. Bore casing condition assessment
6.1 Bore performance indicators
Performance indicators can be established for a groundwater bore to identify, monitor or
mitigate the potential effects of bore casing deterioration processes at an early stage. The
purpose of a particular groundwater bore (such as monitoring, extraction, injection or
remediation) influences the relevance of particular indicators for a particular bore
(McLaughlan 2002). Some typical indicators of bore performance are summarised in
Table 20.
Table 20: Bore performance indicators

Indicator Process
Hydraulic Instantaneous flow rates or daily volume pumped indicates the potential
decreases in bore efficiency
Water quality As outlined in Section 4.4
Structural This involves the structural integrity of bore components and deterioration
of the pumping system
Economic Power consumption can be a key economic performance indicator and can
be measured as the power costs for a known volume of extracted water
Maintenance and An evaluation can be made of the costs incurred from monitoring activities
monitoring costs and conducting corrective maintenance
Social These factors are not always quantifiable, but they generally reflect user
expectations for the delivery of a safe and reliable water supply
Environmental The potential impact of a groundwater bore upon the environment should
be considered. Significant indicators may include lowering of regional
groundwater levels and subsequent impacts to users and groundwater
dependent ecosystems, as well as the potential for aquifer contamination
6.2 Water quality indicators

Attempts have been made in the past to relate bore fouling or corrosion to water quality;
however, no universally applicable indicators have been identified to date (McLaughlan 2002).
Water quality monitoring programs are imperative in proactive bore asset management.
Water quality monitoring programs can involve:
 the monitoring (sampling and analysis ) of physical, chemical and biological water quality
parameters to develop baseline data and identify the presence and nature of a bore
deterioration problem. A decrease in water quality extracted from a groundwater bore can
provide an indication as to whether corrective maintenance may be required as a result of
bore deterioration processes
 the sampling and analysis of solid material to help to identify the source of bore casing
deterioration
 periodic physical inspections of the bore to provide warning signs and negate
unscheduled interruptions to supply or function.
The most variable parameters as a result of bore deterioration include sand content, iron and
manganese concentrations and bacterial counts (McLaughlan 2002). Schneiders (2003)
suggests a comprehensive suite of analyses that is useful for establishing the mineral or

chemical profile of groundwater, and for selecting an appropriate chemical treatment for bore
rehabilitation (Table 21).
Table 21: Analytical testing for establishing hydrogeochemistry

Total alkalinity Phosphate Chlorine Sodium (as Na)
Total alkalinity (as CaCO3) Magnesium Saturation Index Potassium (as K)
Hydroxide alkalinity Ferrous iron Tannin/lignin Oxygen reduction
potential
Carbonate alkalinity Total iron Nitrate (nitrogen) Total hardness
Bicarbonate alkalinity Copper Sulphate Silica
Chloride Manganese Calcium pH value
TDS
Source: Adapted from Schneiders (2003)
Sand present within extracted groundwater can undergo a grain size analysis to provide an
indication of the origins of the particles. Some common deterioration problems associated
with sand present in extracted groundwater include damage or rupture of the bore casing,
overpumping or dewatering of screens, inadequate development, or irregularities such as
‗bridging‘ in the gravel pack.
Elevated iron, manganese and bacteria may provide indications that biofouling is occurring. If
a decline in bore performance (specific capacity) is identified, biofouling deposits may be
deteriorating the bore, and corrective maintenance may be required. Typical responses of
water quality indicators due to bore deterioration are shown as Table 22.
Table 22: Bore deterioration—water quality indicators

Process Water Quality Indicator Response
Biofouling Fe2+, Fe (total), turbidity Erratic
Sulfide, hydrogen sulfide Increase
Bacterial count Increase
Corrosion (steel) Turbidity, suspended solids, Fe2+ Increase
6.3 Review of bore condition assessment

techniques
McLaughlan (2002) identifies three general strategies in bore maintenance, as outlined below.
 Failure based—this strategy involves repairing equipment after a failure event. Minimal
monitoring costs are encountered, but rehabilitation costs can be significant. This has
been considered a high-risk strategy that may lead to poor reliability of a groundwater
bore (McLaughlan 2002).
 Prevention based—this strategy involves replacing equipment based on the estimated
service life of components. This strategy may not be effective where reliable statistics on
equipment failure are not available.
 Performance based—this strategy involves the use of performance indicators that may
allow for early detection of potential problems associated with equipment failure or
required maintenance work. This strategy depends on information collected during
monitoring programs.

Bore condition assessment techniques that can be applied with these strategies are
described in this section.
6.3.1 Geophysical techniques for casing assessment

The condition of bore casing can be assessed through either visual information provided by a
downhole (or closed circuit television (CCTV)) camera, or through downhole wireline
geophysical logging techniques. The technique implemented in assessing bore casing
condition may depend on budget, the type and implications of the problem as well as
available equipment.
Downhole camera
The downhole video camera technique involves lowering a video camera down a groundwater
bore to allow viewing downhole images in real time (Figure 17). Earlier versions of downhole
cameras were forward viewing or right-angle viewing, but newer technology has television
cameras now fitted with rotating heads to capture different angles and lighting. Imagery is
provided as a detailed core-like view of the borehole, from which the dimensions and angles
of fractures can be determined using an acoustic log (Nielsen 2006).
In the context of bore casing deterioration, readily available information can be obtained
regarding:
 the deterioration of water quality
 the corrosion potential of screens and casings
 bore deterioration processes such as biofouling, blockages, broken bore casing and sand
problems.
Downhole camera techniques can provide information on the structural condition along the
inside of bore casing, but they cannot provide an indication of the outside (external) condition.
The interpretation of camera surveys is subject to picture quality (water clarity), which can
cloud imagery or reflect lighting and lighting conditions (for example, surface roughness can
conceal casing faults). The technique is relatively inexpensive with both portable or truck-
mounted logging units available.
Figure 17: Downhole camera
Source: <http://www.geotechsystems.com.au/>

Caliper log
Caliper logs record changes in borehole diameter, which can then be related to bore
construction and to fracturing or caving along a borehole wall. A mechanical caliper probe
consists of spring-loaded arms that extend from the logging tool and follow the insides of the
bore casing or an open borehole. The tool is drawn up the bore whilst electronically
measuring casing diameter.
Early versions of caliper tools were equipped with one or three arms and provided an average
diameter of the casing. Oilfield technology has multiple finger tools (such as Schlumberger‘s
Multifinger Caliper Tool), which are centralised in boreholes and have the capability of
identifying small anomalies in casing, as well as casing eccentricities.
Some common uses for caliper logs include:

 groundwater bore design (to locate fractures and cavities)
 determination or verification of bore construction details, which is usually needed when
records were either not kept or destroyed. In these circumstances they provide useful
information regarding the internal diameter of casing available for casing work-overs or
refurbishment
 identification of bore casing deterioration such as significant encrustation and surface
roughness, gaps in bore casing, as well as unstable geologic strata in uncased bores.
Softer biofouling deposits may not be identified, as the caliper arm may cut through such
deposits (McLaughlan 2002).
Because borehole diameter commonly affects log response, the caliper log is useful in the
analysis of other geophysical logs. The caliper can be a powerful tool in bore condition
assessment through verifying bore construction, and where downhole CCTV surveys are not
possible. Unfortunately, most common caliper tools employed in the water bore industry
provide insufficient survey detail and cannot detect small casing defects. Oilfield industry tools
are considerably more powerful, however the costs of mobilising such equipment can be
prohibitive.
Microflow log
Flowmeter probes are commonly used to measure water flow patterns within a producing
water bore. The flow log reveals zones of water entry and exit and allows flow contributions
from individual zones to be measured. Flowmeter logs are used during bore pump tests to
measure hydraulic conductivity, but they can also be used to identify bore casing failures. The
flow meters may be mechanical or heat-pulse based.
This log may detect the location of casing failures; however, it may not identify the cause or
nature of the failure.
Casing collar locator

These are useful tools that can be used in steel cased bores. As the tool passes a casing
collar, or change in metal volume, lines of magnetic flux between two opposing permanent
magnets are disturbed. This causes a low frequency voltage or electromagnetic field to be
induced in a coil, mounted between the permanent magnets. This signal is then converted
into a response.

The tool is useful in identifying steel bore construction, depth control, or zones of perforation,
casing defects or damage. Metal loss through corrosion can create a noisy, obvious
response. The tool is relatively inexpensive and is often run in combination with other tools to
minimise survey passes.
Temperature and conductivity logs

A temperature log of a groundwater bore can be used to provide an indication of water inflow
through a discontinuity (such as a crack) in the casing. Pumping the bore, whilst running the
log, can then assist in inducing flow through potentially damaged casing.
A temperature log is obtained by lowering a temperature sensor below the standing water
level of a groundwater bore. The probe is lowered at a slow and constant rate in order for the
sensor to detect and transmit temperature changes respective to the depth reading.
The conductivity tool works under a similar principle, but measures the groundwater electrical
conductivity. The tool can be used to identify changes in water quality within a stratified
sequence, or bore casing defects in multi-aquifer sequences, particularly where significant
salinity differences exist between aquifers.
Similarly to the flowmeter surveys, they can be economically completed; however, they need
to be conducted in combination with other tools to assess the nature of the failure. Small
casing defects or small variations in water quality and temperature (between the aquifer
developed and overlying aquifers) may not be clearly or conclusively differentiated or
detected by the tool.
Specialised (oilfields) tools

A number of survey tools have been developed for oilfields applications; this technology is
increasingly being used in the water bore industry. International wireline logging companies
have developed the products, which can have a number of proprietary names. Some of the
more common tools are described below, based on Schlumberger capability:
 Sonic logs (acoustic televiewer)—These can be used to assess the structural integrity of
the cement bond between the casing and the geologic formation, specifically, how well
the casing has been cemented to the formation. These logs operate by generating and
then measuring the velocity of acoustic waves.
 Corrosion and Protection Evaluation Tool (CPET)—This tool (Figure 18) consists of four
sets of three electrodes spaced at known intervals, which hydraulically open and close on
demand. Potential differences between electrodes can indicate sections of bore casing
that may be corroding. This tool can assist in identifying and quantifying potentially
ongoing corrosion.
 Ultrasonic Imager (USI) Tool—The USI tool can search for weak points in metal casing by
measuring metal thickness using high-frequency ultrasonic pulses. This product, shown
schematically in Figure 19, can provide an indication of external metal loss, whereas the
caliper log technique cannot. Monitoring is conducted over the operational period of a
groundwater bore, with each successive log run compared to the previous monitoring log.
Post processing of data can produce high resolution images of casing interior (and
exterior) for assessment of bore casing condition.

 Multifrequency Electromagnetic Thickness Tool (METT)—This tool (Figure 20) uses non-
contact induction methods to detect areas of metal loss and potential changes in casing
geometry. Unlike the caliper tool, the METT can respond to both internal and external
casing erosion. This technique is most suited for identifying large-scale corrosion and
vertical splits.
Unfortunately the cost of mobilising this equipment and operating it makes it uneconomical for
most water bore applications, particularly when survey costs constitute a large proportion of
bore replacement costs. Exceptions occur with deeper production bores, or production
borefields where survey costs would form a small proportion of bore capital costs.
Figure 18: CPET schematic Figure 19: USI tool schematic
Source: Schlumberger (1992) Source: Schlumberger (1992)

Figure 20: METT schematic
Source: Schlumberger (1992)
Lithological tools and formation evaluation

There is a variety of formation tools available to aid bore design and correlate across different
geology. These do not aid bore casing condition assessment, but they can be used to
facilitate improvements to bore design during construction, or when considering bore
replacement: for example, if potentially aggressive lithologies are identified, such as ligneous
beds, additional cementing or sealing can be undertaken during bore construction to provide
additional separation from the bore casing. Some commonly applied formation evaluation
tools include:
 Gamma Log (natural gamma)—the gamma log measures variations in the natural
radioactivity originating from changes in concentrations of the trace elements uranium (U)
and thorium (Th) as well as changes in concentration of the major rock forming element
potassium (K). As the concentrations of these naturally occurring radioelements vary
between different rock types, gamma logging provides an important tool for lithologic
mapping and stratigraphic correlation.
 Neutron Log—these logs are useful in measuring the amount of moisture above the
watertable (in the unsaturated zones) and porosity below the watertable (saturated
zones). Neutron logs can be run in both open and cased boreholes, either above or below
the water table.
The log is an active probe with both a radiation source and a detector. The number of
neutrons impinging on a detector in the borehole is recorded. Most of the neutrons
emitted collide with hydrogen ions before reaching the detector. The loss in energy
indicates the amount of water present—if the energy loss is significant, the amount of
hydrogen in the formation is high and porosity is large (Figure 21).

Some common uses for neutron logs include:
– determination of the corrosion potential of screens and casings
– identification of lithology and stratigraphic correlation.
 Density logging (gamma – gamma)—density logging is used to determine the bulk density
of lithological materials, a function of the minerals forming the rock or soil and the
enclosed volume of free fluids (porosity). The tool works by having a radioactive source
applied to the borehole wall, which emits medium-energy gamma rays into the formation.
These gamma rays may be thought of as high velocity particles, which collide with the
electrons in the formation. At each collision the gamma ray loses some of its energy to
the electron, and then continues with diminished energy. The scattered gamma rays
reaching the detector, at the fixed station from the source, are counted as an indication of
formation density.
Figure 21: Neutron log operation
Source: Desbrandes (1985)
Economic review
Geophysical surveys are often undertaken when obvious signs of deterioration of bore
performance are manifested, or when drilling maintenance works (such as development) have
not resulted in improved bore performance. Geophysical surveys undertaken as part of pro-
active bore asset maintenance programs are less common, particularly with production bores
where additional costs are incurred with halting operations, and removing and re-installing
pumps.
It is reasonable to conclude that multiple tools should be used to survey a particular bore or
borefield. CCTV can provide obvious evidence of casing deterioration but may not identify
small micro-size casing failures (such as cracking), or defects could be masked through poor
picture quality or encrustations. Other casing assessment tools should be used to
complement a CCTV inspection. Furthermore, the incorporation of formation evaluation tools
can support the design process of replacement bores, particularly if existing lithological
information is not available. Other methods such as casing collar locator and flow metering
can be subjective, and some methods rely upon considerable interpretation.

There is a balance between the information gained from a geophysical assessment of bore
casing condition, and the cost of bore replacement or refurbishment. With some bore types,
such as shallow monitoring network bores, the cost of undertaking and interpreting a
geophysical survey are far greater than the bore replacement cost; therefore, there is little
benefit in commissioning such a survey. As the capital replacement costs of a bore increase,
the economic benefit in completing downhole surveys also increases.
Undertaking a downhole survey may require a temporary cessation of bore operation and
system supply as pumps are shut down and removed. As a result, frequent inspections may
be deferred or considered undesirable by an extractor and other non-invasive techniques
such a performance monitoring and specific capacity testing have benefits in minimising or in
some cases obviating the need for invasive geophysics. Proactive maintenance inspections
can alert the bore user to the residual life of the bore, which is an important parameter for
managers of steel cased bores. Some specialised techniques (such as Schlumberger USI)
can calculate casing wall thickness. Periodic measurement of casing metal loss (or formation
of encrustations) can enable the prioritisation and programming of future maintenance works
or capital expenditure for replacement works. Unfortunately, the sensitivity of a number of
tools is insufficient in identifying slight bore condition changes over time, and given
considerable maintenance investment of applying the more specialised tools requiring, this
can be an economic deterrent.
Geophysical inspection can also provide useful information to assess the economic merit of
whether to replace or refurbish a bore. This is particularly useful with monitoring bores, where
yield reductions that may occur from casing re-lines are not critical to the function of the bore.
The geophysical assessment can be used to confirm available diameters and verify
construction, but also to qualitatively assess the risk in further maintenance or work-over of
bores approaching or beyond their design life.
6.3.2 Physical testing

There are a number of tests that can be undertaken on a bore to assess changes in bore
performance and enable characterisation of the bore casing condition. In all cases, a baseline
or initial test is required, and subsequent testing is undertaken to identify variances from the
initial baseline.
Pumping tests: specific capacity

Specific capacity of a groundwater bore can be defined as the yield per unit of drawdown—
3
expressed as cubic metres per day per metre (m /day/m) of drawdown—after a given time
has elapsed (Driscoll 1986). A specific capacity test involves pumping a bore at a constant
rate, noting the amount of drawdown at the conclusion of pumping. Dividing the pumping rate
by the amount of drawdown provides the specific capacity. A reduction in specific capacity
can generally be attributed to the following processes:
 Mechanical processes—due to the movement of particulate material within the formation
into the filter pack, corresponding to a reduction in permeability. These problems can
occur in inadequately designed or placed filter packs and screens, or where bore
development may have been insufficient. ‗Backflooding‘ of muddy surface water is also a
significant cause of reduced specific capacity by mechanical processes (US Army Corps
of Engineers 1992). Clogging is a common cause of loss of capacity in injection bores.
 Chemical processes—due to chemical encrustations of the bore screen, filter pack and
formation soils surrounding the groundwater bore. Deposits within the screen openings
can reduce the effective opening area and cause increased head losses (US Army Corps
of Engineers 1992).

 Biological processes—such as bacteria that can precipitate iron to solid surfaces of
groundwater bore infrastructure.
Canadian research has highlighted that once a bore loses more than 40 per cent of its original
specific capacity (an indicator of bore efficiency), it can be very difficult to recover the bore to
the original specific capacity (Forward 2008).
The major advantage of this test is that it can be easily performed on production bores that
have been equipped with production pumps. A drawback is that specific capacity tests are not
easily performed in observation and monitoring bores; however with such bores, yield
performance is not usually a concern.
A step–drawdown test is a variation of a specific capacity test, as it essentially determines

specific capacity relationships under varying flow rates. Laminar flow conditions occur when
groundwater flows in parallel layers, with no disruption between the layers. In laminar flow
conditions, drawdown is directly proportional to the pumping rate (Driscoll 1986). Turbulent
flow can occur if a bore is pumped at a sufficiently high rate. During turbulent flow, the
relationship between drawdown and pumping rate is not linear.
The step–drawdown test was developed as a means of determining the turbulent and laminar
components of drawdown, which allows pumping rates and pump depths to be optimised. The
step–drawdown test is a type of pumping test that involves pumping a groundwater bore at
several successively higher rates, with the drawdown for each rate (or step) recorded.
6.3.3 Water quality monitoring
Groundwater sampling
The processes occurring within a groundwater bore can be assessed through the collection
and analysis of groundwater samples. The concentrations of various parameters can be
assessed to provide an indication of bore casing condition, through identification of
deterioration processes such as fouling and corrosion. Periodic water quality monitoring can
be useful in identifying groundwater quality impacts, such as those discussed in Chapter 4
‗Groundwater quality impacts‘.
Many chemicals occur naturally in groundwaters and generally reflect the following, as
adapted from NGWA (1998):
 mineral composition of the aquifer
 current and historic oxygen reduction potential conditions
 conditions under which the aquifer was formed
 historic hydrogeochemical variances and evolution.
Significant variances in water quality parameters such as pH, electrical conductivity and major
ions can indicate potential corrosion of the bore casing through the co-mingling of different
groundwaters in a groundwater bore. McLaughlan (2002) considers iron to be the most
important parameter in terms of bore casing deterioration, as it can indicate the presence of
iron biofouling.
The primary objective of collecting a groundwater sample is to obtain a sample with minimal
(and preferably no) significant alteration in water chemistry so it is representative of the

monitored aquifer. A groundwater sample should be collected by qualified personnel to
ensure quality assurance and quality control.
If possible, groundwater samples should be collected following stabilisation of measured

parameters such as pH, electrical conductivity, dissolved oxygen, temperature and oxygen
reduction potential. Sampling bottles should be supplied and specified by the laboratory for
each particular analysis, due to the requirement of different volumes or trace preservatives
(generally acid) depending on required analysis. Water samples requiring analysis of heavy
metals can be field filtered using a 0.45 micron filter, to provide a more representative sample
by preventing the adsorption of heavy metals to sediment particles in the collected sample.
Once collected, groundwater samples should be labelled and stored in ice chilled cooler
boxes, prior to submission to the laboratory under chain of custody documentation.
Solid sampling
An understanding of the composition of bore deterioration deposits (such as fouling,
aggressive, or particulate deposits) can facilitate the assessment of processes within the bore
and the aquifer that may have resulted in the accumulation of these deposits.
The extent of sampling analysis undertaken may depend on the extent and implications of the
problem as well as available facilities to conduct any analytical assessment.
Fouling deposits generally accumulate in specific areas within a groundwater bore, depending
on the type of deposit. Fouling deposits are not uniformly distributed throughout a
groundwater extraction system (McLaughlan 2002).
The following procedures for obtaining solid samples from groundwater bores have largely
been adapted from McLaughlan (2002). Biofouling deposits generally concentrate in various
parts of a groundwater extraction system (Figure 22), including:
 the top section of the bore screen
 the pump inlet
 related infrastructure such as pipelines.
Conversely, particulate deposits generally accumulate at the bottom of a groundwater bore

and within low velocity zones. The minimum energy required to transport particulates can be
reflected by the size of particle deposits. For instance, accumulation of fine grained material
suggests particulate intrusion is due to incorrect gravel pack selection, whilst coarse grained
particulates suggests corrosion holes within the bore casing.
Sampling techniques will vary depending on the nature and composition of the deposit and
access to fouled sections of the bore infrastructure. Indirect assessment can be made by
monitoring of pump servicing, filter replacements, or frequency of scouring of delivery
infrastructure.

Figure 22: Biofouling zones within a groundwater extraction system

Notes:
Zone 3 – the top section of the bore screen
Zone 4 – pump/suction inlet
Zone 5 – around the surface pump impellers (only in suction lift centrifugal pumps and not in submersible pumps)
Zone 6 – the discharge side of the pump, including bore column pipes, degassing tanks and pipelines
6.3.4 Monitoring and data review

Variations from a baseline or anomalous trends in monitoring information are simple methods
to alert managers of potential bore casing condition issues. A periodical review of time-series
information can be a relatively inexpensive way of assessing asset condition on a
performance-based strategy. Monitoring parameters could include:
 flow rate, volumetrics and metering data
 water level behaviour
 condition of headworks (slumping around headworks, fouling deposits)
 pump maintenance frequency
 pump starts, motor operation, temperature and motor protection telemetrics
 water quality changes
 delivery infrastructure maintenance frequency.
Subtle changes or trends can enable managers to implement necessary actions such as
geophysical assessment or specific capacity testing.

6.3.5 Diagnosis program
In diagnosing bore problems, a typical program could include:
 review of historical records including monitoring data
 water chemistry testing
 diagnosis using water chemistry testing is primarily concerned with identifying mineral
scaling potential and the processes likely to be driving the precipitating reactions
 deposits (of scale) can be collected from the bore screen, casing or pump
 bacteriological testing
 BART ™, which are possibly the most common of the bacteriological tests. Typically
these tests are more accurate than heterotrophic plate count methods because they are
reflective more indicative of downhole conditions (BART testing involves a ball floating in
solution to create differing aerobic to anaerobic, oxic to anoxic and oxidative to reductive
conditions—all of which are recommended
 casing inspection (CCTV or other geophysical survey)
 useful to determine structural failures (such as holed casing), but also for determining
rehabilitation requirements (such mechanical cleaning, areas of microbial activity)
 pump tests after treatment to establish the new baseline and to assist with determining
the timing of next treatment.

7. Bore deterioration economic and
cost implications
7.1 Casing rehabilitation, replacement and
decommission costs
Cost estimates for the rehabilitation, replacement, decommissioning and condition
assessment of groundwater bores have been compiled. The compilation of these cost
estimates were derived from a variety of sources, primarily through:
 cost estimates provided by drilling contractors throughout Australia
 actual costs obtained from GHD‘s recently completed projects
 estimates provided through sound judgement and significant experience in the
groundwater industry.
Costs were compiled for each of the states assessed, and a ‗state‘ average was developed
for costs involved for the various aspects discussed. Data for each state were then
consolidated to a ‗national‘ average, providing representative costs for bore drilling, condition
assessment, refurbishment and decommissioning, based on the mentioned limitations.
7.1.1 Factors influencing cost estimates

The costs compiled are also subject to variables that depend on both the local and regional
setting of the bore, as well as the intended use of the bore itself. Some of these variables are
detailed below.
Intended bore use

The intended bore use will influence the quantity of groundwater to be extracted from a bore,
which influences the type of pump required and diameter of bore to be drilled. Each of these
items has individual cost implications that vary with site conditions.
Bore diameter and depth

The bore diameter required for a proposed bore is determined by the estimated flow rate
required and thus the size of the pump to be installed. As such, bore diameter has an
influence on drilling costs, regardless of the setting.
As with bore diameter, bore installation and decommissioning costs generally increase as the
total depth of a bore increases.
Drilling method
The type of drilling method employed is primarily based on expected geological conditions,
expected drilling depths and if applicable, the type of samples required whilst drilling
(disturbed or undisturbed samples).
Costs of different drilling methods vary, due to the complexity of operation and costs in
establishing and operating the suitable method. As such, drilling cost estimates depend on
the suitable method required for a particular location.

Assumptions
The costings consolidated for this assessment assume that a single drilling rate can be
applied for each bore depth. This can be misleading, particularly with shallower (less than 200
metres depth) boreholes. For instance, rotary drilling and mud drilling have significantly
varying establishment costs—for example, water carting and mud preparation for mud rotary
drilling are significantly more costly than rotary (air or augering) techniques.
Contractor capability
Most groundwater drilling contractors specialise in bore depths less than 200 metres below
ground level. There is less contractor capability and availability and thus competition in pricing
for deeper bores. Accordingly, this will result in a bias in pricing for the deeper bores.
Contractor capability is also limited in other areas, including:

 specialised packers for casing re-sleeves
 specialised geophysical techniques— for example, casing wall imaging technologies such
as UCI™
 specialised bore (aggressive) treatments, such as SonarJet™.
Contractors with these capabilities have generally developed specialist technologies through
their own research and development programs and therefore have created a niche market.
This can lead to procurement and mobilisation delays or premiums and lack of competitive
pricing.
Other factors that can affect drilling contractor pricing is the demand on availability. For
instance, droughts and mineral booms can place high demand on drilling rigs or personnel.
Mobilisation costs
Little information was available on the variation in mobilisation rates nationally. Bores located
in regional areas often have significantly higher drilling establishment costs, particularly
deeper boreholes which require the transport of casing and support plant. A particular case is
the installation of groundwater bores in regions of saline groundwater or in locations outside
of metropolitan or regional centres, as local drilling contractors are generally scarce and will
need to be mobilised from a metropolitan or regional centre.
Environmental considerations
The level of environmental management for a particular bore drilling site will vary depending
on its location, immediate and surrounding land use, proposed bore depth and intended bore
use. For instance, the installation of a shallow monitoring bore in an urban setting is possibly
more easily managed from an environmental perspective than the installation of a deep saline
aquifer monitoring bore in a national park.
Assumptions
The environmental considerations of bore installation are largely site dependent and as such,
are a factor that has not been captured in the drilling cost estimate provided.

Bore casing materials
An adequate length of appropriate casing is required in water bores to prevent the collapse of
the penetrated strata and to act as a safe housing for the installed pump. As outlined in LWA
(2003), ‗… the casing must be of sufficient strength and composition to withstand the
pressure exerted by the surrounding strata and other forces imposed during installation, bore
development and any cementing operations, and to resist rapid corrosion by the soil and
water environments. It should provide a secure and leak proof conduit from the water source
to the surface through unstable formations and through zones of actual or potential
contamination. It must be joined and installed so that it is reasonably straight and free of kinks
or twists.‘
Costs of bore casing material vary depending on the type of material utilised, which in turn, is
dependent on the ground conditions and groundwater chemistry at a bore site. For instance, a
100-metre deep bore installed with unplasticised PVC casing will be significantly cheaper to
install than a bore of the same depth that requires stainless steel casing due to corrosive
groundwater conditions.
Many bore casing materials (including FRP and specialist steel casing) are imported into
Australia from overseas. Therefore, lead times are often experienced in terms of procurement
and exchange rate fluctuations. The price of crude oil for instance, can also lead to variations
in pricing of FRP casing materials.
7.1.2 Overall comments for bore costings
Bore drilling costs

Several drilling depth intervals have been adopted for presentation purposes according to
approximate drill rig capabilities and bore casing material depth limits. These depth intervals
are shown below.
 0 to 20 metres
 20 to 100 metres
 more than 500 metres.
These generic intervals are misleading in some circumstances, such as for large-diameter
shallow bores, or deep (narrow diameter) monitoring bores.
In terms of costing for bore casing materials, inert casing has been assumed for shallow
bores, and FRP materials have been assumed for use in deeper bores. ‗Rig / Works‘ include
drill rig costs, driller‘s fees and all works requiring the drill rig. Materials include all required
bore materials, including bore casing materials, bore screens, drilling fluids, sand and gravel
pack, bentonite and required headworks.
A factor of approximately 10 per cent has been added to the total drilling costs to account for
cementing costs, and a further 10 per cent has been applied to account for and manage
potential artesian groundwater conditions.
Technical support from a professional engineer or hydrogeologist has also been included in
the costs provided.

Accommodation costs have been considered for all depth intervals; however, the requirement
for this will be dependent on the location of the drill site.
Regulatory aspects such as bore construction licensing have also been accounted for.
Bore condition assessment costs

Bore condition assessment costs have been provided assuming a production bore is to be
assessed. This assumes that the bore is fitted with a pump, resulting in minimal requirement
for a hydrogeologist onsite.
These costs have been based on conducting a downhole geophysical test such as CCTV.
Bore refurbishment costs

Bore refurbishment costs have been provided on the basis of a partial re-sleeve and casing
patch. As well as the items mentioned above, bore refurbishment costs may also include a
component for downhole geophysical testing and a risk factor based on the age of the bore.
It has been assumed that the downhole pump is removed. Materials accounted for in the
costings include bore casing and packers.
The one-off completion of bore treatment, such as mechanical clean or dosing, has also been
costed. Additional factors considered for bore treatment include a 10 to 20 per cent factor for
the potential requirement of downhole geophysical works, as well as an additional 10 to 20
per cent environmental factor to account for management of the treatment by-product.
Bore decommissioning costs

Many of the previously mentioned items have been included in the costings for bore
decommissioning; however, costings are independent of geological conditions or casing
materials.
Consolidation of bore costings

Bore costings have been obtained from drilling contractors in several states of Australia to
provide an indication of cost variation between metropolitan and regional areas, between
states, and also between different geological settings. Bore costs were also obtained through
GHD‘s array of technical professional hydrogeologists, and our previous projects and
experiences in the groundwater industry. These costs are provided in Appendix F1.
Lack of data for particular bore assessment aspects presented some data gaps within the
consolidated ‗National‘ average costs. These gaps were ‗filled‘ using indicative costings
provided by GHD‘s technical professionals in the groundwater sector to generate a final
National Consolidated Cost Table (refer to Appendix F2).
The source of each cost listed in the consolidated estimates has been highlighted for clarity
and transparency.
The costs provided by GHD‘s technical professionals would be considered generic averages
for the specific activity at hand, based on the provided depth interval. Costings obtained from
drilling contractors do not take into account geological conditions or other factors such as
drilling technique.

7.2 Bore casing deterioration—economic
implications
7.2.1 Economic impacts
The objective of this component of the study, as per the original terms of reference, is to
determine the possible economic impact of the (bore casing) deterioration and the cost of
rehabilitation of bores.
In addressing this objective, the economic component of the study is to include:

To enhance this analysis, GHD has also sought to review the costs and benefits associated
with bore rehabilitation.
7.2.2 Methodology
Background
Previous studies regarding the Australian groundwater bore network do not provide a
comprehensive assessment of groundwater bore condition. The stakeholder consultation
phase of the present project was also unable to provide a complete description of the
Australian bore population characteristics such as extent of deterioration and interaction with
factors such as bore depth and bore casing material.
These data gaps, along with the complex nature of the Australian groundwater bore system
(in terms of geographic spread) meant that a comprehensive, nationwide, economic impact
assessment covering all bore categories was not possible within the bounds of the present
study.
As an alternative, the project team investigated two case study areas in depth and supported
this analysis with a qualitative discussion to describe the impacts that could not be quantified.
A benefit cost analysis framework was used to guide the analysis of the case study areas.
Case study examples

Two case study borefields were selected by the project team as the focus for the economic
analysis:
 Grampians region, Western Victoria (mainly livestock and domestic supply)
 Carnarvon Basin, Western Australia (mainly irrigated horticulture supply).
Several factors influenced the selection of the case studies, including the results of the
stakeholder consultation phase, the availability of relevant desktop data (previous published
reports, gross margin benchmarks for agricultural activities), the project team‘s knowledge of
the local area, and the preference to have one case study area that focuses on town water
supply and another that highlights impacts on irrigated agriculture.However, an investigation
of the impact of bore deterioration on town water supply was not practical because, in reality,
any substantial disruption to the quality or reliability of town water supply would not be
tolerated for any length of time. For this reason, the consideration of town water supply was

excluded from the analysis, and the case studies instead focused on water for livestock and
irrigated horticulture.
For each case study area, the bore population was classified by depth (the number of bores
that belong to each of the following categories: 0–20 metres, 20–100 metres, 100–200
metres, 200–500 metres, more than 500 metres). Bore depth was chosen as the key
characteristic to reflect in the modelling as it can have a substantial influence on rehabilitation
costs. The inclusion of other variables such as casing material and diameter was not possible
within the bounds of the study.
The project team then sought to quantify the likely deterioration in water supply for each bore
depth category, and to then calculate the potential magnitude of economic impacts in the
case study borefield areas.
Key assumptions
A number of simplifying assumptions were made when undertaking the modelling, due to
limited data availability and the size of the Australian groundwater bore network. In reality,
responses to deterioration in water supply and quality will be more complex than the model
results suggest and would include a range of adaptation and mitigation strategies by
individual water users that would be difficult to model.
The assumptions specific to this case study are presented in Table 23.
Table 23: Assumptions of case study modelling

Site Parameter Value
Grampians Total groundwater available 31,739 megalitres
Livestock requirement 4 litres per DSE
Water losses and influence of water 80% of water is available in Year 1; however
on livestock production only 20% of available water will influence
livestock production (water tends not to be the
limiting factor)
Timeframe of model 25 years
Bore age All bores are the same age
Carnarvon Total groundwater available 5220 megalitres
Irrigated crop requirement 5 megalitres per hectare
Water losses due to bore 80% of available water reaches the crop in
deterioration Year 1
Timeframe of model 25 years
Bore age All bores are the same age
DSE = dry sheep equivalent
Case study 1: the Grampians region, western Victoria

This case study examines bores within the Grampians Region Water Authority (GRWA). The
GRWA supplies water to 15 of the 74 towns throughout the Grampians, Wimmera and Mallee
regions of north-western Victoria using 35 groundwater bores. As monitoring costs are high,
the information on these groundwater bores is limited and often fragmented.

For the purposes of the cost benefit analysis modelling, the Grampians borefield is assumed
to be characterised by the following bore depths:
Bore depth (m) 0–20 20–100 100–200 200–500 >500
Number of bores 0 16 11 8 0
Data for the case study have been sourced from bore condition assessments undertaken for
the GRWA by Egis Consulting Pty Ltd (2002) and GHD (2004). Downhole geophysical and
camera inspection methods were used to examine a selection of groundwater bores within
the region. Results were assessed as to whether they were good, fair, poor or failed, and the
condition of each bore casing and screen was classified according to the presence and
degree of corrosion and biofouling, as well as overall bore integrity.
The assessment indicated that bore condition varied from good to fail. Poor or failed bores
were generally noted as bores that had been completed with steel casing, and where bore
screens exhibited significant corrosion, encrustation or clogging.
Remedial works were recommended on the basis of the bore condition assessment.
Recommendations included replacement, rehabilitation or further investigation. Bore
replacement was recommended for some bores in poor condition, where the event of total
failure would have significant consequences based on usage.
The three main sources of agricultural water in the Grampians region are surface water,
groundwater and town or country reticulated mains supply. Surface water and groundwater
are the main sources of water used in agricultural irrigation. The main agricultural industries in
the region are pasture for grazing, cereal crops and horticulture.
Sheep grazing has been selected as the representative agricultural activity throughout the
Grampians region for inclusion in the case study modelling. This is because pastoral grazing
is the dominant enterprise in the Grampians region.
Agricultural loss has been calculated based on the assumption that stocking rates would be
reduced should groundwater quality decline. It is assumed that in the short term, surface
water allocations may be unattainable or too expensive to consider purchasing. In order to
supply stock with an adequate volume of drinking water, the number of stock would be
reduced.
Case study 2: Carnarvon Basin, Western Australia

2
The Carnarvon Artesian Basin occupies an area of 25,000 km along the western-most coast
of Western Australia and sources water from the Birdrong Aquifer. During the past century,
approximately 140 groundwater bores have been drilled for drinking supplies, government
stock wells, and use by industry including mines and pastoral properties. Approximately 22
million cubic metres is pumped annually, with seepage and evaporation losses of around 70
per cent as a result of bore drains and subsurface leakage.
The three main sources of agricultural water in the Carnarvon region are surface water,
groundwater and town or country reticulated mains supply. Surface water and groundwater
are the main sources of water used in agricultural irrigation. The main agricultural industries in
the region are horticulture and pastoral grazing.
In 2005–06, groundwater accounted for more than half of the 9863 megalitres of water used
by agricultural businesses (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2008c) While the proportion of

groundwater and surface water used in irrigation activities is unclear, it is apparent that more
than half of the total water used by agricultural businesses in 2005–06 was used to irrigate.
Horticulture is the largest irrigated agricultural industry in the region. Fruit and nut trees,
plantation or berry fruits, vegetables for human consumption and grapevines applied the
largest irrigated volume in 2005–06.
Grapevines have been used as a representative crop in this case study, on which basis
agricultural losses have been modelled. Grapevines were selected because the crop received
the second largest volume of irrigated water in 2005–06, and the available gross value data
facilitated the calculation of agricultural loss as a result of declining water quality (Australian
Bureau of Statistics 2008). Grapevines are a high value crop (on a per hectare basis), so the
lost agricultural income arising from bore deterioration in the Carnarvon Basin will be
overstated.
According to Astill et al. (2002), ‗bores in the Carnarvon region are aggressive and cause
extensive corrosion of bore casings and fittings‘. Of the 120 groundwater bores that were
drilled for pastoral properties, approximately 40 have ceased, 40 trickle to the surface, and 40
have a substantial flow rate. Many of the groundwater bores had an operational life of less
than ten years. Bores were constructed using steel casing, with ineffective cementing
operations and lack of controlling headworks.
As a result of the groundwater bore degradation, a number of replacement bores have been
completed using FRP casing with stainless steel telescoped screens. Astill et al. (2002)
considered that the FRP casing, combined with pressure cement grouting and telescoped
screens, gives these bores a design life in excess of 100 years.
For the purposes of the cost benefit analysis modelling, the Carnarvon Basin borefield is
assumed to be characterised by the following bore depths:
Bore depth (m) 0–20 20–100 100–200 200–500 >500
Number of bores 0 12 12 96 0
7.2.3 The ‘do nothing’ scenario

The ‗do nothing‘ (or ‗without‘ project) scenario is the status quo, whereby groundwater bores
continue to deteriorate in both case study regions and no refurbishment activities are
undertaken. This scenario has a variety of implications, which are discussed further in the
following sections.
Agricultural impacts
Under the ‗do nothing‘ scenario, groundwater bore deterioration is likely to result in:
 reduced water quality such as impacts on pH, salinity, soil contamination, aquifer
contamination
 a reduced area of land that can be irrigated, as a result of reduced water yield
 increased pumping costs (due to greater electricity usage).
In addition, stock and domestic users are usually reliant on a solitary bore. Reduced water
supply (due to bore deterioration) is likely to necessitate reduced stocking rates and increase
pumping costs (due to greater electricity usage).

State government gross margin budgets, state agriculture department reports, and the project
team‘s knowledge and experience in the Australian agriculture industry have been used to
estimate a per hectare value of agriculture for each case study area. The average annual
available groundwater resource in each region was used to calculate the maximum potential
area for agricultural activities. The impact of bore deterioration on water yield was then
incorporated into the model in order to estimate the potential lost agricultural income from the
can be attributed to bore deterioration.
Key assumptions underpinning the estimate of agricultural impacts include:

 irrigated crops are watered at 100 per cent of their requirements
 livestock receive 100 per cent of their water requirements
 a 20 per cent reduction in water availability leads to a 20 per cent reduction in irrigated
land
 a 20 per cent reduction in water availability leads to a 20 per cent reduction in livestock
carrying capacity
 under the ‗without project‘ scenario, bore deterioration means that 80 per cent of annual
available water can be used in year 1
 in the absence of refurbishment, annual available water continues to decline by 1 per cent
per annum.
Bore operation and maintenance

Under the ‗do nothing‘ scenario, annual operating and maintenance activities tend to focus on
groundwater sampling, which is required by state regulators. Sampling costs are estimated to
be $1000 per bore, every six months, regardless of bore depth. These costs have been
estimated based on information from drilling contractors, state government departments,
consulting firms, state water bodies and the project team‘s own knowledge of groundwater
bores in Australia.
Other impacts
The impact of bore deterioration on irrigated agriculture, stock and domestic users, and
operating and maintenance costs have been included in the benefit cost analysis modelling.
Due to substantial data limitations, several other potential impacts have not been quantified,
and these should be considered when reviewing the results of the modelling. These include:
 cross-contamination of groundwater aquifers
 reduced health of groundwater dependent ecosystems (such as terrestrial flora and
fauna, wetlands, river base flow systems, and aquifer and cave systems) due to
increased salinity, algal blooms or other water quality impacts
 exposure of ecological or biological organisms to contaminants through a contaminant
migration pathway
 additional treatment costs associated with increased turbidity
 failure of bore screens
 deterioration of ancillary infrastructure such as pump impellers and motors, pipes, flow
meters, filters, valves and storage tanks
 deterioration of household equipment such as hot water systems and small appliances

 industrial uses such as mining—both for water supply during mineral processing
requirements and dewatering requirements for mine working engineering
 monitoring bores—sustainable yield management and water quality monitoring for
management of a groundwater resource.
7.2.4 The ‘with’ scenario

Under the ‗with‘ scenario, bore rehabilitation is undertaken in both case study regions. As a
result, the detrimental effects of bore deterioration are avoided. These costs and benefits of
bore rehabilitation are explored further in the following sections.
Factors influencing bore rehabilitation costs

For the purposes of modelling, a number of simplifying assumptions were made regarding
bore characteristics and the impact of bore deterioration on productive activity. However,
several factors have the potential to influence bore rehabilitation costs. These variables
should be kept in mind when considering the results of the economic analysis and are
discussed further in Section 7.1 above.
Rehabilitation costs included in this analysis

Rehabilitation costs have been estimated based on information from drilling contractors, state
government departments, consulting firms, state water agencies, and the project team‘s own
knowledge of groundwater bores in Australia. The methodology used to estimate
rehabilitation costs (including condition assessment, treatment, casing refurbishment and
drilling) are described in Section 7.1.2 above. Key assumptions underpinning the modelling of
bore rehabilitation include:
 bore refurbishment occurs in year 1
 rehabilitation costs are, on average, the same across the two case study areas.
The estimated bore rehabilitation costs included in this analysis are presented in Table 24 for
various bore depths.
Avoided costs
The primary benefits of bore rehabilitation are the avoided impacts on groundwater users of
bore casing deterioration. The model accounts for these impacts by including the avoided
costs of lost income from irrigated agriculture and livestock production. The ‗do nothing
scenaro‘ impacts described but not quantified above should also be considered when
reviewing the results of the modelling, as these impacts would be avoided if bore
rehabilitation occurred.
Bore decommissioning
An alternative to rehabilitation is bore decommissioning. This has not been included in the
modelling, but cost estimates have been prepared based on previous studies, consultation,
and the project team‘s knowledge and experience (Table 25). As mentioned in Section 7.1.2
above, these costs have been estimated without consideration of geological conditions and
casing material. The cost estimates show that bore decommissioning costs vary quite
substantially according to bore depth, ranging from approximately $7000 per bore (for depths
up to 20 metres) to more than $100,000 for bores deeper than 500 metres.

Table 24: Rehabilitation costs ($ per bore)
Rehabilitation Cost @ Cost @ Cost @ Cost @ Cost Frequency
activity 0–20m 20–100m 100–200m 200–500m >500m
Condition assessment (including operation and maintenance)
Water $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 Every 3
sampling months
Hydrograph $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 Every 6
operation months
review
Pull pump $500 $1500 $2000 $4000 $4000 Every 7 years
Wireline $2000 $2000 $2000 $4000 $4000 Every 7 years
survey (e.g.
CCTV)
Hydrogeology $500 $500 $1000 $2000 $2000 Every 6
interpretation months
Pumping and $4000 4000 $4000 $4000 $4000 Every 7 years
spec capacity
Treatment $5501 $7,866 $13,312 36,004 $69,126 Once in year 1
Casing $8000 $15,306 $46,585 $178,848 $347,328 Once in year 1
refurbishment
Drilling costs $8000 $13,915 $100,430 $401,040 $800,640 Once in year 1
Table 25: Estimated bore decommissioning costs ($ per bore)

Cost Cost Cost Cost Cost
0–20 m 20–100 m 100–200 m 200–500 m >500 m
Mobilisation $1500 $2000 $5000 $10000 $20000
Accommodation $500 $500 $1000 $1500 $2000
Rig / Works $1000 $1000 $2000 $6000 $12000
Materials $1000 $2000 $5000 $10,000 $20,000
Regulatory $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000 $1000
Hydro/eng support $2000 $4000 $4000 $6000 $8000
Perforation factor 1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2
Artesian head kill 1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2
factor
Age risk factor 1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2
TOTAL $7000 $13,976 $23,958 $59,616 $108,864
7.2.5 Case study scenario economic impact summary
Results
The results of the cost benefit analysis for the Grampians case study region are presented in
Table 26. Regardless of depth, bore refurbishment is estimated to have a positive net impact.
At a 7 per cent discount rate, the net present value of bore refurbishment is estimated to
range from $38.58 million (at a bore depth of 200–500 metres) to $87.17 million (at a bore
depth of 20–100 metres).
The results of the cost benefit analysis for the Carnarvon Basin case study region are also
presented in Table 26. Again, regardless of depth, bore refurbishment is estimated to have a
positive net impact. At a 7 per cent discount rate, the net present value of bore refurbishment

is estimated to range from $8.49 million (at a bore depth of 100–200 m) to $20.89 million (at a
bore depth of 200–500 m).
Table 26: Results of economic modelling

Site Bore depth Discount Net present value Net present value
(metres) rate without refurbishment with refurbishment
($million) ($million)
Grampians, 20–100 4% ($122.55) $119.29
Victoria 7% ($89.83) $87.17
10% ($68.98) $66.72
100–200 4% ($84.26) $80.46
7% ($61.76) $58.43
10% ($47.42) $44.39
200–500 4% ($61.28) $54.52
7% ($44.29) $38.58
10% ($34.49) $28.42
Carnarvon, 20–100 4% ($16.52) $14.07
Western 7% ($12.12) $10.13
Australia
10% ($9.32) $7.62
100–200 4% ($16.52) $12.38
7% ($12.12) $8.49
10% ($9.32) $6.01
200–500 4% ($132.17) $51.13
7% ($96.97) $20.89
10% ($74.53) $1.70
Note:( ) Denotes a negative number.
Caveats
The simplifying assumptions made when undertaking the modelling result in several caveats
to the analysis:
 The case studies are only examples and are not designed to be a representative sample
of the Australian bore population. The case studies provide an indication of the possible
magnitude of impacts in the specific bore fields investigated.
 The residual life of bores is not included in the modelling.
 Supplementary water and surface water supplies are not included in the modelling.
 Bore casing material is not included in the modelling.
 The age of the bores is not included in the modelling.
Issues for further investigation

All economic models are based on a number of simplifying assumptions. This, coupled with
the complexity of the Australian bore network (in terms of geographic spread, magnitude and
available data), means that a more detailed analysis is required to ascertain site-specific
impacts. The results of the present analysis can provide an indication of the potential impacts
and thus act as a starting point for state and regional investigations. A more substantial cost
benefit analysis would be useful, but substantial effort would be required.

The results of the benefit cost analysis suggest that bores in the case study regions should be
refurbished. However, we emphasise the lack of robustness of the modelled results due to the
data deficiencies described. A more confident recommendation regarding an appropriate
response to groundwater bore deterioration would be preceded by a more comprehensive
cost benefit analysis based on more representative data.
Key tasks could include:

 Consultation to investigate and classify the Australian bore network according to
characteristics such as:
– extent of deterioration
– public versus private ownership
– type of use (irrigated cropping, stock and domestic, monitoring)
– age
– depth
– diameter
– casing material.
 Based on the results of the classification of bores, reduce the number of bores to a
manageable level by obtaining a representative sample. This sample should be the
minimum size possible (for ease of modelling) while still large enough to be
representative.
 Undertake a cost benefit analysis based on the representative sample of bores.
 Extrapolate the results so that the net impact of bore rehabilitation can be estimated on a
national basis.
If certain assumptions in the present study are particularly sensitive, future investigations
could also include sensitivity analysis of these assumptions.
This study provides a framework to assess the benefits of rehabilitation in borefields based on
two case studies. The framework can be adapted to provide an assessment for other
locations if the relevant information becomes available.
Summary
The economic component of this study required:
To enhance this analysis, GHD employed a cost benefit analysis framework to review the
costs and benefits associated with bore rehabilitation.
Due to the nature of the available data, it was not possible to undertake a nationwide
assessment of bore deterioration. For this reason, the cost benefit analysis focused on two
case study areas.
refurbishment of groundwater bores, but the results are not robust due to the data limitations
described.

of this result, a more complete study, based on comprehensive data, is required. This could
selected characteristics; based on the results of the classification of bores, reducing the
number of bores to a manageable level by obtaining a representative sample; undertaking a
cost benefit analysis based on the representative sample of bores; and extrapolating the
results so that the net impact of bore rehabilitation can be estimated on a national basis.

8. Bore deterioration abatement and
rehabilitation
8.1 Appreciation of bore value
With increasing focus on issues such as climate change, sustainability and environmental
accountability, there is now a greater need to have a secure groundwater resource. This
security means different things to various end-users, particularly when the spectrum of end-
use is considered:
 ongoing supply (for drinking, irrigation, stock water requirements)
 integrity of monitoring information
 sustainability of the resource
 hydrogeological understanding
 ongoing site operations and safety (dewatering, depressurisation)
 control or recovery of groundwater quality (remediation).
Bore casing deterioration represents a threat to the longevity of a bore, and the security of the
supply, processes or information reliant upon it. Moderate manifestations may provide a
maintenance nuisance, but in severe forms it can threaten the groundwater environment
(groundwater quality and availability), or have significant cost implications to manage. It is for
these reasons that there is a clear need to understand its process and impacts to determine a
means to mitigate against its effects.
8.1.1 Management practices for bore deterioration

There are many options available to managers for managing bores and associated assets.
The challenge is to manage the total lifecycle costs of the asset. To ensure effective decision-
making processes, this needs to be balanced with a number of other considerations as
follows:
 Levels of service—understanding the required level of service for the bores; this may
depend on a number of factors such as:
– bore function (for example, water supply or monitoring bores)
– bore physical characteristics such as depth, diameter
– bore location and environmental conditions
– demand for supply.
 Maintenance—understanding the required level of maintenance. What minimum
maintenance is required in terms of timing, type, and resources ?
 Operating regimes—development and understanding of operating regime.
 Performance monitoring—what performance monitoring and condition assessment should
be undertaken to ensure deteriorations and failures are not undetected?

 Risk management—understanding consequence and probability of failure and having
sufficient information to quantify and manage risks. What mitigation plans must be put in
place to manage risks, and what level of monitoring is required on an ongoing basis to
ensure asset risk is managed effectively? Is there a risk framework in place to ensure
corporate and operational risks are managed in a consistent manner and in accordance
with Australian Standards?
 Data management—data wanted versus data needed. What data should we collect that
we actually need and use for management of the asset. What data do we currently collect
that we do not need? What is the best data management tool for my asset? Should a
works management system be used as the data management system? Are we able to
integrate physical asset data with financial data (specifically, operational and
maintenance dollars)
 Emergency response plans—what plans must be put in place to ensure emergencies are
managed (provision of alternative supplies in case of bore failure)?
 Incident management—how do we manage incidents, related to both operation of the
asset and health and safety of human resources?
 Renewal and replacement programs—do we have programs in place that justifies our
renewal and replacement budgets? What is the premise for the renewal or replacement?
Is it based on an economic decision, risk, age, or an optimisation of all?
 Asset valuations—what is the asset worth and what is the depreciated optimised
replacement cost of my asset? Do we replace like for like or do we determine the value of
the modern engineering equivalent asset?
 Asset management plans—do we have an asset management plan that encapsulates all
vital information at a strategic and operation level for the bores and outlines forecast
expenditures for both capital and operational activities in the medium to long term for
management of these important assets.
Management of groundwater determines the operational performance and profitability of

industries (such as urban supply authority, irrigator or miner) that are involved with
groundwater assets as part of their core business. This needs to be balanced against
environmental requirements and guidelines and the current regulatory framework that an
industry must operated within.
In terms of groundwater asset management, a simple schematic that presents the key
considerations that the owners or managers of the bores need to consider is shown in Figure
23.
Figure 23: Schematic concept of groundwater bore asset management implications

The tasks that need to be undertaken by managers can therefore be broadly split into the
following categories:
 optimising and understanding the resource
 identifying the physical processes, problems, and solutions
 improving the performance of boreholes
 predicting bore life spans and costs, investment prioritisation and need.
8.1.2 Understanding the consequence of bore failure

Different aquifer environments produce many hydrogeological conditions, and it is these
conditions that affect asset performance and life. Characterising the processes that affect
water quality is a key step in developing a portfolio of evidence. It is this evidence of asset
deterioration and failure that can be used in conjunction with water quality information to drive
investment.
The manager of the bore(s) must understand the significance of the bore, the consequences
of loss of the security of supply, groundwater resource information and how this will impact
their operations. A triple bottom line type assessment approach can provide many benefits, as
it will examine the consequences from social, economic and environmental perspectives
though a structured and consistent manner. A triple bottom line based criticality framework
may be developed to do this. This could mean a number of things, depending upon the bore
use:
 What is the criticality of the supply?
 Will consumers be subject to water restrictions (or total loss of supply)?
 Could mine production be threatened with insecurity of batters?
 Is there redundancy in the system?
 Is there back-up production bore(s), injection bore(s), dewatering bore(s)?
 Can an emergency supply be derived from other sources, e.g. tankers, water cartage,
storage (dams, rainwater tanks, reservoirs)?
 Can (monitoring) information be obtained from other nearby bores in the network?
 Can the failed bore be rapidly replaced?
 Does a wide range of contractors have capability to install shallow monitoring, stock or
domestic bores?
 Has there been an allowance for prolonged replacement times due to complex bore
construction, land procurement, licensing negotiations, deep bores, or casing material
procurement times?
 What are the economic implications?
 What is the proposed service life of the bore?
 Has budget been set aside in forward programs for capital expenditure (replacement,
decommissioning)?
 Is the ‗do nothing‘ scenario economically practicable or good business practice?
 Are there political implications to the asset owner and negative publicity arising from high-
profile asset failures?

 Is there potential public liability and possible litigation action due to impacts arising from
the neglect and mismanagement of the bore(s)?
How a manager responds to these questions generally determines the maintenance strategy
that is likely to be adopted, whether it be failure, prevention or performance based. Whilst
bore casing condition deterioration may be difficult to predict and at times, insidious, the
majority of failure mechanisms described earlier in this report are rarely rapid or result in
instantaneous loss of supply. In areas where bore failure could rapid and catastrophic (for
example, shearing of a dewatering bore casing on a mine batter), sufficient redundancy
needs to be allowed for.
To understand the value of the bore and the need to prevent or minimise bore casing
deterioration, the stakeholder needs to be aware of the activities that are required to manage
casing deterioration.
The next section describes bore casing deterioration abatement activities that are available to
the various stakeholders. The activities are divided into those that are reactive, those that
occur when evidence of bore issues become apparent, and those proactive activities, aimed
at either preventing or retarding the rate of bore casing deterioration. The schematic shown in
Figure 24 summarises the options available for a stakeholder.
Figure 24: Schematic concept of abatement activities

8.2 Bore casing deterioration abatement
activities
Dealing with new bores could be considered somewhat easier than existing bores given the
opportunity to engineer longevity during bore construction and the capacity to cope with
deterioration processes. Unlike new bores, which can be engineered for longevity, dealing
with old, existing bores requires managing of the asset to prolong the bore life, identify the
residual life remaining, or refurbish or retrofit to achieve the former two objectives.
The activities noted in Figure 24 are described below.
8.2.1 Monitoring and detection

A regular monitoring program is a relatively efficient way of early detection of bore
deterioration. For new bores, it represents a proactive means of assessing the performance of
new assets. For existing networks, it is a reactive approach for addressing the deficiencies of
existing bore design or mismanagement of operation. It can lead to an assessment of residual
life or frequency of preventative maintenance.
It may not be possible to retrofit an existing bore. Alternatively, the economics of re-
establishing a network of production or monitoring bores may be prohibitive. In some cases a
level of redundancy may exist (there might be other nearby monitoring bores), so the network
can be rationalised to some degree. Under these conditions, intensive monitoring is required
to predict when assets reach the end of their operational life, and to prioritise funding for
replacement bore drilling or decommissioning. A monitoring program could include:
 a desktop review of available data (monitoring bore hydrographs, operational history, bore
construction details) to identify aging assets and obvious evidence of bore condition
issues
 a campaign of geophysical assessment or other testing (inspection, pump testing,
geochemical testing)
 a review of existing monitoring program (frequency of maintenance actions)
 implementation of an ongoing bore asset management program.
8.2.2 Fault investigation

This is possibly one of the most common bore management activities—the investigation of a
bore once symptoms or catastrophic evidence of bore deterioration have been manifested.
For example, yield may have declined or bore operation stopped altogether.
Often when this reactive approach is adopted, the solution is a replacement bore. If left too
late, the remediation measures may be excessive, costly, and possibly not capable of fully
recovering the bore or its environment. For example, an aging steel cased bore in multiple
aquifers may have collapsed, which prompts decommissioning and the protection of the
integrity of aquifers. Seldom do parties investigate the cause of the failure, which often results
in the same casing deterioration mechanism occurring again.
8.2.3 Existing failure mechanisms

An understanding of the how and why of bore failure is paramount in preventing or
maximising future bore operational life. The construction of a new bore or replacement bore

provides the opportunity to incorporate design changes and new features based on
historically identified failure mechanisms for bores in that particular area.
Review of the existing bores provides the greatest information regarding failure mechanisms
and bore longevity for a particular region. It is this information that is then applied in the
design of replacement bores, how to best predict residual life, or how to best monitor the
condition of the bore. Opportunities to examine include:
 Identifying problematic lithologies:
– swelling clay layers (these cause increased stress on casing)
– aggressive soil layers (such as pyritic rich ligneous beds)
– layers containing aggressive waters (such as saline beds, contaminated beds,
corrosive beds)
 Identifying groundwater chemistry:
– bores may be pumping aggressive fluids, saline water (requires salt interception), or
contaminated water (requires remediation)
– clogging (biological or chemical) is prevalent in the region
 Identifying transient systems:
– trends in water chemistry and water level
– growth in groundwater development in a particular area
 Understanding historical pumping operations:
– bores that are over-pumped or more frequently pumped may be exposing screen
intervals have increased splash zones
 Reviewing the original and regional bore designs:
– where did our forefathers get it right or wrong?
– why did they construct the bores that way?
– what are the success stories or failures in the region?
8.2.4 Material selection

With advances in technology, and the economics of thermoplastic casing materials compared
to steel, the majority of new bores being installed are comprised of inert materials (PVC). This
removes perhaps one of the most common historical failure mechanism of corrosion. Other
opportunities that exist include:
 replacing steel with PVC or other inert casing materials
 incorporating thicker steel for sacrificial purposes.
It should be noted that it is not always possible to replace steel with inert casing alternatives.
Steel remains the most widely used casing material in the oil and gas industries. Although it
tends to have a limited life, steel does offer:
 superior strength (when new)
 reduced construction risk—casing can be worked into bores in tough conditions such as
mine sites and unstable batters, swelling conditions, unstable and incompetent fractured
rock aquifers

 most drilling contractors have superior experience in handling and installing the casing
(compared with an FRP).
8.2.5 Bore designs

A major proactive activity is to address bore casing deterioration at the design stage. This has
somewhat been undertaken with the adoption of new (inert) casing technologies during the
past few decades. Bores can be designed to address identified (or anticipated) failure
mechanisms, and improve overall performance. However, it should not simply be seen as
replacing steel with inert materials as there are other elements to the design that can be
considered as follows:
 identifying of need to install seals to protect against aggressive soil or groundwater
 full-depth cementing of pump-house or transmission casings to afford additional
protection to the exterior surface of casings
 incorporating larger diameter casing to facilitate future casing work or bore refurbishment;
for example, many observation bores are 50 millimetres diameter, but 100 millimetres
diameter bores enable better access for drilling rods to remove blockages
 replacing slotted casing screens with wire wound stainless steel screens to improve bore
yields and increase bore efficiencies (extraction or injection)
 specifying screen apertures to minimise screen entrance velocities and reduce
encrustation potentials
 screening deeper parts of formations to prevent dewatering of screens under extractive
conditions (this increases the available drawdown for production pumps)
 specifying of gravel packs to ensure material compatibilities with formation materials and
native groundwater
 incorporating ‗carbon footprint‘ accountability in bore design (material selection, pumping
economics)
 allowing for climate change adaptability in bore design (by deeper pump settings, artificial
recharge).
8.2.6 Pump design and operation

In-bore equipment and fittings can be designed and operated to maximise bore life. In terms
of alleviating the impact of bore deterioration, the options include:
 addition of dosing systems (for clogging treatments)
 addition of back-flush systems (for injection clogging treatments)
 selection of pump materials to ensure compatibilities (to prevent galvanic cell creation)
 riserless pumping systems
 matching of pump capacity to bore capacity (to minimise turbulence, in bore flow
velocities)
 pump placement depths (avoiding screen intervals)
 establishment of baseline conditions such as specific capacity.

8.2.7 Bore construction and contractor competency
Essential to any bore construction is the competency of drilling contractors. An understanding
of contractor skills, training levels attained and construction risks is needed. Casing handling
and installation techniques need to ensure that the bore is not weakened when it is initially
constructed. Key areas of competency include:
 casing manufacture:
– manufacturer quality assurance and control; particularly critical with complex bore
fitments (reducing sections, casing crossovers)
– inspection and testing of materials (a practice which is somewhat uncommon on most
drill sites)
 casing handling (transport and storage onsite, elevating, UV deterioration)
 casing preparation (welded joins, thread care and preparation)
 tripping speeds
 drill equipment use:
– bit size selection
– drill rod protectors
– centralisers
 borehole verticality (alignment) and plumbness
 casing installation:
– clamp pressures
– welding of screens
– PVC jointing.
8.2.8 Preventative maintenance for bores

Reductions in specific capacity (flow rate) have largely been used to trigger a maintenance
treatment; however, often gross flow rate changes, or water changes are not obviously
apparent until the condition is systemic or too late for intervention.
Preventative maintenance treatments should be based on a timeframe approach (for

example, every 3 to 6 months), with a shorter frequency preferred. Early intervention tends to
be far more cost effective than later treatments that need to be more aggressive, more
expensive and often less effective. The time between scheduled approaches would be
determined geographically from experience in an area, bore or borefield.
Specific capacity testing is a simple test to complete in an equipped bore, but it can be
misleading in bores that have excess capacity. For example, plugging could surround the
bore without any obvious impact to production capacity. In these cases, maintenance is
required as soon as there are any apparent losses.
Shock chlorination is a commonly applied preventative maintenance treatment. The

effectiveness of such treatment can reduce once the micro-organisms develop protective
mechanisms (e.g. biofilms). Acid treatments (acids and dispersants) can be used as an aid to
remove deposits as they build up gradually.

Preventative maintenance is required to be incorporated into the operating schedule or bore
idle and seasonably operated bores (or monitoring bores). These bores need to be exercised
(periodically pumped) to prevent the establishment of anoxic conditions and anaerobic
biofouling in the bore.
8.3 Casing remediation and rehabilitation

A common question that is raised, particularly with steel cased assets, is whether it is
possible to re-sleeve casing sections with inert materials, or apply treatments that can
mitigate against casing deterioration. These reactive activities are discussed in this section.
8.3.1 Retro-fitting
Existing bores can be upgraded to prolong their lifespan and this may include:
 installation of casing patches (provided sufficient internal diameter is available)
 addition of cathodic protection:
– need to understand the electrical continuity of the bore
– need to understand the existing condition of the bore
 casing re-sleeves
 fitting of dosing systems to control clogging
 grouting of observation bores and replacement with vibrating wire piezometers.
When considering bore refurbishment, knowledge of how the existing bore was constructed
must be sought to verify that the bore was initially constructed appropriately. It is pointless to
maintain an aging bore that has questionable seals incorporated into its design or that has
always bled sand through incorrectly sized screens.
Casing re-sleeves result in a reduction in casing diameter and this may be suitable for
observation bores, however, it is commonly a show-stopper for production bores. Unless the
original bore was designed with contingency in its constructed diameter, which is rare as
borehole cost is directly related to borehole diameter, than re-sleeve of production bores is
rarely considered a practicable option.
Another important consideration is the construction risk of refurbishment against replacement

drilling costs. It is not uncommon for drilling contractors to not want to re-enter or work-over
old bores, and such work therefore often attracts significant premiums.
And again, failure to investigate the cause of the casing deterioration can be ruinous as the
casing retrofit may result in a short-term fix only.
8.3.2 Maintenance actions

Program maintenance actions on existing production bores can have significant impact on
bore performance. Development and jetting of screens can lead to hydraulic improvements
that save on pumping costs and prolong pump and bore longevity. According to Mansuy
(1998) rehabilitation treatments rely on many different techniques, which:
 can involve many different strategies
 must achieve effective deposit removal

 must be customised, based upon the cause of the problem, bore construction details and
type of formation
 must have penetration into the surrounding formation
 must have good agitation.
There are numerous rehabilitation (maintenance) actions available and these can include:
 diagnosis (planning, testing, inspection and interpretation)
 mechanical cleaning of casing and screens:
– by brushing using wire or plastic mandrils
– can constitute an effective pre-treatment to dislodge stubborn deposits, but also
enable chemical doses to penetrate biofilms, penetrate beyond screens, and remove
weak material to enable access to underlying materials
– mechanical cleaning does not address the cause of the build-up or the casing
deterioration. Therefore monitoring of effectiveness is essential in determining the
frequency of revisit.
 development or redevelopment:
– a simple technique is over-pumping a bore but this assumes that the equipped pump
has sufficient capacity. It may also damage a pump (and associated pipework), or in
cases of extreme drawdown, cause casing material to collapse
– it is possibly the most common treatment adopted and often the first treatment
considered in a maintenance program
– development can be completed using air-lifting techniques and is most commonly
applied by drilling contractors owing to its ease of application. More intensive
development techniques such as jetting or swabbing (surging) tend to penetrate
screen intervals better. Surge blocks create differential pressures inside the casing
which can push fluids (chemical) beyond the screen intervals, and pull disrupted
sediment and sludges in from the formation
– specialised techniques (little application in Australia) include Aqua-freed ™
(compressed CO2), Sonar-Jet™ or Ener-Jet™ (both are essentially controlled
blasting with explosives), Pro-well™ technologies (gas pulsing), heated water and
BCTH ™ or UAB™ process (chemical and biological treatments coupled with heat)
 chemical dosing:
– most commonly applied particularly in terms of acidisation (commonly hydrochloric,
but also sulphamic and glycolic acids) and chlorination type products, but also
disinfectants (for example, hypochlorites). These can be combined with surfactants or
wetting agents, dispersants, and corrosion inhibitors. Numerous proprietary products
available.
– common problems include:
– application of incorrect dose (due to bore volume and concentration considerations)
– ability to get dose into formation materials
– insufficient diagnoses of cause of problem (incorrect chemical treatment applied)
– into bore, pre-treatment (mechanical cleaning) not always undertaken
– potential for reaction with contaminants (site remediation)
– many of the chemicals can be dangerous to handle (transport, store, mix, and
apply), and need to be thoroughly developed and removed from bores following their
application.
 various delivery methods are available:

– delivery via surging and jetting, or direct injection via tremmie and drill pipe methods
– air displacement (using a compressed gas such as nitrogen to displace the column of
water and chemical into the formation)
– cyclic flooding and pumping (injection via the headworks, removal through pumping).
Ongoing monitoring of the bore condition (and the treatments undertaken) is required to
assess the effectiveness of the maintenance actions. This enables identification of the most
effective treatment, cost optimising and review of treatment frequency.
8.3.3 Cathodic protection

Cathodic protection is a technique to control the corrosion of a metal surface by making it
work as a cathode—positively charged ions migrate towards the cathode of an
electrochemical cell. This is achieved by placing another more easily corroded metal (such as
zinc, magnesium, aluminium) in contact with the metal to be protected to act as the anode of
the electrochemical cell. Such systems are commonly applied to onshore oil bore casing.
Cathodic protection can be, in some cases, an effective method of preventing stress corrosion
cracking. This is when the unexpected sudden failure of steel casing materials subjected to a
tensile stress in a corrosive environment (particularly at elevated temperatures and salinity).
The selection of the type of cathodic protection system takes into account the value of
protection currently required, length of service, complexity of the structure being protected,
proximity of other metallic infrastructure that may be affected by the operation of the cathodic
protection system, environment, available power source and soil resistivity.
Protection current
As conventional galvanic anodes cannot always deliver enough current economically to
provide complete protection, impressed current cathodic protection (ICCP) systems are
commonly used (cathodic protection rectifier). The proximity of the bore to a suitable power
supply is a key consideration. The required protection current for uncoated mild steel bore
casing is dependent upon the design-life of the system, but additional current may be required
to protect against other infrastructure in the ground such as pipelines.
Soil resistivity
Soil resistivity impacts on:
 the resistance of the anode and capabilities to ‗deliver‘ protection current to the structure
requiring protection
 the selection of the driving voltage required to drive current through the ground to the
structure (all depths)
 size and number of anodes required to deliver protection current
 location of the anodes with respect to the structure requiring protection and other foreign
metallic infrastructure
 distribution of protection current to the structure.

Structure complexity (equitable protection)
Bore casing is generally regarded as a simple structure in terms of cathodic protection system
requirements, but the depth of the borehole below surface level can impact on the type of
anode installation.
Location of anodes and the anode ground bed

Anodes installed in a group at a single ground bed location are considered to act as a single
point source of current. If anodes are installed near the surface (within the top 3–5 metres )
and in close proximity to the borehole, the majority of protection current will be discharged
onto upper levels of the bore whilst no current may be protecting lower areas. To overcome
this problem, the anode ground bed needs to be positioned sufficiently remote from a
borehole (depending on soil resistivity) so that the distance between the anode and top and
bottom levels of the borehole are similar. Site restrictions may prevent the achievement of
such separation and a closer proximity to the borehole may have to be adopted.
Other considerations:
Electrical continuity of bore casing
For a cathodic protection system to provide protection to the borehole, electrical continuity to
the full depth must be established. This will require all joints between sections of the steel
bore casing to be in continuity. Casing packers can isolate telescoped bore screens.
Electrical isolation of bore casing from delivery pipelines
The bore casing will need to be electrically isolated (insulated) from any discharge or transfer
pipeline from the bore to minimise current from the anode system flowing onto the pipe. An
insulated flange will therefore be required. In addition, a test point will need to be installed as
part of the system incorporating facilities to monitor effects on the pipe and permit bonding
into the system to mitigate adverse effects.
Foreign structure interference
As the anode ground bed will be installed remotely from a borehole, stray current may affect
other metallic infrastructure in the vicinity. Testing on these structures will be required as part
of the Electrical Safety (Stray Current Regulations) requirements and arrangements made for
the bonding of any infrastructure affected to mitigate adverse effects.
Monitoring of system performance
Periodic performance monitoring of cathodic protection systems is required to ensure the

system is providing and maintaining effective corrosion protection of the structure. To ensure
that the lower levels of the borehole are receiving adequate protection, permanent references
will be required to be installed as part of the system, or the use of specialist geophysical tools
that assess casing thickness (Schlumberger UCI, CPET tools).
Production of hydrogen ions
A side effect of improperly performed cathodic protection may be production of hydrogen ions,
and adoption of these ions into metals can lead to embrittlement of welds and hardened
materials.

Scale of application
The above description of a cathodic protection system could be established for a medium to
deep production bore. Less expensive proprietary products (such as Boreguard™) are
available—these rely on the same electro-chemical principles and can be retrofitted to
existing, shallower bore casings, headworks, pumps, and rising mains. Manufacturers claim a
doubling in bore lifespan. The kit system involves a ground bed anode and lower casing kit,
which is attached to pump rising mains. In addition, the application of cathodic protection to a
large, disseminated bore network (particularly monitoring) could be problematic given the
costs in delivering power.
8.4 Bore service life expectancy and timing for

rehabilitation
8.4.1 Bore service life expectancy categorisation
Bore service life categorisation is undertaken to determine the economic impact for either a
‗do nothing‘ scenario or implementing a bore casing rehabilitation or preventative
maintenance program.
A method is proposed to assess the expected service life of a bore and thus determine the
frequency or need to rehabilitate. A qualitative categorisation approach has been developed
to achieve this: it is outlined below.
Understanding bore failure

A study conducted by HydroTechnology (1994) defines bore ‗failure‘ as the bore becoming
unserviceable to the point of requiring refurbishment, replacement or decommissioning. This
definition of failure excludes conditions requiring minor repairs such as leakages around
headworks, or maintenance actions such as dosing or redevelopment. Therefore, in such
context, failure predominantly relates to the corrosion of steel casing and or screens to the
point of collapse or near collapse. As previously documented, failure mechanisms can extend
beyond the simple deterioration of bore construction materials, as when clogging occurs.
The detection of bore failure is often difficult and costly. The methods of detection generally
fall into one or more of the following categories:
 inspection of surface installation
 analysis of bore performance through review of hydrographs, pump operation, flow rates,
water quality, or other measures
 use of intrusive, down hole techniques such as calliper logs, cameras, packer tests.
The high cost of failure detection and the effectiveness of detection measures has
consequently resulted in undetected failures in some instances. HydroTechnology (1994)
reports that most failed (monitoring) bores around Victoria have been detected using
inspection of surface structures and installations or the bore hydrograph. Consequently, there
are likely to be several deep monitoring bores in Victoria for which failure has remained
undetected—parties are relying upon monitoring data that are compromised and therefore
ineffective as a detection technique.
This warrants proactive strategies to understand bore characteristics apply the appropriate
strategies and manage risks of these important assets. First and foremost, it is crucial to
determine the bore service life expectancy.

Estimated bore life expectancy
A study of 19 deep bores (which are known to have failed) around Victoria conducted by
HydroTechnology (1994) reported on life expectancies as shown in Table 27.
Table 27: Bore life expectancies (Victorian study)

Victorian region Failure cause Factors affecting Failure age (years)—value for
(hypothesis, actual bore lifespan scenarios:
reason for failure pessimistic
generally unknown)
optimistic
best estimate
Gippsland Hydrogeological Whether the bore Drilled into Not drilled into
environment, intersects the coal measure coal measure
particularly corrosive Latrobe Valley Coal 7 15
measures
20 30
12 22
Mallee High salinity of Dominant factor High salinity Low salinity

groundwater in the appears to be (>10,000 EC) (<10,000 EC)
upper Murray Basin salinity 8 20
sediments in the
Mallee region 20 35
15 25
Otway Presence of pyrite Dominant factor Pumped Observation bores

and the underlying appears to be bore bores 20
Dilwyn formation use 15
promoting corrosion 45
of the steel cased 40
30
bores drilled through 25
these formations
Note: 1. An EC unit = 10 deciSiemens per metre
2. The failure ages indicated in the table above, assumes that cathodic protection is used on these bores.
3. Source: HydroTechnology (1994)
The above findings are further supported by other independent studies such as SKM (2007).
This report presents findings of previous work carried out in 1996, involving an investigation to
develop criteria for prediction of bore failure times for PVC and steel bores separately. The
SKM (1996) study used records from 26 previously failed bores across Victoria to correlate
bore failure with specific influences (primarily stratigraphy and hydrochemistry).
Case studies of failed steel cased bores show that:

 bores with groundwater salinity in excess of 10,000 milligrams per litre show a weak
correlation between increasing salinity and decreased bore life
 there is a probable trend of increasing bore life with increasing groundwater pH
 bores with acidic groundwater (pH less than 7) have a significantly decreased bore life
 bores adjacent to the Latrobe Valley coal measures have generally failed earlier than
other bores due to acidic condition caused by the oxidation of pyrite in coal.
There are few if any, documented cases of PVC casing collapse due to old age, and therefore
PVC is expected to last at least 50 years. There was no correlation with depth of a bore and
decreasing life expectancy.
Due to its characteristic of being chemically inert, PVC will not corrode, although no formal
testing has been undertaken on the life expectancy of PVC casing. Based on anecdotal

evidence, it is suggested that there have been very few accounts of PVC failing as a result of
corrosion, apart from cases where it has been subject to external damages causing a
collapse (SKM 2007). Temperature (native groundwater, or that induced by grout curing) and
contaminated groundwater are notable exceptions.
Steel on the other hand does corrode, which therefore significantly reduces the expected life
of a bore. This can be overcome by installing cathodic protection on steel cased bores to
prevent corrosion. SKM (1996) found that groundwater hydrochemistry and lithology influence
the lifespan of a steel cased bore. As with increasing groundwater salinity, decreasing pH
(acidic conditions) was found to decrease the lifespan of steel cased bores.
Negligible information was available regarding bore life expectancies as a result of other
failure processes unrelated to material failure mechanisms such as fines pumping, clogging,
and pump operation.
Determination of life expectancy

On the basis of studies and knowledge of bore life expectancies a three-step approach can
be used to systematically determine bore life expectancy. This is summarised in Figure 25.
Figure 25: Approach of assessing bore life expectancy
Step 1—Life expectancy ranges
It is advised that bores are generally categorised into sustainable service life expectancy
ranges as follows:
< 5 years 5–10 years 10–20 years 20–30 years 30–50 years > 50 years.
These ranges could be revised on the basis of a stakeholders‘ specific requirements: for
example, a mine life may be only 20 years, therefore a finer set of life expectancy categories
may be appropriate. Other examples are groundwater remediation projects, which can have
even a shorter life expectancye (for example, 10 years for clean up). An organisation may
have existing asset management regimes in place that may adopt a range based on life cycle
costing.
Step 2—Assign scores to categorisation criteria
There are a number of criteria that could aid in the mapping of bore service life expectancy.
These relate to factors such as the groundwater chemistry or geologic environment
penetrated by the bore, how regularly the bore is maintained, and the results of condition
assessment works. The categorisation criteria are described in Table 28.
These categories provided in Table 28 have been suggested as a broad basis to cover a
variety of bore uses. More regional and industrial specific criteria or a reduced number may
be relevant to a particular stakeholder.

The criteria are all assigned a high, medium or low ranking. Assigning the ranking is relatively
subjective, but qualitative descriptions have been used to facilitate assessment. The high,
medium and low rankings are assigned an initial scoring value of 3, 2, or 1 respectively. An
example of this approach is described below and in Table 29.
Table 28: Criteria for assessing bore life expectancy

Criteria Qualitative description / Examples of factors influencing criteria ranking
Low = 1 Medium = 2 High = 3
Condition No condition assessment Limited or infrequent Frequent casing
Assessment ever undertaken inspection of casing condition assessment
(Has the bore been No proactive monitoring condition or bore program
subject to regular program implemented performance Geophysical inspection
assessment?) Geophysical inspection Ad hoc or infrequent review undertaken and no
undertaken and significant of bore operation deterioration identified
deterioration or failure Geophysical inspection Regular bore
identified undertaken and some performance testing
deterioration identified
Existing condition Obvious evidence of failure Possible symptoms of bore No evidence of bore
(What is the (leaking headworks, sand deterioration (declining deterioration
existing bleeding, yield loss) trends in yield, water
understanding of quality).
the bore condition?)
Frequency of No maintenance action Bore subject to historical Proactive maintenance
maintenance undertaken maintenance work or program implemented
(Has the bore been Frequent redevelopment or infrequent maintenance Proactive monitoring
regularly unplanned dosing required program
maintained, or does Frequent pump replacement Faults actioned as
it require regular or required identified
unplanned Failure to implement
maintenance?) required maintenance
Hydrostratigraphy Coal measures, organic Potential for aggressive Competent rock or
(What are the materials soils consolidated formation
geologic materials Squeezing clays Clean, inert sands
and conditions that Subsiding sediments
the bore intersects Unstable or tectonic
that influence conditions
lifespan?)
Groundwater Saline or hypersaline Brackish groundwater Fresh or potable
chemistry Strongly acidic or alkaline Slightly acid or alkaline groundwater
(What are the Geothermal (high or low Neutral pH
hydrologic materials grade) Ambient temperature
and conditions that Aggressive pollutant laden
the bore develops water
which influence
lifespan?) High turbidity or entrained
sediment
Bore use Production bore subject to Production bore Monitoring or
(What are possible frequent, large drawdowns observation
operational factors Injection or recovery bore
that reduce life?)

Criteria Qualitative description / Examples of factors influencing criteria ranking
Low = 1 Medium = 2 High = 3
Spatial Factor Region / environment Region / environment may Region / environment
known to reduce bore life reduce bore life not known to reduce
Iron (sulphate, aluminate) bore life
clogging issue prevalent
Bore Factor Bore not designed for Bore specifically
intended purpose designed to cope with
Deep bore (higher pressure, anticipated deterioration
construction damage) issues or to maximise
Issues during bore life
construction Shallow bore
Notes to Table 28: Criteria for assessing bore life expectancy

Condition Assessment: Has the bore been subject to regular assessment? A bore subject to regular assessment
may be able to map its residual life or monitoring its operation, enable earlier detection and thus prompt
maintenance action. A bore not subject to condition assessment is a knowledge gap and therefore a potential
risk, regardless of its existing conditions.
Existing Conditions: What is the existing understanding of the bore condition? The existing condition or age of a
bore is implicit in determining the life expectancy of a bore. The bore may have been subject to repair works, or
previous dosing or maintenance treatments. Consider a PVC cased bore with cracked casing may have a
shorter life than a 10-year old steel bore.
Frequency of Maintenance: Has the bore been regularly maintained, or does it require regular or unplanned
maintenance? A bore subject to frequent maintenance implies that is not operating as defined and therefore
constitutes an operational risk. It could also mean that faults are readily identified and promptly fixed, however
the latter could fall in the assessment category. This criterion is to cater for failure processes, such as clogging,
which require repeated visitation and assessment of a bore.
Hydrostratigraphy: What are the geologic materials and conditions that the bore intersects which influence
lifespan?
Groundwater Chemistry: What are the hydrologic materials and conditions that the bore develops and that
influence lifespan? This factor could be readily adapted to enable use of quantitative information should an
existing dataset on the relationship between groundwater chemistry and bore life expectancy is available.
Bore Use: What are possible operational factors that reduce life? This factor is aimed at accounting for
deteriorating mechanisms relating to bore use—for example, monitoring bores are subject to less disturbance
than operating bores. Therefore some deterioration processes may not be relevant to life expectancies.
Consider also a bore with dual use, such as extraction and injection.
Spatial Factor: The cause of failure of a bore in a particular region may not be known, but it is known that life
expectancies are reduced, for example bores in sedimentary basin X fail after Y years. It could be related to
clogging in a region high in say iron or where high clogging probability could be reasonably expected. A
mining area may have a higher rate of ground movement compared to bores located further from the mine.
Bore Factor: This is a generalised criterion that could be developed by a manager to address one or many issues
that are relevant to their region e.g. bore could have multiple material types in its construction, or it could be
more likely to fail at crossovers or packers, e.g. a deeper bore is possibly subject to greater construction risk
and may be inexplicitly weakened by rod tripping, deep pump installation.
Examples:
Case 1–A regulatory authority has a bore drilled in 1967, to a depth of 370 metres in a
sedimentary basin. The bore is used for monitoring purposes in a saline aquifer. The bore has
never been subject to casing condition assessment. When drilled, the bore was constructed
using thicker steel casing and additional pressure cementing was undertaken. The bore is
subject to artesian pressures, and the headworks have obvious corrosion. The authority is
considering options in regard to using the bore for reinjection of brines.
Case 2—A farmer has a 60-metre deep PVC production bore, drilled in the mid-1980s used
for irrigation purposes. He has noticed that yields are declining, which has become apparent
with increase red staining of water in his dam. His neighbour has complained about the same
issue with his bore, which also intersects the alluvial aquifer.

Table 29: Criteria scoring
Bore type Categorisation criteria
Groundwater chemistry
Condition assessment
Hydrostratigraphy
Existing condition
Total score
Spatial factor
Frequency of
maintenance
Bore factor
Bore use
uPVC 1 1 1 3
FRP
ABS
Mild steel 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 12 (Case 1)
uPVC = unplasticised PVC; FRP = fibreglass-reinforced plastic; ABS = acrylonitrile butadiene styrene
Step 3—Apply scoring matrix
The total score derived from the various categorisation criteria is determined and then
mapped into the scoring matrix (Table 30). The life expectancy range for a particular bore is
then estimated. For example, a score of 25 may map the bore into having an expected
serviceable operating life of 30 to 50 years. Conversely, a lower score may map the bore into
a shorter life expectancy.
Table 30: Scoring matrix for service life expectancy determination

Service Life Score Range
expectancy 0–5 6–10 11–15 16–20 21–25 26–30
category
(years)
<5 x
5–10 x
10–20 x
20–30 x
30–50 x
> 50 x
A number of processes are available to determine how the criteria scoring map to a particular
bore life expectancy. The lack of residual life data available to this assessment has meant
that a definitive scoring – life expectancy mapping could not be determined. The example
provided in Table 30 essentially maps a low score to a low bore life expectancy. The mapping
required calibration and rigorous testing to cover all potential bore uses; however, it does
provide a method that could be applied to the industry in general. The mapping could be
assessed by qualitative analysis of bore life datasets, or possibly through a ‗delphi‘ workshop
process by the relevant managers.
Furthermore, it is suspected that the criteria scoring could be biased by the most common
failure process of corrosion, namely bulking inert casing material bores with steel cased
bores. It takes no account of future technologies that may emerge, or take-up of existing
technologies such as chromium steel casing. Reactive casing types are biased to short life

expectancy, but where this is known and accommodated in design, capital cost or bore life
cycle costing, it can be disguised within the table through the criteria scoring. Another
example is a population of bores comprising inert casing materials: based on corrosion
processes, PVC casing will have long life expectancies, but other deteriorating processes
cause preferential failure in some, and this could be disguised through the scoring system.
Under these circumstances, a scoring could be developed for the particular casing material.
Ultimately, it would be expected that as information and knowledge is accumulated and
processed, a manager could populate the scoring matrix and do a statistical analysis. This is
likely to result in refining the scoring, retaining only the relevant criteria, calibrating the scoring
range, or calibrating the weighting range, or adopting more quantitative scoring criteria.
The ‗x‘ in Table 30 represents the total number of assets that fall within the nominated
category based on its total score. For instance, if 1000 bores are assessed to determine their
life expectancy, the above approach will estimate how many of these assets fall in each of the
service life expectancy categories.
From here, these assets can be further analysed:

 statistical analysis (such as preparation of histograms) will enable better knowledge of
these assets and assist in decision making in relation to the bore rehabilitation and
development of maintenance programs
 calibration of the categorisation criteria or optimising the criteria (or both)
 an understanding of bore service life expectancy can be a trigger for timing of bore
maintenance (replacement or refurbishment).
8.4.2 Bore rehabilitation and timing of replacement

Bore rehabilitation and refurbishment is defined as the restoration of a bore to a certain
condition to enable provision of adequate level of service and operation. This can be achieved
using various treatments or reconstruction methods. The refurbishment method depends on
several factors, including environmental or surrounding factors, nature of the failure, aquifer
conditions, and use of the bore, its depth and available diameters.
Rehabilitation of bores can be a challenging task in its own right. In some instances, instead
of re-casing the old bore, it is sometimes simpler and less costly to plug and decommission
the bore, and re-drill new bores instead.
Accurate costing of re-casing can be difficult to predict. Experience from refurbishment of

bores indicated that unforeseen problems can result in the proposed costing being
significantly more than was initially proposed.
SKM (2007) states that old bores can be refurbished only if the costs and risks outweigh the
costs to drill new bores and advises that, this is only the case if:
 access to the site is still maintained
 the condition of the casing is reasonably known (for example, by geophysical logging, dye
testing, downhole camera)
 the casing has not totally collapsed
 the inner casing is in satisfactory condition
 the diameter of the existing bore is greater than 100 millimetres to facilitate a smaller
diameter casing (must still have a minimum annulus space of 25 millimetres).

When is it the right time to rehabilitate or replace a deteriorating bore? In addition to the
above ‗physical‘ factors, the other consideration in bore replacement or refurbishment is the
identification of applicable timeframes. The timeframe to replace a bore can be based on
economics, asset risk, and asset age (where construction dates are available) or a
combination of these factors. A discussion of these three factors is outlined below.
Works timing consideration: economic factors

The economic factor is based on the premise that the assets (bore) will generate a
reasonable return to the bore owner, and will be guided by the capital replacement ratio. The
capital replacement ratio is defined as the annual maintenance costm as a percentage of the
replacement cost. When the ratio is greater than the discount rate applicable to the bore
owner, replacement is considered justified.
Average repair costs for bore categories are sourced from the project information compiled or
available to GHD from other sources and professional experience. In absence of these,
workshops run with operational personnel are a good source of obtaining this information.
A net present value calculation (using a 20- or 25-year timeframe) is suggested for bores.
This will require reliable annual maintenance costs and a discount rate. The decision to
maintain or replace the asset is made on the basis of the net present value analysis—if cost
of replacing the asset in today‘s dollars is lower than ongoing annual maintenance, then
replace it.
Works timing consideration: asset risk

The decision to rehabilitate or replace on the basis of risk is heavily reliant on two significant
inputs to allow business risk exposure and hence risk analysis of asset initially. These two
inputs into assessing business risk exposure are:
 the probability or likelihood of failure, which is the chance that a failure may occur within
the period of one year
 the consequence of failure, which is the sum of the direct consequences of failure (such
as the cost of repair) and the indirect consequences of failure (such as the loss of the
assets service potential).
The business risk exposure calculation is shown in Figure 26 below.
Figure 26: Business risk exposure calculation
This calculation can be based upon actual or quantitative data, but a more qualitative
approach could be adopted more than it is as a result of data deficiencies. To illustrate the
process, a qualitative example has been provided. To assess risks consistently, a risk matrix
can be developed, defining the level of risk posed by the bore in terms of their ‗credible worst
case‘ consequence and the likelihood of that consequence occurring. Levels of consequence
of failure and likelihood or probability are defined and assigned a rank (or value). The defined

level of consequence and likelihood can then be used to form the risk matrix and assign a
level of risk to address each identified consequence.
Probability of failure (PoF)
As stated previously, the probability of failure is the chance of an asset failing from one of its
failure modes within the period of one year. Each of the failure modes will have a separate
probability of occurring within the given period. In this case, the failure mode represents the
failure of the asset due to the condition of the asset.
The real probability of failure for an asset requires the assessment of each of the assets four
major failure modes. The probability due to the physical mortality of the asset can be
calculated from the following asset attributes:
 age (from installation or the last rehabilitation date)
 assessed condition
 expected effective life
 rate of decay (condition decay curve).
For example, the rate of decay could be the rate of metal loss from corrosion or the frequency
of re-visits required for bore development or chemical dosing.
Asset condition
To determine the condition of an asset, a systematic approach is warranted. This can be

undertaken by determining the condition information first and then classifying the level of
deterioration of the asset though a grading system.
To obtain the condition information, we need to determine the assets that need visual and
specialist inspections. The normal first step is to conduct a ‗delphi‘ group workshop with key
3
staff and assess the assets for each of the failure modes. It is important to note that condition
assessment will address only the mortality failure mode. The other failure modes will need to
be resolved outside of the condition assessment process through activities like capacity
analysis, economic and engineering studies. In some cases, the mortality failure mode may
not be the most likely failure mode; therefore, additional condition assessment for that asset is
not warranted.
It is not necessary to complete the assessment for all failure modes, but just record the
information that is offered by the workshop participants. Where there are many assets that
are of similar characteristics, there are statistical sampling techniques that can be used to
reduce the need to undertake an assessment of all the assets. These techniques normally
involve undertaking assessments of a specified number of assets and then testing the sample
size against the population size.
Another example of estimating the likelihood of failure can be provided based on rating of
condition assessment, and such is provided in Table 31.
3
A ‗Delphi‘ workshop is a method of obtaining consensus information from a panel or group of
experts.

Table 31: Rating scale for condition assessment
Grade Condition Failure timing Probability of Description Estimated
failure remaining life
1 Excellent Never 0% As specified by 90–100% of
Manufacturer Effective life
(or > 20 years)
2 Good Every 20 years 5% Random 60–90% of
breakdown effective life
(or < 20 years)
3 Fair Every 5 years 20% Occasional 30–60% of
(or < 20 years)
4 Poor Every 2 years 50% Periodic Up to 30% of
(or < 2 years)
5 Very poor (Has < 1 year 100% Continuous Replacement in
failed) breakdown the next 6 months
and in no case
> 1 year
Table 31 represents estimates and may not be based on accurate condition assessment
information. Therefore, it shall be used as a guide and in context to the type of asset in
question (bores versus associated assets). Note that this table could be adopted for the
specific requirements of a manager.
An example of a probability of failure ranking is provided in Table 32. The descriptive

probabilities would be calibrated to the specific bore use or most likely deterioration or failure
mechanism.
Table 32: Example of probability of failure rankings

PoF Description
A – Rare Highly unlikely to occur within next 5 year.
B – Unlikely May occur within the next 12 months
C – Likely Maintenance actions likely to be required more than once during the
next 12 months
D – Almost Certain Very likely to occur within a 12 month timeframe
E – Certain Bore failure will occur.
Consequence of failure
The consequence of failure is the direct and indirect of an asset failure. Examples of the
factors to consider when calculating consequence of failure are:
 Capacity of assets—when an asset fails due to the service it is providing exceeding its
intended capacity
 Duration of likely failure—the duration of failure is the period that the asset will not be
available should the asset fail assuming the most likely failure mode. The period is the
time that it would take to rectify the situation, even by temporary means, and get the asset
and the area affected back to some satisfactory level of service
 Asset replacement value—the asset replacement value is the material cost to replace the
asset

 Installation factor—this factor makes allowances for the repair difficulty associated with
the location of the asset and includes equipment and labour
 Cost of injury—the cost of injury factor is designed to capture compensation, legal fees
and negative publicity associated with an injury
 Potential for injury—this factor makes an allowance for the possibility of injury or death of
a staff member or member of the public. It is important to note that this is a probability and
does not indicate that this will definitely occur
 Clean-up costs—the clean-up costs are equivalent to the monies expended to rectify the
surrounding environment to pre-failure conditions.
An example of a consequence of failure ranking is provided in Table 33. The descriptive

consequences would be calibrated to the specific bore use or factor most critical to the
operator or stakeholder. Table 33 considers the operation of an urban supply bore; and
therefore, consequences are likely to be calibrated around the continuity of supply. The
stakeholders would vary depending upon the bore end use: for example, the sub-categories
in Table 33 would not be appropriate for a mine depressurisation network or irrigator bore.
Table 33: Example of consequence of failure rankings (such as an urban supply bore)
Consequence level 1– 2– 3– 4– 5–
Negligible Minor Moderate Major Extreme
Category Subcategory Minimal Low impact Medium High Impact Very High
impact in a in a localised impact in a in a localised impact in a
localised or regional localised or or regional regional area
area within area with a regional area area with a with
natural functional with a functional functional
variability recovery functional recovery recovery in
within less recovery of 1 within 5 to greater than
than 1 year to 5 years 10 years 10 years if at
all
Social Liability for No claims Claim Claim Claim total Claim total
no supply against < $1 million >$1–2 $2 million to >$10 million
supplier million < $10 million
Customers No <5 <100 <500 >500
customers
lost
Water No Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 or
restrictions restrictions greater
The defined levels of consequence of failure and probability of failure are applied in the risk
assessment matrix (see Table 34) to determine the level of risk of bore failure. The level of
risk would then be a prompt for management action. For example, a result of ‗Critical‘ in Table
34 may trigger immediate bore replacement, and ‗High‘ may trigger casing condition
assessment within next six months.

Table 34: Risk assessment matrix
Likelihood Consequences
1 – Negligible 2 – Minor 3 – Moderate 4 – Major 5 – Extreme
A – Rare L L L M H
B – Unlikely L L M M H
C – Likely L M M H H
D – Almost M M H H C
Certain
E – Certain M M H C C
Notes: L = Low, M = Medium, H = High, C = Critical
Works timing consideration: age factors

For an age based replacement and rehabilitation regime, the effective lives for the bore (or
bore components—riser pipe, pumps and motor, and cable fittings) are used as the basis for
determining the remaining lives of the assets using the condition-based remaining life protocol
proposed above.
A bore will have a design life and a serviceable life expectancy. The latter may be less than or
equal to the design life owing to several influencing factors (such as events occurring beyond
the design, not anticipated at the design stage). When the design life is neared or exceeded,
this triggers the timing of works. The Expected Service Life Categorisation is a tool for
understanding timing.
Strategy summary
The replacement and rehabilitation strategy allows the asset owner or manager to make
decisions for each asset on the basis of different merits. To do this effectively, the following
template provided in Table 35 may be used as a first point of reference.
Managers will need to adopt a strategy that is relevant to their bore use applications. A review
of the stakeholder feedback report identified the most relevant aspects of the strategy as
shown in Table 35.

Table 35: Strategy summary
Strategy Premise Requirement/s Inputs / resources Output/s
Replace / or Economic Factors Annual maintenance cost Finance database Economic justification for replacement or
Rehabilitate estimates ($/year) Works management database renewal
Maintenance contractors data Input to replacement and rehabilitation
program development
Failure history Works management outputs such as (HANSEN,
MAXIMO)
Discount rate Finance database
Asset accountant
Net present value Asset accountant
spreadsheet Asset engineer
Microsoft Excel
Financial analysis Maintenance to replacement cost ratios
Asset Risk Probability of failure Condition grading data Prioritised asset list based on highest to
Condition grading framework lowest asset risk
Condition assessment contractors / specialists Input to replacement and rehabilitation
Civil contractors program development with decisions to;
do nothing, rehabilitate or replace.
Transport to remote sites
Assist in development of CAPEX and OPEX
Plant and machinery for civil works (where
programs
required)
Asset age information

Strategy Premise Requirement/s Inputs / resources Output/s
Consequence of failure Asset criticality framework to allow consistent
ranking of criticality across all assets
Operator knowledge and workshops with
operators, engineers, site supervisors
Financial claims against asset owner from third
parties
Insurance claims and damage payouts
Failure history including financial costs to repair
and reinstate surrounding environments to
original condition post asset failures
Negative publicity history of organisation due to
asset failures reported by media
History of asset failures and impacts on
neighbouring assets and infrastructure
Violation of EPA guidelines and licences
Asset risk calculator Probability of failure information (as above)
Consequence of failure information (as above)
Asset risk model or spreadsheet
Asset age Asset lives Construction and installation dates Asset list with estimated remaining lives
Estimate of effective lives Input to replacement and rehabilitation
Estimate of remaining lives program development
Operator knowledge

8.5 Bore asset management
An appropriate starting point for a bore asset management program is the development of
standard operating procedures and standard maintenance instructions.
For proactive management of bores and associated assets, it is advised that appropriate
standard operating procedures and standard maintenance instructions are developed: they
are tools that enhance better management (operation and maintenance) of assets. These
tools are widely used in the water industry, particularly for management of mechanical and
electrical type assets, but they are also applicable to civil type assets and allow
implementation of more systematic operation and maintenance regimes.
8.5.1 Standard operating procedures

Standard operating procedures predominantly involve the documentation and development
of:
 operating regimes—this is to outline the operating regime for the asset and detail the
premise of operating the asset (for example, the asset is operated 24 hours per day on a
5-day-on – 2-day-off cycle with capacity matching the diurnal demand pattern)
 resource requirements including human resources to operate the asset—this outlines
resources such as labour requirements (specialised and non-specialised skills), power
usage and requirements, availability of power supply
 operating costs and mechanisms to capture costs—this outlines the process and
mechanism for systematic capture of labour and materials costs resulting from
operational activities of the asset. In the absence of a systematic approach, development
of a mechanism (costs capture in an asset management system such as HANSEN or
MAXIMO), may be warranted
 operating schedules—development of operating schedules to allow an operator to
schedule visits and provide resources. This is also beneficial for ‗business continuity‘ and
instances where an operator with substantial knowledge of the asset is unavailable or
retires.
8.5.2 Standard maintenance instructions

Standard maintenance instructions predominantly involve the documentation and
development of:
 the maintenance regime—to ensure the premise for maintenance is clear (outline whether
a proactive, preventive, reactive or predictive strategy is used). This may also involve
mapping different maintenance regimes against different asset types. For instance, whilst
some bores might be managed under a proactive type maintenance regime, an
associated asset, such as a casing or pump, may be maintained using a reactive-type
strategy
 maintenance scheduling—all maintenance activities are to be specified by asset (bore)
type and their frequency clearly documented
 maintenance + condition assessment (whether one activity or separateactivities)—
documentation of costs and logistics for maintenance activities and condition
assessments will allow optimisation of these activities to see if there is benefit in
integrating these activities. For instance, if there are remote bores, should the opportunity
to undertake routine maintenance be used to also undertake condition assessments?

 available maintenance and condition assessment techniques—review available
technologies and techniques for maintaining and condition assessing different asset
types. This helps identify the latest technologies and benefits available in the market that
might suit different bores and associated assets.
8.5.3 Development of asset standard operation and

maintenance fact sheets
Development of asset standard operation and maintenance factsheets is an evolving method
to allow capturing the basic and necessary information critical to the operation and
maintenance of every asset owned and operated by an asset owner. It provides a snapshot of
critical activities for easy distribution and use, understandable and easily accessible to a field
operator as well as an asset manager, engineer or an asset accountant.
An example template for a typical asset standard operation and maintenancefact sheet is
provided below in Table 36. The fields indicated on this template are subject to the specific
operation of the asset in question and may be replaced with what is deemed necessary for
the asset owner.

Table 36: Asset standard operations and maintenance fact sheet (example template)
Asset Type Design life Expected life Minimum Maintenance Maintenance Operating Condition Condition Minimum
(years) (years) maintenance costs frequency requirements assessments assessment resources
requirements ($/year) required techniques required
Bore-steel-PVC-FRP
Pumps
Pump #1
Pump #2
Instrumentation
Level gauge
Flow meter
Current indicator
Pipes
transfer
Other
storage
dosing

9. Conclusion
This project was initiated to define the extent of bore casing deterioration throughout Australia
and to identify schemes to alleviate the costs of rehabilitation. The project aims were to:
 identify communities and stakeholders most at risk in order to facilitate state and territory
jurisdictions to prioritise funding for required works and measures
 seek out and implement cost saving strategies that involve extending the life of
groundwater supply and monitoring bore assets.
Specific project objectives were to:

 determine the extent of the problem of bore casing deterioration across Australia
 assess the potential for cross-contamination of aquifers from corroded bore casing
 determine the possible economic impact of deterioration and the cost of rehabilitation of
bores.
The project outcomes provide groundwater management agencies, licensing authorities,

industry groups, the private sector and contractors with an update on the extent of bore
casing deterioration issues as well as the risks associated with bore casing deterioration and
subsequent failure and with rehabilitation and abatement measures.
The outcomes of this project will also facilitate a review and update of industry standards and
maintenance requirements so that appropriately considered design, construction, operation
and asset management practices are specified and employed.
Processes of bore casing deterioration

An overview of the common processes that may cause or accelerate the deterioration of
groundwater bores: fouling; corrosion; and inadequate bore casing design has been
presented.
The three principle processes of groundwater bore fouling—biofouling, mineral scaling and
particulate fouling—have been described. Both the corrosion of metal bores and degradation
of plastic bore casing materials are outlined.
Inadequate bore casing design along with several other aspects of inadequate bore design
that might also be prevalent in promoting the deterioration of groundwater bores have been
discussed for completeness. These aspects included pump selection and rising main
materials, screen design consideration, bore casing cementing and surface seals, and
construction techniques. Available treatment techniques for the prevention and treatment of
bore deterioration processes are also discussed.
Bore casing deterioration extent

The extent of bore casing deterioration was assessed from evaluation of existing case studies
and review of relevant literature readily available in the public domain, feedback compiled
from a project specific stakeholder consultation program and a chronological review of
historical bore construction techniques and material use.
With the very limited information in the public domain on existing bore condition assessment,
and limited access to existing groundwater databases identified from the outset of the project,

much reliance was placed on sourcing and utilising this information from the identified
stakeholders. However, from the stakeholder interviews that were undertaken, a similar
scarcity of reports on bore condition assessments completed by stakeholders was identified.
From the sample of bore casing deterioration cases considered and literature reviewed, the
following conclusions on the type and extent of bore casing deterioration occurring throughout
Australia can be drawn:
 Iron biofouling of groundwater bores was the most dominant bore failure process
identified. However, in most case studies, the reason for bore casing deterioration was
not documented and presumably was unknown
 Many different rehabilitative and preventative measures have been used to manage bore
casing deterioration due to iron biofouling. The most successful rehabilitation and
acid dosing)
 The most poorly documented bore casing deterioration processes include plastic
degradation, carbonate biofouling as well as aluminium oxide fouling
 The corrosion of steel cased bores was very common, particularly in ageing groundwater
bores. The frequency of such failures is expected to decrease, as groundwater bore
assets are replaced with inert casing materials
processes have been identified. In most of the case studies, preventative measures were
not introduced prior to identification of bore deterioration processes
 Regarding implementing preventative measures and maintenance, the overwhelming
conclusion identified through review of case studies and identified literature is that in most
cases, groundwater bore casing deterioration is only managed once a problem has been
identified.
The stakeholder consultation process involved contacting and then meeting with stakeholder
representatives in each state and territory from key government departments, urban and rural
water authorities, and irrigation districts responsible for groundwater management.
Stakeholders were asked a series of questions that were designed to ascertain bore use, the
extent of deterioration, and processes currently in place to deal with bore deterioration. In
particular, stakeholders were asked questions covering sub-themes and their responses were
compiled to develop an overall picture.
The levels of stakeholder knowledge and gaps identified through the consultation process, for
the respective sub-themes, are summarised in Table 37.

Table 37: Knowledge gaps identified from stakeholder responses:
Sub-theme Level of knowledge of stakeholders
Bore deterioration status – jurisdiction, Medium—quantification of the extent of deterioration
region, area understanding of extent of bore not widely known but occurrence was. Stakeholders
casing deterioration have a good general knowledge of groundwater users
Questions related to the current knowledge affected. Information on the hydrogeological setting in
on the extent of bore deterioration, the main which deterioration was occurring was also generally
groundwater users impacted by deterioration known.
and hydrogeological settings where
deterioration occurs
Bore condition issues and deterioration Low to Medium—for most questions, there were gaps
processes in the knowledge of the respondents. In particular, for
Common condition issues, causes of the last five questions in this sub-theme, many states
deterioration, consequences of deterioration, and territories were not able to provide any information.
measures in place to maximise bore Records of occurrence and observations, information
longevity on the analysis of trends and activities to
understanding long term affects was low.
Bore condition monitoring and reporting Very Low to Low—Minimal responses were received or
Monitoring undertaken (if any) to assess the very limited bore condition monitoring and reporting
extent of bore deterioration and reporting was noted to be occurring. Some reactive and
processes incidental monitoring was identified. Condition
monitoring and reporting was noted not being part of
bore asset management programs.
Education Very Low - There is little information available to bore
Information available to bore users on care users that is easy to access and fully comprehended,
and maintenance, construction, especially for farmers and other private users. Many
rehabilitation, etc. organisations either were not aware of or had identified
the need and value to provide information, an advisory
service or keep a record to assess the extent of bore
deterioration occurrence.
Associated costs Very Low—Most states and territories provided no or
Perceived cost and estimates of monetary very limited information for this sub-theme. Western
costs, if undertaken Australia could be assigned a ‗medium‘ based on
responses and South Australia, a ‗medium to high‘
ranking. Aside from Victoria‘s DSE, the other
stakeholders were unable to provide a detailed answer
on how ongoing costs for maintenance of bores are
factored in budgets.
Forward planning/management issues Low—There is little active management of bore
Actions planned to prevent future issues deterioration to address potential future issues, this
from re-occurring was often attributed to lack of resources available to be
more proactive, which was taken to mean a lack of
funds and staff. Western Australia, South Australia and
Victoria could be assigned a ranking of medium for this
sub-theme.
Note:
High—Information provided is relatively comprehensive, demonstrating a good understanding of issues
Medium—Moderate level of information available, further work required
Low—Little information available for areas covered in this sub-theme, significant data gaps and further work required
Very Low—Very little information available for areas covered in this sub-theme, information is disjointed and hard to
access, significant data gaps and further work required in this area
In comparison to the conclusions drawn on the extent of bore casing deterioration occurring
throughout Australia identified through the case studies and literature review, the following
summary points from the stakeholder consultation process are made:
 The most common bore conditionand deterioration problems noted were bore or screen
clogging, corrosion, and screen saltation.
 Aggressive groundwater leading to corrosion of bore casings was noted as a cause
across all states and territories.

 Biological fouling (most commonly by iron bacteria) was noted as a significant problem
related to bore condition deterioration in Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia
and Victoria and chemical fouling was noted as an issue in Queensland, South Australia,
Western Australia and Tasmania.
 Siltation was reported as an issue in South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania; however,
only Queensland reported issues with saline intrusion.
 Bore casing wall failure, buckling and blowouts were also mentioned (and assumed to
occur due to bore casing deterioration).
 In general, there is little active management of bore deterioration to address potential
future issues, which was often attributed to there being insufficient resources (funding) to
be more pro-active. However, in South Australia, Western Australia and Victoria,
stakeholders indicated that they have in place a regular management program to identify
and address bore casing deterioration problems and are implementing proactive
maintenance programs.
 A number of the stakeholders indicated that they were somewhat reliant on the use of
minimum construction standards (embedded design, construction methods, and material
specifications) to address any potential or actual bore casing deterioration risks.
The review of historical techniques for bore construction, including material selection and use,
highlighted the developments, improvements and experiences during the past 60 years. The
review covered issues of varying performance of water bores due to the selection of materials
and understanding the nature and quality of the groundwater resource being utilised. The
following aspects were assessed for this review:
 regulatory framework and groundwater legislation
 developments in bore design, materials, and construction techniques
 current groundwater bore design and materials selection
 drilling and construction techniques
 future challenges for bore design construction and management.
A bore casing material selection guide was prepared to assist in the selection of the most
appropriate bore casing material for a specific application based on consideration of: bore
construction purpose; material selection basis (cost, environmental and serviceability needs);
deterioration threats; material integrity impact; and rehabilitation or alternative measures.
Groundwater quality impacts

The common mechanisms of aquifer cross-contamination occur due to bore casing
deterioration and have the potential to contaminate groundwater resources through
penetration of an aquitard, seepage through deteriorated bore casing and subsequent
hydraulic connection of aquifers. In addition to groundwater quality impacts due to bore
casing failure, other potential migration pathways have also been discussed, including
contaminant seepage along the inside or outsider of the bore casing; a missing or defective
bore cap; bore flooding, and inadequate decommissioning.
Cross-contamination (or co-mingling) of waters from different aquifers can result in

detrimental effects in water quality to a particular aquifer or give rise to migration of chemical
contamination from one aquifer to another. Common contaminants found in groundwater
(salinity, turbidity, odour, inorganics, nutrients, hydrocarbons and volatile organics, pesticides,
bacteria, radionuclides, dissolved gas and temperature) along with their potential effects on
groundwater quality are summarised in this report.

The potential impacts to ancillary infrastructure associated with a groundwater bore are also
described (pumps, pipeline flows and pressures, flow meters and bore screens), along with
impacts to the local and regional environment (for example, the beneficial use of the aquifer
and the biodiversity of groundwater dependent ecosystems).
Groundwater quantity impacts

The potential mechanisms impacting bore yields, depressurisation of connected aquifers, and
other indicators of bore yield impacts have been presented.
Discussion is provided on reductions in bore yields as a result of a bore casing deterioration,

including that occurring due to silting of the bore screen; collapse of bore; bore blockages and
formation of bacteria (chemical encrustation or biofouling of the screen).
Implications of bore casing deterioration and subsequent depressurisation of connected

aquifers (from both an overlying and underlying aquifer system) are also outlined.
Bore casing condition assessment

Groundwater bore condition assessments can identify potential bore efficiency issues.
Strategies for bore condition assessment can be failure-based, prevention-based or
performance-based. Failure-based strategies represent the highest risk approach in bore
condition assessment, as management strategies usually take place subsequent to a failure
event. Performance-based strategies represent a lower risk approach, based on the use of
performance indicators.
Bore performance indicators can be used to identify, monitor or mitigate the potential effects
of bore deterioration processes at an early stage. This may involve the assessment of
groundwater quality and quantity data, structural integrity, economic performance, bore
maintenance and monitoring costs, as well as social and environmental factors. Variations
from baseline data or anomalous trends in monitoring information are simple methods to alert
managers to potential bore casing condition issues. The techniques implemented in
assessing bore casing condition depend largely on available budget, the type and implications
of the problem, as well as the availability of equipment. There is a balance between the
information gained from investing in an assessment of bore casing condition, and the cost of
bore replacement or refurbishment.
Economic cost implications of bore casing deterioration

The objective of the economic component of the study was to determine the possible
economic impact of the (bore casing) deterioration and the cost of rehabilitation of bores.
Significant data gaps, along with the complex nature of the Australian groundwater bore
system (in terms of geographic spread) meant that a comprehensive, nationwide, economic
impact assessment covering all bore categories was not possible within the bounds of the
present study. Due to the nature of the available data, the cost benefit analysis focused on
two case study areas.
refurbishment of groundwater bores, but the results are not robust due to the data limitations
described.
in this result a more complete study, based on comprehensive data, is required. This could

selected characteristics; based on the results of the classification of bores, reducing the
number of bores to a manageable level by obtaining a representative sample; undertaking a
cost benefit analysis based on the representative sample of bores; and extrapolating the
results so that the net impact of bore rehabilitation can be estimated on a national basis.
Bore replacement, refurbishment, decommissioning and

condition assessment costs
Bore costs have been obtained from drilling contractors in several states of Australia to
provide an indication of cost variation between metropolitan and regional areas, between
states, and also between different geological settings. Costs were also obtained through
GHD‘s array of technical professional hydrogeologists and GHD‘s previous projects and
experiences in the groundwater industry.
The various bore drilling, refurbishment, decommissioning and condition assessment costs
were compiled for each state assessed, and a ‗state‘ average was developed for costs
involved for the various aspects discussed. Data for each state were consolidated to a
‗national‘ average, providing representative costs for bore drilling, condition assessment,
refurbishment and decommissioning, based on identified limitations.
A lack of data for particular bore assessment aspects presented some data gaps within the
consolidation to ‗national‘ average costs. These gaps were filled using indicative costings
provided by GHD‘s technical professionals in the groundwater sector.
Bore casing deterioration abatement, rehabilitation, and bore

asset management
Bore casing deterioration abatement activities for proactive implementation have been
presented, and comprise: monitoring and detection; fault investigation; existing failure
mechanisms identification; material selection; bore designs; pump design and operation; bore
construction and contractor competency; and preventative maintenance programs.
Reactive measures for casing remediation and rehabilitation have also been prescribed, with
a focus on: retro-fitting measures (such as casing patches, casing re-sleeves, fitting of
permanent dosing systems to control clogging), maintenance actions (such as development
and jetting of screens, mechanical cleaning of casing and screens, chemical dosing); and
cathodic protection.
Three common asset management approaches, tailored for bores, have been developed to
assist bore owners to determine the timing for bore rehabilitation, replacement or
decommissioning. These are based on economics, asset risk, and asset age or a combination
of these factors. A core component with two of these approaches (asset risk and asset age)
relies on determining bore service life expectancy. A qualitative categorisation approach has
been developed to determine this.
The formation and use of a replacement and rehabilitation strategy is also presented that
allows the asset owner or manager to base decisions related to each asset on different
merits. For proactive management of bores and associated assets, the development of
standard operating procedures and standard maintenance instructions is recommended. The
merits of using these tools and examples were provided as an appropriate starting point for a
bore asset management program.

10. Recommendations
10.1 Processes of bore casing deterioration
Stakeholders investing in the development, use and management of groundwater production
and monitoring bores need current and succinct information on the common types of
processes that can result in bore casing deterioration and failure. Distinction between fouling
(biofouling, mineral scaling and particulate fouling), corrosion (metal or plastic) and other
processes (bore design or operational factors) that deteriorate bores need to be prepared and
made readily available.
This information needs to be presented for stakeholders who are responsible for or investing
in existing bore infrastructure. A description of the symptoms to identify the particular bore
casing deterioration process occurring, and consequence of ‗no action‘, needs to be clearly
articulated.
Recommendation
 Prepare and maintain current and succinct information on the common types of
processes that can result in bore casing deterioration, symptoms for detection and
consequential impacts for stakeholder broadcasting and distribution.
10.2 Bore casing deterioration extent

With the limited recent assessment of bore case deteriorarion occurring throughout Australia,
a quantitative appraisal of the type and extent of bore casing deterioration present cannot be
completed. This information is essential for Commonwealth, state and territory governments
to provide guidance and assistance to all stakeholder categories to improve the life
expectancy and maximise the asset values of groundwater production and monitoring bores
and associated infrastructure.
Also, any further analysis that is based on existing information of bore casing deterioration
extent may now not be representative of the state of bores constructed, replaced and
managed during the past 15 years. The benefits from use of the ‗Minimum Construction
Requirements for Water Bores in Australia‘ (updated September 2003), classification and
lincensing of drillers, and increased knowledge and use of inert bore casing constuction
materials is likely to have improved the status quo knowledge of bore casing deterioration
determined from evaluating existing information sources.
Recommendations
 At either a Commonwealth or state and territory level, commission a comprehensive
survey of public and private (stock and domestic, and irrigation) groundwater users to
ascertain the current extent of bore casing deterioration. The survey prepared for the
stakeholder consultation and information-gathering component of this project can be
utilised and accordingly modified in the first instance.
 Establish minimum standards for bore casing condition assessment and reporting to
ensure sufficient information is collected and presented for stakeholder asset operation
and management purposes and to ensure the information is also adequate for future
regional, state and territory or national bore casing deterioration extent evaluation
requirements.

 Groundwater network databases should include attributes to monitor record and
determine bore condition in order to characterise and determine the risks of bores
potentially affected by casing deterioration impacts. DSE (Victoria) current groundwater
management system contains a suitable suite of these attributes to be initially considered
for adoption, with the addition of the following further identified attributes:
– Bore Rehabilitation and Redevelopment Works Code—screen flushed, disinfection,
chemical treated, cathodic protection, mechanical scrubbing
– Condition Code—screen fouling (microbial, chemical, and positional).
10.3 Bore design standards and bore

construction licensing
With a number of the bore casing deterioration processes identified likely to be occurring due
to poor casing design, material specification and bore construction methods, the following
recommendations are made to address these aspects.
Recommendations
 Periodic revision of the national bore construction guidelines (LWBC 2003) is
recommended to capture and share industry and research knowledge gains for improved
bore construction methods to be applied throughout Australia.
 Introduce a national driller licensing program to set a minimum standard of bore
construction competency and significantly reduce the number of bore casing deterioration
processes initiated by improper construction methods and installation of groundwater
pumps and water level and water quality monitoring equipment.
 Groundwater bore licensing organisations develop methods and procedures for bore
owners to monitor and report on compliance with bore construction standards. Similarly,
demonstration of compliance in meeting both Commonwealth, state and territory
legislative assessment guidelines, established for the protection of current or potential
beneficial uses of water resources is recommended.
 Manufacturers and suppliers to provide tabulation of the external collapse pressures for
the products they promote for use as bore casing (steel, stainless steel, fibreglass or
thermoplastic). Factors of safety applied, design life strategy, temperature effects, ultra-
violet resistance, and strength regression properties should also be provided.
 This information would allow drillers and other bore designers to more easily and
effectively select the type and wall thicknesses most suitable for the wide range of
designs used in water bore construction.
 Further research and development is needed in the area of corrosion testing of steel used
for bore casing to more confidently predict the effective service life of water bores. This
research should also include weld material resistance to corrosion for different rods and
include specifications for welding rods in AS1396 as this is often used for joining bore
casing.
10.4 Groundwater quality and quantity impacts

Succint information on the mechanisms of bore casing deterioration and impacts it has on
groundwater quality and quantity is limited and not readily available for bore asset owners and
groundwater resource management stakeholders. Likewise, information specifically collated

and arranged on the types of techniques commonly available to assess the occurance and
extent of any potential groundwater quality and quantity impacts is very limited.
Without understanding and appreciating how bore casing deterioration can potentially impact
groundwater quality and quantity for extractive requirements and aquifer beneficial use
conservation, bore asset stakeholders will continue to confront any impacts in a reactive
manner. Resources, early intervention and remediation options may not be available or may
be implemented too late to arrest the bore casing deterioration and prevent associated
impacts from occurring.
Recommendation
 Development and distribution of literature that describes the common bore deterioration
mechanisms impacting groundwater quality and quantity and the range of measures to
use to indicator this occurring is recommended.
10.5 Bore casing condition assessment

Bore performance indicators (such as yield, water quality, structural, economic, maintenance
and monitoring, social and environmental) should be established upon commissioning of a
groundwater bore and reviewed periodically. Bore performance indicators should be used to
identify, monitor or mitigate the potential effects of bore deterioration processes at an early
stage.
Groundwater bore condition assessment techniques should be selected and employed

according to bore type, use and replacement cost. A ‗failure based‘ strategy may be
satisfactory for a shallow monitoring bore that is relatively inexpensive to replace, whereas a
‗prevention based‘ management strategy should be employed for a large scale extraction
bore.
A conclusion drawn from the stakeholder consultation process was that there is an overall
lack of detection, monitoring and reporting of bore deterioration processes throughout
Australia, and much of the monitoring that does take place is not adequately documented.
Recommendations
 Integrate bore condition monitoring and reporting requirements with groundwater bore
licencing conditions.
 Develop guidelines for bore casing condition assessment that:
– includes a diagnosis program based on bore performance indicators
– specifies minimum monitoring and data review requirements
– presents a matrix array of physical and geophysical testing methods for casing
condition integrity assessment.
10.6 Bore deterioration economic and cost

implications
All economic models are based on a number of simplifying assumptions. This, coupled with
the complexity of the Australian bore network (in terms of geographic spread, magnitude and
available data), means that a more detailed analysis is required to ascertain site-specific

impacts. The results of the present analysis can provide an indication of the potential impacts
and thus act as a starting point for state and regional investigations.
The results of the benefit cost analysis suggest that bore refurbishment should be undertaken
in the case study regions. However, we emphasise the lack of robustness of the modelled
results due to the data deficiencies described. A more confident recommendation regarding
an appropriate response to groundwater bore deterioration would be preceded by a more
comprehensive cost benefit analysis based on more representative data. This could involve:
consultation to investigate and classify the Australian bore network according to selected
characteristics; based on the results of the classification of bores, reducing the number of
bores to a manageable level by obtaining a representative sample; undertaking a cost benefit
analysis based on the representative sample of bores; and extrapolating the results so that
the net impact of bore rehabilitation can be estimated on a national basis.
Recommendation
 Undertake a specific bore casing deterioration economic impact study for case studies
that represent urban, irrigation (intensive horticulture and pasture), domestic and stock,
and mining groundwater users. A key aspect to effectively complete this study will be for
the provision of resources to collate and compile the information and data sets to enable
each case study to be adequately appraised in terms of preparing a triple bottom line
assessment.
10.7 Bore deterioration abatement and

rehabilitation
Dealing with new bores could be considered somewhat easier and more effective than
existing bores given the opportunity to engineer longevity during bore construction, or
capacity to cope with deterioration processes. Unlike new bores, which can be engineered for
longevity, dealing with old and existing bores requires managing of the asset to either prolong
the bore life, identifying the residual life remaining or undertaking refurbishment or retrofitting
to achieve the former two objectives.
Recommendations
 Develop national guidelines for bore asset management integrating bore asset valuation;
bore casing deterioration abatement measures; bore service life expectancy and time for
rehabilitation; and fundamental bore asset management tools.
 Outline reactive and proactive bore casing deterioration abatement activities that are
required to manage casing deterioration in order for stakeholders to appreciate the
significance of the asset upkeep or replacement in economic, environmental and social
terms.
 Further refine and then broadcast the qualitative methods developed for bore service life
expectancy and time for rehabilitation.
 Develop bore asset management education programs, with the provision of some industry
standard tools such as standard operation procedures and standard maintenance
instructions to demonstrate the merits of and initiate a proactive management regime.

Bibliography
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2008a, Agricultural Commodities Small Area Data, Australia.
2005–06, Western Australia, viewed 13/08/2009, URL:
<http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/90ACE461D05A05D2CA257
45F00164A29/$File/71250do029_200506.xls>.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2008b, Agricultural Commodities Small Area Data, Australia.
2005–06, Western Australia, Western Australia State, SD and SLA – VACP –
Horticulture, viewed 13/08/2009, URL:
<http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/C395EE8322400C0FCA257
515001E25D6/$File/71250do039_200506.xls>.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2008c, Water use on Australian farms 2005–06: Estimates for
local government areas, viewed 13/08/2009, URL:
<http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/3D91F6EFA1F9DC3CCA25
74C1001590D7/$File/local%20government%20areas.xls>.
ARMCANZ [Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand]
1997, Minimum Construction Requirements for Water Bores in Australia
Alford G, Rogers W, Varhol B, Mack L and Cullimore R 1986, An appraisal of the serious
nature of microbiological infestations of wells in Arkansas and other Southeastern
states, An issue paper, Arkansas Water Resources Research Center, University of
Arkansas, 32pp.
Astill W, Baston K and Shephard R 2002, Carnarvon Artesian Basin: 90% Saved – What
Now?. Great Artesian Basin Fest 2002. URL:
<http://www.gabcc.org.au/tools/getFile.aspx?tbl=tblContentItem&id=21>.
ASTM International 2003, D1889–00 Standard test method for turbidity of water, in ASTM
International, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Water and Environmental Technology,
2003, v. 11.01, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 6 pp.
Australian Drilling Industry Training Committee Ltd 1992, Australian Drilling Manual,
publisher, place of publication.
AWWA 1995, Guidelines for Groundwater Protection in Australia, prepared by ??? for the
National Water Quality Management Strategy, place of publication.
Centre for International Economics 2003, Farm costs, benefits and risk from bore capping and
piping in the Great Artesian Basin, prepared by the Centre for International Economics
for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Australia, Canberra.
Ceron and Pulido-Bosch 1996
Cullimore D.R., and McCann A.E. 1977, The identification, cultivation and control of iron
bacteria in ground water, Ed. Skinner & Shewan Academic Press, place of publication.
Department of Primary Industries Victoria 2008, Sheep farm monitor project summary of
results 2007–08, accessed electronically 10/08/2009, URL:
<http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/DPI/nrenfa.nsf/LinkView/FDB94BBBAEFB130BCA25751F00
7E94CEC9A57DD57328E556CA25749B00163E23/$file/Sheep_Industry_FMP_Report
_08_full.pdf>.
Driscoll F 1986, Groundwater and wells. 2nd Edition. Johnson Filtration Systems Inc. St Paul,
Minnesota.
Egis Consulting Pty Ltd 2002, Bore Condition Assessment Draft Report, Grampians Regional
Water Authority, place of publication.
Desbrandes R 1985, Encyclopedia of well logging. Editions TECHNIP, place of publication.

DSE 2004, Encrustation of Water Bores – Iron Bacteria. Randal Nott & Simon Baker, DSE
Groundwater and Licensing Branch. Note Number 14. December 2004, place of
publication (Bendigo or Melbourne?).
DWLBC (Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation, South Australia) 2008,
Well Maintenance: Fact Sheet 8, Adelaide.
DWLBC 2004, Groundwater management review – Management approaches for resolving
incompatibilities across jurisdictional borders, publisher, place of publication.
Elshawesh F, Elmendelshi T, Elhoud A, Abaan E and Elagdel E 1997, ‗Microbiologically
influenced corrosion causes failure of Type 304 water well screens‘, Materials
Performance 36(6):66–68.
Forward P 2008, Iron Bacteria – Controlling the scourge of groundwater pumping.
Proceedings of the Grundfos Groundwater Forum, 16–17 September 2008, Perth.
GHD 2004, Water Supply Bore Condition Assessment Draft Report, Grampians Regional
Water Authority Contract Number 2081/210
GHD 2008
GHD Pty Ltd 2009a, ‗DRAFT report for groundwater bore deterioration and schemes to
alleviate rehabilitation costs – Phase 2: bore failure process and implications‘,
unpublished report.
GHD Pty Ltd 2009b, Report for groundwater bore deterioration schemes to alleviate
rehabilitation costs – Summary of borefield deterioration issues identified from
stakeholder consultation, GHD, place of publication.
Great Artesian Basin Consultative Council 1998, Great Artesian Basin – Resource study
summary, GABCC, Canberra.
Great Artesian Basin Consultative Council 2000, Great Artesian Basin – Strategic
management plan, GABCC, Canberra.
Hasselbarth and Ludemann 1972, ‗Biological incrustation of wells due to mass development
of iron and manganese bacteria‘, Water treatment and Examination 21:20–29.
Houben G 2008, Hydrochemical and hydraulic background of ageing processes in water
wells. Presentation Proceedings, CSIRO Adelaide. December 2008. Federal Institute
for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR) Stilleweg 2 D-30655 Hannover,
Germany.
HydroTechnology 1994, Development of a long-term deep bore refurbishment program,
MC/44031.050/1, pp 18–19, HydroTechnology; A Business Unit of the Rural Water
Corporation, Victoria, Armadale, Victoria 3143, Australia.
Irrigation Review Steering Committee 2005, Irrigation review final report, Chapter 6. Irrigated
Agriculture in Western Australia, Western Australian Government.
LWA [Land and Water Australia] 2003,
LWBC [Land and Water Biodiversity Committee] 2003, Minimum construction requirements
for water bores in Australia. Edition 2, place of publication.
Mallee CMA 2005, Protecting the groundwater resources in the Mallee – bore
decommissioning, publisher, place of publication.
Mansuy N 1998, Water Well Rehabilitation. A Practical Guide to Understanding Well
Problems and Solutions. Layne GeoSciences, Inc., Lewis Publishers, place of
publication.
McAuley 1999, ‗Casing corrosion – in situ examples identified by ultrasonic and multi-finger
calliper geophysical techniques‘, Australian Drilling May/June 1999.

McCaulou, D.R; Jewett,D.G.; and Huling, S.G., 1995, Nonaqueous phase liquids compatibility
with materials used in well construction, sampling and remediation. EPA/540/S-95/503,
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Laboratory, Ada, OK.
McLaughlan 2002, ‗Managing water well deterioration‘, International Association of
Hydrogeologists Publication, Volume 22, 2002.
McLaughlan et al. 1993, Fouling and corrosion of groundwater wells, University of Technology
Sydney, report prepared for Land and Water Resources Australia??, Canberra.
MDBC 2003, Projections of groundwater extraction rates and implications for future demand
and competition for surface water, Murray–Darling Basin Commission, Canberra.
MDBC (Murray Darling Basin Comission) 2004, Murray Darling Basin Groundwater Status:
Summary Report. 1990–2000. David Ife & Kathyrn Skelt. MDBC publication 32/04,
Canberra.
NGWA [National Ground Water Association] 1998, Manual of water well construction
practices. 2nd Edition. NGWA Press, place of publication.
NRM [Natural Resource Management] Standing Committee 2002, Groundwater quality
protection – discussion paper. Commonwealth of Australia. National Capital Printing,
Canberra.
New York State Department of Health 2004, Coliform bacteria in drinking water supplies.
Centre of Environmental Health, New York.
Nielsen 2006, Practical handbook of environmental site characterization and groundwater
monitoring. 2nd Ed. CRC Press, Place of publication.
NSW Department of Primary Industries 2007, Primefacts, vol. 326 January 2007, viewed 14
August 2009, URL:
<http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/96273/water-requirements-for-
sheep-and-cattle.pdf>.
Roscoe Moss Company 1990
Roscoe Moss Company 2004a, ‗The occurrence of microbiologically influenced corrosion and
its effects on steel water well casing‘, Technical Memorandum 004–9, unpublished
report.
Roscoe Moss Company 2004b, ‗Design considerations for selecting casing for ASR wells:
use of epoxy-coated steel or high strength, low alloy steel‘. Technical Memorandum
004–7, unpublished report.
Roscoe Moss Company 2004c, ‗case study: increased well efficiency, extended lifetime and
reduced maintenance through selection of stainless steel casing and well screen – Sun
City and Sun City West, Arizona‘. Technical Memorandum 004–2, unpublished report.
SA Water 2009, Salt Interception Schemes, viewed 21 January 2009, URL:
<http://www.sawater.com.au/SAWater/Environment/TheRiverMurray/Salt+Interception+
Schemes.htm>.
SA MDB NRM Board [South Australian Murray–Darling Basin Natural Resource Management
Board] 2006, Investigation into the occurence of iron bacteria: fact sheet. Mallee
Prescribed Wells Area, SA MDB NRM Board, place of publication.
Santi, McCray and Martens 2005, Investigating cross-contamination of aquifers. Springer-
Verlag, place of publication.
Schlumberger 1992, Corrosion evaluation. SMP-9110. WTA Marketing Services, place of
publication.

Schneiders JH 2003, Chemical cleaning, disinfection and decontamination of water wells.
Johnson Screens Inc., place of publication.
SKM [Sinclair Knight Merz] 1996,
SKM [Sinclair Knight Merz] 2004, Great Artesian Basin groundwater management review –
Management approaches for resolving incompatibilities across jurisdictional borders,
Prepared for the Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation (South
Australia), Adealide.
SKM [Sinclair Knight Merz] 2007, SOBN whole-of-life cycle asset planning study, Interim
Report No. 1, SKM 590 Orrong Road, Armadale 3143, Victoria, Australia.
SKM [Sinclair Knight Merz] 2008, Great Artesian Basin Sustainability Initiative, prepared for
the Department of the Environment and Water Resources, Australian Government,
Canberra.
US Army Corps of Engineers 1992, Engineering and design: design, construction and
maintenance of relief wells. Engineer Manual No. 1110–2-1914. 29 May 1992.
Washington, DC 20314–1000.
Valkenburg N, Christian R and Green, M 1975, Occurrence of iron bacteria in the
groundwater supplies of Alabama, Geological Survey of Alabama, Circular 96,
Geological Survey of Alabama, University of Alabama, 45pp.
Williamson S and Vogwill R 2001, Dewatering in the hot groundwater conditions at Lihir Gold,
publisher, place of publication.

Glossary
Aquifer: A geological formation, group of formations or part of a formation, which contains
sufficient saturated permeable material to transmit and yield significant quantities of water.
Alluvial: Pertaining to, or composed of, alluvium or other deposits from streams and rivers.
Alluvium: A general term for unconsolidated material deposited during recent geological time
by a stream or other body of running water. Typically forms a sorted or semi-sorted sediment
in stream beds, floodplains, deltas or as fan at the base of a mountain slope.
Aquitard: A geological formation, group of formations or bed which is saturated but does not
allow water to flow freely to a pumping bore. However, aquitards may transmit appreciable
amounts of water between adjacent aquifers.
Aquiclude: A geological formation, group of formations or part of a formation through which

virtually no water moves.
Artesian: Pertaining to a confined aquifer in which the head level is above the surface of the
ground.
Bedrock: A general term for rock, usually solid, that underlies soil or other unconsolidated
material.
Bore Screen: The intake portion of bore, which contains open area to permit the inflow of
groundwater at a particular depth interval, whilst preventing sediment from entering with the
water. Also serves as a structural retainer to support loose formation material.
Bore Casing: Pipes (casing) that extend into the ground through which groundwater can be
drawn from the aquifer to the surface. The casing supports the walls and prevents rocks and
debris collapsing the bore and contamination by surface runoff.
Bore Development: the vigorous agitation of water and air in the borehole to remove fine
particles and other material introduced in the drilling process and to provide a good hydraulic
connection between the bore and the aquifer.
Bore Failure: the condition of a bore once it becomes unserviceable to the point of requiring
refurbishment, replacement or decommissioning.
Capillary Fringe: The zone above the saturated zone where capillary action can draw
groundwater above the water table.
Catchment: The land area that drains into a stream, river, lake, estuary, or coastal zone.
Centraliser: A tool used to centre the casing in a drilled borehole.
Confined Aquifer: An aquifer which is isolated from the atmosphere by an impermeable layer.
Pressure in confined aquifers is generally greater than atmospheric pressure.
Contaminant: A substance, element, or compound that, if added to an aquifer, has an adverse

effect on the quality of water in that aquifer.
Corrosion: The act or process of dissolving or wearing away a material.

Decommissioned Bore: A bore, the purpose and use of which have been permanently
discontinued.
Desalination: To remove salt and other chemicals from seawater or saline water
Dewatering: The lowering of static groundwater levels through extraction, usually by means of
pumping from one or several groundwater bores.
Discharge: Any process by which water is removed from an aquifer. Includes water that flows
to a surface feature, such as a spring, river or wetland, as well as water which flows to an
adjacent aquifer.
Disinfection: a preventative measure against iron bacteria, potential encrustation and resulting
decline in bore efficiency. Disinfection generally involves chemical treatment such as
chlorination.
Dissolved Oxygen: The amount of oxygen dissolved in water, such as groundwater or surface
water. Usually measured in parts per million.
Downhole Camera: a device that can be lowered down a borehole via a wireline, to capture
images that can be viewed digitally.
Drawdown: The change in groundwater head level that can be attributed to the operation of a
pumping bore.
Ecosystem: A system that is made up of a community of animals, plants, and bacteria and its
interrelated physical and chemical environment.
Electrical Conductivity: The ability of a material to conduct electricity under an applied voltage.
This is used to estimate the Total Dissolved Solids in a water sample.
Erosion: The process or group of processes whereby solids in the natural environment are
relocated by moving water, glacial ice or wind.
Evaporation: The process by which liquid water becomes gaseous, or the volume lost from a
body of water due to this process.
Evapotranspiration: Pertains to water lost to the atmosphere via evaporation and transpiration
of plants.
Extrusive Rock: Igneous rocks formed from magma that flows out on the Earth‘s surface.
These rocks cool rapidly, producing a fine crystalline structure.
Fault: A fracture or zone of fractures in a geological layer along which there has been
displacement of the sides relative to one another.
Gravel Pack: Granular material introduced into the annulus between the borehole and casing
/ screen, to prevent or control the movement of finer particles from the aquifer to the bore.
Groundwater: Water occurring naturally below ground level or water pumped, diverted and
released into a bore for storage underground.
Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem: An ecosystem that is partially or wholly reliant on

groundwater for its survival. This can include terrestrial, subsurface and marine ecosystems.

Groundwater Injection Bore: A bore installed with the purpose to facilitate the injection of
liquid or air into an aquifer. Commonly used in Managed Aquifer Recharge schemes or
groundwater remediation.
Groundwater Monitoring Bore: A bore installed with the purpose to: determine the nature and
properties of subsurface ground conditions; provide access to groundwater for measuring
level, physical and chemical properties; and permit the collection of groundwater samples and
conduct of aquifer testing.
Groundwater Pumping (production) Bore: a bore installed with the primary purpose to extract
groundwater from a particular hydrogeological formation by means of a pump.
Hardness: A measure of the mineral content of water, primarily calcium and magnesiu.m ions.
‗Hard‘ water causes an insoluble residue to form when water is used with soap
Headworks: The part of a bore that protrudes at the ground surface. Usually entails a
concrete collar and pad around the bore casing raised above the natural surface to prevent
surface water entering the borehole.
Hundred: A geographic division formerly used in South Australia, to divide large regions into
smaller administrative divisions.
Hydraulic Conductivity: The volume of water that can flow through a given area of aquifer
material under a given hydraulic head measured in m3/day/m2 (m/day) and usually assigned
the symbol K.
Hydrogeochemistry: The chemical characteristics of water in hydrogeological formations.
Hydrostratigraphy: The identification and distinction of hydrogeological units based on their

hydraulic properties.
Igneous Rock: Rocks that solidified from molten material, that is, from magma
Intrusive Rock: Igneous rocks formed from magma injected beneath the Earth‘s surface.
Generally these rocks have large crystals caused by slow cooling
Karst Topography: A type of topography that is formed on limestone, gypsum, and other rocks
by dissolution, and is characterized by sinkholes, caves, and underground drainage
Lithology: The physical character of a rock or rock formation.
Metamorphic Rock: Any rock derived from pre-existing rocks by mineralogical, chemical,
and/or structural changes, in response to marked changes in temperature, pressure, shearing
stress, and chemical environment.
Oxygen Reduction Potential: A measure of a water system‘s capacity to either release or gain
electrons in chemical reactions. The process of oxidation involves losing electrons while
reduction involves gaining electrons.
Permeability: The property or capacity of a porous rock, soil or sediment for transmitting a
fluid; it is a measurement of the relative ease of fluid flow within a material.
pH: A measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution. Neutral solutions have a value of 7, this
value increases for alkaline solutions and decreases for acidic solutions

Pigging: A mechanical treatment method in bore rehabilitation. Involves the forcing of a piece
of rubber foam along the inside of the bore casing by water pressure, to dislodge iron bacteria
biofilms.
Porosity: The percentage of the bulk volume of a soil or rock that is occupied by interstices,
whether isolated or connected.
Pumping Test: A test that is conducted to determine aquifer or well characteristics
Recharge: The process of adding water, or the amount of water added, to the volume of water
stored in an aquifer.
Reticulation: Refers to the network of piped-water, as opposed to water within a groundwater

bore.
Reverse Osmosis: a process by which a solvent such as water is purified of solutes by being
passed through a semi-permeable membrane through which the solvent may pass but the
solutes may not pass.
Salinity: A measure of the dissolved salt content of water or soil.
Scaling: Deposition of solid solutes from water on a surface.
Sedimentary Rock: Rocks resulting from the consolidation of loose sediments that has
accumulated in layers.
Specific Capacity: The rate of extraction from a pumping well per unit of drawdown,
expressed in m3/day/m. The value will typically change with the duration of pumping.
Standing Water Level: The level of water in a well or bore that is not being affected by
pumping of groundwater.
Stratigraphy: The study of rock layers and layering, especially of their distribution, deposition
and age.
Sub-Artesian: Conditions where groundwater rises naturally in a bore to a height appreciably

above that of the surrounding watertable, but not flowing out of the bore.
Surface Water: Any water that collects as a surface features, including rivers, streams, lakes,
wetlands and the ocean.
Sustainable Yield: The groundwater extraction regime, measured over a specified planning
timeframe that allows acceptable levels of stress on the system while still protecting the
higher value uses associated with the total resource.
Total Dissolved Solids: The total mass of all solids dissolved in a water sample, measured in
mg/L.
Transmissivity: The rate at which water is transmitted through a unit width of an aquifer under
a unit hydraulic gradient.
Unconfined Aquifer: An aquifer which has the upper surface exposed to the atmosphere.
Vadose Zone: The subsurface zone between ground level and the saturated zone, that is, the
water table.

Water Table: The surface between the vadose zone and the saturated zone of unconfined
groundwater. This can also be defined as the surface at which groundwater pressure is equal
to atmospheric pressure.
Water Quality: The physical, chemical and biological characteristics of water, frequently used
by reference to a set of standards against which compliance can be assessed.
Wetland: An area of land whose soil is saturated with moisture either permanently or
seasonally. Such areas may also be covered partially or completely by shallow pools of water.
Wetlands include swamps, marshes, and bogs, among others.
Yield: The rate at which water can be extracted from a pumping well, typically measured in
L/sec or ML/sec.

Appendix A—Summary of literature
review
Author Year Title Qual- Quan- Comments
itative? titative?
Australian Sources
ARMCANZ 2003 Minimum construction Yes No Brief discussion on

requirements for water procedures/standards
bores in Australia. regarding aspects of
Edition 2 bore installation,
disinfection,
reconditioning and
decommission.
Driscoll F 1986 Groundwater and wells Yes No Generic discussion of
groundwater, with minor
component covering
bore deterioration
HydroTechnology 1994 Development of a long Yes No Discusses logistics and
term bore refurbishment economics of
program refurbishment and
decommissioning of
deep bores
McAuley 1999 Casing corrosion— Yes Yes
in situ examples
identified by ultrasonic
and multi-finger calliper
geophysical techniques
McLaughlan et al. 2002 Managing water well Yes Minor Discusses deterioration
deterioration of bores due to fouling
and corrosion
McLaughlan et al. 1993 Fouling and corrosion of Yes Yes A research study
groundwater wells encompassing case
studies from most
states
NGWA 1998 Manual of water well Yes No Discusses construction
construction practices of groundwater bores in
general, with minor
discussion of bore
disinfection and
decommissioning
Schlumberger 1992 Corrosion evaluation Yes Yes Discusses
Schlumberger‘s down
hole tools in evaluating
bore casing corrosion
SKM 2004 Great Artesian Basin Yes No Minor discussion of
groundwater inter-aquifer flow
management review – through failed bore
management casing
approaches for
resolving
incompatibilities across
jurisdictional borders
SKM 2007 SOBN whole-of-life Yes No Some discussion of
cycle asset planning bore establishment,
study refurbishment and
decommissioning; as
well as associated costs

Author Year Title Qual- Quan- Comments
itative? titative?
International Sources
Cullimore and 1978 The identification, Yes No Discusses iron bacteria
Cann cultivation and control of in groundwater, but not
iron bacteria in ground much focus on effects
water to groundwater bore
US Army Corps of 1992 Engineering and design: Yes No Discusses the causes of
Engineers design, construction reduced specific
and maintenance of capacity in bores
relief wells including mechanical,
chemical, and biological
Lukewille A and Van 1991 Aluminium precipitates Yes No Discusses aluminium
Breemen N from groundwater of an precipitates identified in
aquifer affected by acid groundwater
atmospheric deposition
in the Senne, northern
Germany
NOTE: This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather, provides the reader with an indication of previous
investigations conducted regarding bore casing deterioration.

Appendix B—Bore casing deterioration
assessment stakeholder consultation
questionnaire
Bore deterioration assessment – stakeholder consultation
(Revision 1)
Bore deterioration status—jurisdiction / region / area understanding of extent
 What is known about bore deterioration in your area of interest? (i.e. extent/number of
affected bores, any documentation?)
 Who are the major users being affected by bore deterioration in your area? i.e. farmers,
miners, townships?
 In which hydrogeological settings is bore deterioration considered a problem?
Bore condition issues and deterioration processes

 What are the most common condition / deterioration problems reported with bores?
 What is the most likely cause of bore deterioration? – Chemical encrustation, biological
deposition (for example, fouling by iron or sulphur reducing bacteria), casing material
integrity failure, inappropriate pumping operation, subsidence, saline intrusion, aggressive
groundwater.
 What issues are associated with bore deterioration? (Replacement cost to users, aquifer
connectivity, 'pollution' of aquifers, artesian water escape/loss, yield reduction, quality
reduction, timescale and rapidity of deterioration, security of supply).
 Is there a pattern/trend in the causes of bore failures and deterioration? For example,
related to: geographical location; geology; owner neglect; type of bore construction;
casing material, lack of regular maintenance; known changes in aquifer hydrogeology
characteristics (water level / geochemical changes / phases).
 What are observed as, or would be the main impacts associated with bore deterioration?
– Changes to groundwater quality so not appropriate for extraction, or potentially
inaccurate monitoring readings / data collection?
– Groundwater quantity loss (flow rate, pumping time, etc.)
– Contamination/leakage (to other aquifers or land contamination, impacts to other
beneficiaries)
 Is there any indication of the issue severity in the longer term? Is this a legacy issue with
large areas to be remediated or localised (i.e. large area of aged development, only within
certain aquifers in small area or an emerging issue with development).
 What is being undertaken to maximise bore longevity? e.g. use of inert materials,
allocating funds for replacement bores, cathodic protection, implementation of asset
management principles.
Bore condition monitoring and reporting

 Has the condition of bores been monitored previously and if so, when? And what methods
/ techniques are used?

 If monitored, is it undertaken regularly / periodically? And what methods are used?
 Is condition monitoring undertaken as:
– A formal process, where a defined number of bores is selected for monitoring and the
condition formally documented and reported?
– Incidental – where damage or deterioration is only reported when detected upon bore
access? Are incidental observations formally recorded?
 What kind of bore condition reporting is undertaken – databases, reports, assessments?
Education
 Is there information readily available for groundwater users to assist in bore condition
assessment, operation/maintenance and rehabilitation measures for bores affected by a
deterioration process? i.e. a website, contact person to call, poster / brochure information,
local contractor carrying out bore remediation.
 Is the organisation proactive in the eduction of bore use, risks and maintenance? If so,
how?
 Are there any local guidelines (aside from the national guidelines for bore construction)
for bore construction and licensing local to your area and conditions?
 Do you receive direct queries from groundwater users?
 Do drillers promote rehabilitation techniques / experienced in bore rehabilitation and
construction risk?
Associated costs (social, environmental and economic)

 What are the social, economic and environmental implications to bore deterioration in
your area? i.e. causes depressurisation in the Great Artesian Basin at a time when trying
to increase this, is it causing groundwater users to look at alternative water sources, is it
affecting neighbouring users?
 Have there been estimates of the costs involved 1) costs to users due to bore
deterioration (i.e. is it costing farmers / industry when they can‘t get water because there
bore is stuffed?); and 2) costs to rehabilitate bores?
 Are organisations factoring in maintenance / ongoing costs (e.g. cathodic protection) or
bore replacement costs?
Forward planning (management of future issues)

 What management options are in place to address the problem?
eg., problem recognised in policy; community education program such as guidelines on
materials for bore construction and abandonment; statutory controls on bore construction
and abandonment; groundwater monitoring and bore testing program; database; active
rehabilitation program.
 Is there any regularised management program in place for management of the
deterioration? (bore screens acidification, air scouring, pump material change, cathodic
protection, sacrificial wall thickness, disinfection programs, funding / financial assistance).
 Are the following management activities, or others, planned to occur:
– undertake condition monitoring / assessments
– repair damages to selected bores
– to educate users

– provide/update framework/guidelines for construction method, material selection,
O&M.
 What are the impediments to optimal management of the problem?
Information sought / requested

 Bore condition assessment reports
 Bore deterioration investigations / assessments
 Bore operation and maintenance programs
 Bore databases – containing information on bore construction details, conditions details,
O&M
 Bore asset management programs – O&M, CapEx, decommissioning

Appendix C—Bore casing deterioration
assessment electronic questionnaire

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION
BORE DETERIORATION AND CONDITION MANAGEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
This questionnaire has been developed to provide the National Water Commission (NWC)
with information on the extent of bore deterioration across Australia and the potential impacts
of bore deterioration. The results of this questionnaire will be used to define the extent of bore
deterioration and to assist in the development of schemes that will alleviate the cost of
rehabilitation of bores.
Thank-you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. Should you require assistance
with completion of the questionnaire please email GHD on gw-questionnaire@ghd.com.au or
call 03 5018 5261.
GENERAL INFORMATION
1 Name / Organisation (Optional)
2 Key contact details Name: (Optional)

Role: (Optional)
Phone No: (Optional)
Email: (Optional)
3 What is the main purpose of your bore use / management:

 Monitoring (e.g. salinity, irrigation recharge, surface water/groundwater interactions or
environmental)
 Extraction (e.g. domestic, stock, irrigation, urban supply, industry)
 Other (specify)
BORE DETERIORATION STATUS (jurisdiction/region/area/understanding of extent)
4 What is known about bore deterioration in your area? (e.g. extent/number of affected bores, any
documentation?) Describe below.
5 Who are the major users affected by bore deterioration in your area? (For example, farmers, miners,
townships?) Describe below.
(Groundwater Management Organisation Respondents only)

6 Do you know which hydrogeological unit (aquifer name / type) bore deterioration is occurring
in?
BORE CONDITION ISSUES AND DETERIORATION PROCESSES
7 What are the most common condition/deterioration problems occurring / reported with your
bores? (Please describe below).
8 What is the most likely cause of bore deterioration?

 Chemical crustation
 Biological deposition (for example, fouling by iron or sulfur bacteria)
 Failure of the casing material
 Inappropriate use or pumping operations
 Saline intrusion
 Aggressive groundwater (for example, corrosive)
 Subsidence
 Other (specify below)

9 What issues are associated with bore deterioration? Select one or more of the following:
 Replacement cost to users
 Aquifer connectivity
‘Pollution‘ of aquifers
 Artesian water escape/loss
 Yield reduction
 Quality reduction
 Timescale/high rates of deterioration
 Security of supply
 Other (Please describe in the space below)
10 Is there a pattern/trend in the cause(s) of bore failure and deterioration? Select one or more of
the following:
 Geographical location
 Geology
 Limited awareness of problem (cause and effect)
 Type of bore construction
 Casing material
 Lack of regular maintenance
 Known changes in aquifer hydrogeological characteristics (water level/geochemical
changes/phases)
 Other (please provide a description in the space below).

11 Is the likely long-term severity of bore deterioration known? Please tick the appropriate boxes
provided below:
 Geographical issues – bores that require maintenance are spread over a large area
 Localized issues - Large area of aged bore networks/developments requiring remediation, only
within certain aquifers in small area or an emerging issue with development of new bores?)
 Other (please specify below)
12 What are the known or likely main impacts associated with bore deterioration?
 Changes to groundwater quality?
 Groundwater quantity (reduced flow rate, extended pumping time, declining bore water level)
 Contamination / leakage (to other aquifers or groundwater users/beneficiaries)
 Other (please specify below)
13 What activities are currently undertaken to maximize bore longevity? (For example,
construction of bores with the use of inert materials, allocating funds for the replacement
of bores, cathodic protection, implementation of asset management principles). Please
describe in the space provided below.
BORE CONDITION MONITORING AND REPORTING

14 Has the condition of bores been monitored previously and if so, when? (If No, proceed to
question 19)
15 What methods/techniques have been used for previous bore condition monitoring?
16 Is bore condition assessment undertaken regularly/periodically? If yes, how often?

 Yes
 No
17 Is bore condition monitoring undertaken as:

 A formal process - where a defined number of bores is selected for monitoring and the
condition formally documented and reported?
 Incidental – where damage and deterioration is only reported when detected upon bore
access?
Please briefly describe is the space provided below.

18 What kind of bore condition reporting is undertaken? –Database entry, reports,
assessments? Please briefly describe in the space provided below.
EDUCATION
19 Is information readily available for groundwater users to assist in bore condition

assessment / operation / maintenance and rehabilitation measures for bores that are
affected by a deterioration process? (e.g. a website, contact person to call,
poster/brochure information, local contractor carrying our bore remediation?). Please
specify in the space provided below.
20 Is there a local government / water authority organization that is pro-active in the

education of bore use, risks, and maintenance? If so, how? Please describe in the space
below.

21 Are there any local guidelines (aside from the national guidelines for bore construction) for
bore construction and licensing appropriate/tailored to the conditions/requirements of
your local area? If yes, please described in the space below.
 Yes
 No
22 Do you receive direct queries from groundwater users?

 Yes
 No
23 Do drillers promote rehabilitation techniques and/or are experienced in bore rehabilitation

and construction risks?
 Yes
 No
If yes, please specify in the space provided below.

ASSOCIATED COSTS (SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC)
24 What are the social, economic and environmental implications of bore deterioration in your
area? (For example, depressurization in the Great Artesian Basin at a time when trying to
increase pressurization, causing groundwater users to look at alternative water resources,
affecting neighbouring users, drying out of downslope springs / soak areas) Please describe in
the space provided below.
25 Have there been estimates of the cost associated with bore deterioration issues associated with
the following (please tick as many as apply):
 Costs to users due to bore deterioration (for example, is it costing farmers/industry money
when they can‘t use their bores because they are not working properly?)
 Costs to rehabilitate bores?
26 Are you or is your organization factoring in maintenance / on-going costs (for example, cathodic
protection) bore replacement costs? If so, please describe these measures in the space
provided below.
 Yes
 No

Appendix D—GSM codes and
definitions

Measurements
┌──────────┬──────────────────────────────┬──────────┬──────────────────────────────┐
│COORD │Coordinate Type │AGD66 │AUSTRALIAN GEODETIC DATUM │
│COORD │Coordinate Type │GDA94 │GEOCENTRIC DATUM OF AUSTRALIA │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │AGGL │AGGLOMERATE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │ARKO │ARKOSE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │BASA │BASALT │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │BREC │BRECCIA │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │CAAR │CALCARENITE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │CACR │CALCRETE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │CALU │CALCILUTITE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │CARU │CALCIRUDITE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │CHER │CHERT │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │CLAY │CLAY │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │CLST │CLAYSTONE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │COAL │COAL │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │CONG │CONGLOMERATE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │COSH │COAL SHALE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │DACI │DACITE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │DIOR │DIORITE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │DOLE │DOLERITE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │FAUL │FAULT │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │FAZN │FAULT ZONE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │FECR │FERRICRETE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │FEST │IRONSTONE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │GNEI │GNEISS │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │GRAN │GRANITE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │GRAV │GRAVEL │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │GRAW │GREYWACKE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │GRDT │GRANODIORITE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │GREE │GREENSTONE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │GYPS │GYPSUM │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │HORN │HORNFELS │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │IGNE │IGNEOUS │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │LATE │LATERITE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │LIGN │LIGNITE │

│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │LMST │LIMESTONE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │LOST │LOST SAMPLES │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │MARL │MARL │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │META │METAMORPHIC │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │MUST │MUDSTONE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │NOT │NOT KNOWN │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │OOLI │OOLITE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │PHYL │PHYLLITE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │QTZT │QUARTZITE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │RHYD │RHYODACITE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │RHYL │RHYOLITE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │SAND │SAND │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │SAST │SANDSTONE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │SCHI │SCHIST │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │SCOR │SCORIA │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │SEDI │SEDIMENTARY │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │SHAL │SHALE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │SILC │SILCRETE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │SILT │SILT │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │SIST │SILTSTONE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │SLAT │SLATE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │SOIL │SOIL │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │TALC │TALC/SOAPSTONE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │TILL │TILLITE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │TRCH │TRACHYTE │
│LITHCODE │Lithology Code │TUFF │TUFF │
│GRAVMETH │Packing Method │NOT │NOT KNOWN │
│GRAVMETH │Packing Method │PDC │POURED,DIRECT CIRC. │
│GRAVMETH │Packing Method │PRC │POURED,REVERSE CIRC. │
│GRAVMETH │Packing Method │PGF │PUMPED,GRAVEL FEEDLN │
│GRAVMETH │Packing Method │PPR │PRESURE PUMPED.REV.C │
│GRAVMETH │Packing Method │COM │CROSS OVER METHOD │
│SEALTYPE │Seal Type │NOT │NOT KNOWN │
│SEALTYPE │Seal Type │RUB │RUBBER │
│SEALTYPE │Seal Type │LEA │LEAD │
│SEALTYPE │Seal Type │SST │STAINLESS STEEL │

│SEALTYPE │Seal Type │BEN │BENTONITE │
│SEALTYPE │Seal Type │CLA │CLAY │
│SEALTYPE │Seal Type │NOS │NO SEAL │
│FILTSOCK │Filter Sock │Y │YES │
│FILTSOCK │Filter Sock │N │NO │
│FORMATION │Formation │CEAC │ALTONA COAL FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CEAD │ADDISCOT GRAYWACKE MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │CEAG │AGNES FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CEAL │ALTONA COAL SEAM │
│FORMATION │Formation │CEAN │ANGAHOOK MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │CEBC │BROWNS CREEK CLAYS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CEBF │BRUCKNELL FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CEBL │BERWICK LEAF BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CEBS │BOONAH SANDSTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │CEBU │BURRUNGULE MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │CECH │CHILDERS FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CEDA │DARTMOOR FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CEDB │DEMONS BLUFF FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CEDL │DUDDO LIMESTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │CEFL │FLOUNDER FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CEGU │GURNARD FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CEHO │HONEYSUCKLE HILL GRAVELS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CEJR │JOHANNA RIVER SANDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CEK │KNIGHT GROUP │
│FORMATION │Formation │CEKS │KONGORONG SAND │
│FORMATION │Formation │CELA │LACEPEDE FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CELG │LATROBE GROUP │
│FORMATION │Formation │CELV │LATROBE VALLEY COAL MEAS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CEMA │MACKERAL SANDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CEMB │MAUDE BASALT │
│FORMATION │Formation │CEME │MEPUNGA FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CEMP │MOONEE PONDS LEAF BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CEN │NARRACAN GROUP │
│FORMATION │Formation │CEOL │OLNEY FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CEOV │OLDER VOLCANICS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CER │RENMARK GROUP │

│FORMATION │Formation │CERE │RENMARK GROUP │
│FORMATION │Formation │CERP │ROTTEN POINT SANDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CETA │TARTWAUP FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CETH │THORPDALE VOLCANICS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CETR │TRARALGON FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CETU │TURRUM FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CEVT │THORPDALE VOLCANICS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CEWE │WERRIBEE FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CEWR │WARINA SAND │
│FORMATION │Formation │CEYA │YAUGHER VOLCANICS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CEYI │YIWNAR GROUP │
│FORMATION │Formation │CM │WESTERN PORT GROUP │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMAC │ALBERTON COAL MEASURES │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMAD │ADDISCOT GREYWACKE M │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMBA │BATESFORD LIMESTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMBE │BELMONT BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMBI │BRIGHTON GROUP │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMBL │BACCHUS MARSH LEAF BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMBM │BALCOMBIAN MARLS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMBO │BODMAN CREEK FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMBR │BLACK ROCK MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMBT │BATESFORD LIMESTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMCA │CALIVIL FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMCB │CAMPBELLFIELD BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMCL │CLIFTON BANK BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMCS │CHELENHAMIAN STAGE │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMCU │CALULU FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMDB │DITRUPA BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMFB │FLEMINGTON BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMFC │FYANSFORD CLAY │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMFG │FRENCHMANS GULLY BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMFL │FLINDERS LIMESTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMFP │FISHING POINT MARL │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMFY │FYANSFORD FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMG │GLENELG GROUP │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMGA │GAMBIER LIMESTONE MEMBER │

│FORMATION │Formation │CMGB │GEELONG BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMGC │GLENAMPLE CLAY │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMGF │GIPPSLAND LIMESTONE FM │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMGG │GEERA CLAY │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMGI │GIPPSLAND LIMESTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMGL │GLENCOE LIMESTONE MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMGM │GELLIBRAND MARL FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMGR │GRANGE BURN LIMESTONES │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMGS │GRICES CREEK BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMH │HEYTESBURY GROUP │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMHM │HEYWOOD MARL MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMHO │HOLEY PLAINS MARL MB. │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMKA │KATANDRA MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMKE │KEILOR LIMESTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMLL │LONGFORD LIMESTONE FM │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMLP │LANDSLIP POINT IRONSTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMM │MURRAY GROUP │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMMA │MAUDE LIMESTONE UPPER │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMMB │MORDIALLOC BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMMC │MERRIMANS CREEK BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMME │MOUNT ELIZA BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMMG │MORWELL GROUP │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMMO │MORWELL FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMMR │MUDDY CREEK MARL │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMMW │WUK WUK MARL │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMMY │MYARING BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMNE │NEWPORT FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMNY │NYERIMALANG FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMOR │ORBITOIDES LIMESTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMPA │POINT ADDIS BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMPC │PORT CAMPBELL LIMESTONE M │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMPE │PETERBOROUGH MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMPL │PORTLAND LIMESTONE MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMPU │PUEBLA FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMQU │QUIAMONG MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMRC │RUTLEDGES CREEK MEMBER │

│FORMATION │Formation │CMRH │ROSE HILL BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMSA │SALE GROUP │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMSC │SHELFORD CONGLOMERATE │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMSE │SEACOMBE MARL MG. │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMSH │SHEPPARTON FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMSL │SALE GROUP │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMSP │SCHNAPPER POINT BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMTA │TAMBO RIVER FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMTO │TORRUMBARRY CLAY │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMWA │WAURN PONDS LIMESTONE MB. │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMWI │WINNAMBOOL FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMWL │WATAEPOOLAN LIMESTONE MM │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMWY │WY YUNG GRAVEL MG. │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMYA │YALLOURN FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CMZE │ZEALLY LIMESTONE MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │COAB │AIREYS INLET BASALT │
│FORMATION │Formation │COAC │ALTONA COAL SEAM │
│FORMATION │Formation │COAD │ADDISCOT GREYWECKE MB. │
│FORMATION │Formation │COAI │AIREYS INLET LIMESTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │COAL │ALBERTON FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │COAN │ANGAHOOK FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │COAS │ARTHURS SEAT PEEBLE BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │COBL │BALOOK FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │COBR │BIRD ROCK BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │COCA │CASTLE COVE LIMESTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │COCB │CORIO BAY BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │COCC │COMPTON CONGLOMERATE │
│FORMATION │Formation │COCE │CELLEPORA LIMESTONES │
│FORMATION │Formation │COCG │COLQUHOUN GRAVELS │
│FORMATION │Formation │COCH │CHIONE CLAYS │
│FORMATION │Formation │COCL │CLIFTON FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │COCO │COLQUHOUN SANDSTONE MG. │
│FORMATION │Formation │COCR │CALDER RIVER LIMESTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │COCU │CUNNINGHAM GREENSAND MG. │
│FORMATION │Formation │COEM │ETTRICK MARL FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │COGA │GLEN AIRE CLAYS │

│FORMATION │Formation │COGB │GLYCIMERIS BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │COGC │GLENAULIN CLAY MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │COGE │GEERA CLAY FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │COGI │GIFFARD SANDSTONE MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │COGR │GREENSAND MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │COGU │GURWARD FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │COHB │HANTKENINA BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │COJA │JAN JUC FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │COKA │KAWARREN LIMESTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │COLA │LATROBE FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │COLB │LIMOPSIS BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │COLE │LAKES ENTRANCE FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │COLM │LOWER MAUDE FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │COMA │MAUDE LIMESTONES (LOWER) │
│FORMATION │Formation │COMB │MYARING BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │COME │METUNG MARL MG. │
│FORMATION │Formation │COMO │MORWELL SEAM │
│FORMATION │Formation │CON │NIRRANDA GROUP │
│FORMATION │Formation │CONE │NELSON FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CONM │NARRAWATURK MARL MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │CONT │NETHERBY MARL FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │COPA │POINT ADDIS LIMESTONE MB. │
│FORMATION │Formation │COPO │POINT ADDIS LIMESTONE MB. │
│FORMATION │Formation │COPR │POINT RONALD CLAY │
│FORMATION │Formation │COSA │SANDFORD LIMESTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │COSE │SEPTARIAN LIMESTONES │
│FORMATION │Formation │COSH │SHELFORD BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │COSR │SPRING CREEK SERIES │
│FORMATION │Formation │COT │TORQUAY GROUP │
│FORMATION │Formation │COYA │YANAC MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │CPBA │BANGALLAH FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CPBB │BARRACOUTA FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CPDI │DILWYN FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CPDS │DARTMOOR SAND MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │CPEA │EASTERN VIEW FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CPEV │EASTERN VIEW COAL MEAS. │

│FORMATION │Formation │CPGO │GOLDEN BEACH FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CPOO │BOONAH SANDSTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │CPPM │PEMBER MUDSTONE MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │CPPP │PEBBLE POINT FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CPRI │RIVERNOOK MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │CPW │WANGERRIP GROUP │
│FORMATION │Formation │CPYF │YARRAM FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQAB │ALTONA BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQAV │MOUNT ANNYA VOLCANICS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQBC │BLANCHETOWN CLAY FM. │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQBG │BAIRNSDALE GRAVELS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQBL │BLANCHEDOWN CLAY │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQBR │BRIDGEWATER FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQBU │BUNGUNNIA LIMESTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQCH │CHOWILLA SAND │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQCI │COIMADAI LIMESTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQCL │CRAWFORD LIMESTONE MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQCO │COONAMBIDGAL FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQCR │CRAWFORD MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQCS │CHOWILLA SAND FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQCV │MOUNT CLAY BASALT │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQDI │DIPUR SAND │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQDO │DARTMOOR OYSTER BED │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQDP │DUCK PONDS LIMESTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQEA │EAGLE POINT SAND MG. │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQEV │MOUNT ECCLES VOLCANICS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQF │FOLLET GROUP │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQFB │FRANKSTON BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQFV │FITZROY RIVER BASALT │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQGD │GLENELG DUNE COMPLEX │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQGV │MOUNT GAMBIER VOLCANICS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQHR │HOPKINS SHELL-ROCK │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQHS │HEATH SANDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQKC │KOROROIT CREEK SHELL BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQKV │MOUNT KINCAID VOLCANICS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQLI │LIMEBURNERS PT LIMESTONE │

│FORMATION │Formation │CQLO │LOXTON SAND │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQLP │LAKE PERTROBE SHELL BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQLS │LOWAN SANDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQMB │MOORABOOL BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQMC │MARITIMO CLAY MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQMO │MOYNE FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQMS │MALANGANEE SAND │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQN │NORMANBY GROUP │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQNV │NEWER VOLCANICS QUATERN/Y │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQPA │PARILLA SAND │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQPB │PORTLAND BAY BEACH SANDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQRB │RED BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQRV │MOUNT RICHMOND VOLCANICS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQSH │SHEPPARTON FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQSV │CAPE SCHANCK VOLCANICS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQVE │MOUNT ECKERSLEY VOLCANICS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQVN │MOUNT NAPIER VOLCANICS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQVV │MOUNT VANDYKE VOLCANICS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQWB │WHALERS BLUFF FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQWL │WERRIKOO LIMESTONE MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQWO │WOORINEN FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CQYA │YAMBA FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CX │WANNAEUE FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXAF │ANAKIE FLOWS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXB │BRIGHTON GROUP │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXBB │BOISDALE BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXBC │BOISDALE FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXBG │BUCHAN GRAVELS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXBS │BAXTER SANDSTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXCO │COOWGULMERANG FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXCS │COBURG SANDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXDS │DORODONG SANDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXDV │DRIK DRIK BASALT │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXGB │GRANGE BURN FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXGD │GRANGE BURN DIATOMITE │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXHE │HEATH HILL SILT │

│FORMATION │Formation │CXHH │HAUNTED HILLS FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXJP │JEMMYS POINT FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXKS │KALIMNAN STAGE │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXKV │KINKELLA VOLCANICS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXLI │LINDENOW SANDSTONE MB. │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXLK │LAKE REEVE SAND MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXLW │LAKE WELLINGTON FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXMA │MARETIMO MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXMC │MOITUN CREEK BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXMO │MOORABOOL VIADUCT FM. │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXMV │MOUNT MCINTYRE VOLCANICS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXNU │NUNTIN CLAY MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXNV │NEWER VOLCANICS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXOS │OSTREA LIMESTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXPS │PARILLA SANDSTONE FM. │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXRB │RED BLUFF MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXSP │STUDLEY PARK BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXSS │SANDRINGHAM SANDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXTR │TAMBO RIVER FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │CXWU │WURRUK SAND MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │CYMO │MOORABOOL VIADUCT FM │
│FORMATION │Formation │MCBB │BELLARINE BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │MCBM │BELFAST MUDSTONE MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │MCBS │BARRABOOL SANDSTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │MCCB │CASTERTON BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │MCCP │CAPE PATTERSON SERIES │
│FORMATION │Formation │MCCU │CURDIES BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │MCEV │EUMERALLA FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │MCFL │FLAXMAN FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │MCK │KURUMBURRA GROUP │
│FORMATION │Formation │MCMB │MOCAMBORO BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │MCMH │MOONLIGHT HEAD BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │MCMI │MILLEWA GROUP │
│FORMATION │Formation │MCMO │MORKALLA FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │MCMS │MOUNT SALT FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │MCMZ │MERINO GROUP │

│FORMATION │Formation │MCNG │NULLAWAARRE GREENSAND MM. │
│FORMATION │Formation │MCOZ │OTWAY GROUP │
│FORMATION │Formation │MCPA │PAARATTE FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │MCPH │PRETTY HILL SANDSTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │MCRU │RUNNYMEDE FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │MCS │SHERBROOK GROUP │
│FORMATION │Formation │MCST │STRZELECKI GROUP │
│FORMATION │Formation │MCTS │TIMBOON SAND MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │MCWA │WAARRE SANDSTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │MJAG │APOLLO BAY GRIT │
│FORMATION │Formation │MJAS │APOLLO BAY SANDSTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │MTBH │BALD HILL BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │P │PALAEOZOIC │
│FORMATION │Formation │PCDO │DOLOROOK LIMESTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │PCDS │DUNKELD SANDSTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │PCGG │GARVEY GULLY TUFFS │
│FORMATION │Formation │PCGZ │GRAMPIANS GROUP │
│FORMATION │Formation │PDAR │AVON RIVEWR GROUP │
│FORMATION │Formation │PDAS │AVON SANDSTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │PDB │BUCHAN GROUP │
│FORMATION │Formation │PDBA │BASIN LIMESTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │PDBC │BUCHAN CAVES LIMESTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │PDBI │BINDI LIMESTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │PDBO │BOUNDARY CK CONGLOMERATES │
│FORMATION │Formation │PDBP │BELL POINT LIMESTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │PDBR │BUTCHERS RIDGE LIMESTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │PDCC │COOPERS CREEK LIMESTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │PDCH │CAVE HILL SANDSTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │PDFC │FREESTONE CREEK BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │PDG │DEVONIAN GRANITE │
│FORMATION │Formation │PDGR │PALAEOZOIC GRANITES │
│FORMATION │Formation │PDIC │IGUANA CREEK BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │PDIM │IRON MASK FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │PDKQ │KILLARA QUARRY BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │PDLI │LILYDALE LIMESTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │PDLO │LOYOLA LIMESTONE │

│FORMATION │Formation │PDLP │LIPTRAP FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │PDMA │MAXIMILIAN CREEK BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │PDMC │MARBLE CREEK LIMESTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │PDML │MCLARTY MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │PDMU │MURRINDAL LIMESTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │PDOS │OSTRACODE ZONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │PDRC │ROCKY CAMP MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │PDSB │SNOWY BLUFF SERIES │
│FORMATION │Formation │PDSC │SANDYS CREEK BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │PDSE │SPRING CREEK MEMBER │
│FORMATION │Formation │PDSR │SNOWY RIVER VOLCANICS │
│FORMATION │Formation │PDTA │TABBERABBERA FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │PDTR │TARAVALE FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │POBB │BENDIGO BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │PODI │DIGGER ISLAND FORMATION │
│FORMATION │Formation │POKS │KANGERONG STAGE │
│FORMATION │Formation │POME │PALAEOZOIC SLATES/SCHISTS │
│FORMATION │Formation │POMS │PALAEOZOIC MUDSTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │PPDC │DARLEY CONGLOMERATES │
│FORMATION │Formation │PPGC │PERMIAN GLACIAL SEDIMENTS │
│FORMATION │Formation │PPKB │KORKUPERRIMAL BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │PSAC │ANDERSON CREEK BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │PSBB │BOOLA BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │PSC │COWAMBAT GROUP │
│FORMATION │Formation │PSDC │DONNELLYS CREEK BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │PSJ │JORDAN RIVER GROUP │
│FORMATION │Formation │PSJC │JACKSONS CREEK BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │PSK │KEILOR GROUP │
│FORMATION │Formation │PSMB │MCIVOR BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │PSME │MELBOURNE BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │PSMP │MOONEE PONDS CK SANDSTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │PSMS │MCADAM SANDSTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │PSMU │PALAEOZOIC MUDSTONES │
│FORMATION │Formation │PSSC │STARVATION CREEK BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │PSSY │SOUTH YARRA MUDSTONE │
│FORMATION │Formation │BAST │BASEMENT │

│FORMATION │Formation │QA │ALLUVIUM │
│FORMATION │Formation │TPB │BOOKPURNONG BEDS │
│FORMATION │Formation │PLIO │PLIOCENE LUNETTE AND LACUSTRIN│
│FORMATION │Formation │QUAT │QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM │
│FORMATION │Formation │QAO │QUATERNARY AEOLIAN │
│FORMATION │Formation │DEVS │DEVONIAN SANDSTONE │
│LINING │Lining Material │NKN │NOT KNOWN │
│LINING │Lining Material │SST │STAINLESS STEEL │
│LINING │Lining Material │MST │MILD STEEL │
│LINING │Lining Material │STL │STEEL │
│LINING │Lining Material │CST │CARBON STEEL │
│LINING │Lining Material │GIR │GALVANISED IRON │
│LINING │Lining Material │BRO │BRONZE │
│LINING │Lining Material │COP │COPPER │
│LINING │Lining Material │FGL │FIBREGLASS │
│LINING │Lining Material │FRP │FGLASS REF PLASTIC │
│LINING │Lining Material │BRA │BRASS │
│LINING │Lining Material │PVC │PVC │
│LINING │Lining Material │P12 │PVC CLASS 12 │
│LINING │Lining Material │ABS │ABS PLASTIC │
│LINING │Lining Material │NKN │NOT KNOWN │
│LINING │Lining Material │SSW │WIRE W S/STEEL │
│LINING │Lining Material │MSS │SLOTD MILD STL │
│LINING │Lining Material │SSL │SLOTTED STEEL │
│LINING │Lining Material │SGI │SLOTD GAL IRON │
│LINING │Lining Material │BRM │BRONZE MESH │
│LINING │Lining Material │PSL │SLOTTED PVC │
│LINING │Lining Material │PSC │SCREENED PVC │
│LINING │Lining Material │CBM │COP/BRASS MESH │
│LINING │Lining Material │WWB │WIRE WRP BRNZE │
│LINING │Lining Material │WCB │WIRE W COP/BRS │
│LINING │Lining Material │STM │STEEL MESH │
│LINING │Lining Material │SLB │SLOTTED BRONZE │

│LINING │Lining Material │OPN │OPEN HOLE │
│LINING │Lining Material │ABS │ABS PLASTIC │
│LINING │Lining Material │BRK │BRICK, MASONRY │
│LINING │Lining Material │TMB │TIMBER │
│LINING │Lining Material │CON │CONCRETE │
│LINING │Lining Material │OPH │OPEN HOLE │
│LINING │Lining Material │ASB │ASBESTOS CEMENT │
│COMPASS │Compass Direction │N │NORTH │
│COMPASS │Compass Direction │S │SOUTH │
│COMPASS │Compass Direction │E │EAST │
│COMPASS │Compass Direction │W │WEST │
│COMPASS │Compass Direction │NW │NORTH WEST │
│COMPASS │Compass Direction │NE │NORTH EAST │
│COMPASS │Compass Direction │SW │SOUTH WEST │
│COMPASS │Compass Direction │SE │SOUTH EAST │
│COMPASS │Compass Direction │NWN │NORTH WEST NORTH │
│FREQUENCY │Collection Frequency │10 │NONE │
│FREQUENCY │Collection Frequency │1 │DAILY │
│FREQUENCY │Collection Frequency │2 │WEEKLY │
│FREQUENCY │Collection Frequency │3 │FORTNIGHT │
│FREQUENCY │Collection Frequency │4 │MONTHLY │
│FREQUENCY │Collection Frequency │5 │2 MONTHLY │
│FREQUENCY │Collection Frequency │9 │YEARLY │
│SITE_ALIAS│Site Alias Type │NKN │NOT KNOWN │
│SITE_ALIAS│Site Alias Type │RWCO │RURAL WATER COMMISSION OLD NUM│
│SITE_ALIAS│Site Alias Type │DITR │DITR - MANUFAC. & INDUSTRY DEV│
│SITE_ALIAS│Site Alias Type │CNR │CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOU│
│SITE_ALIAS│Site Alias Type │SEC │STATE ELECTRICITY COMMISSION │
│SITE_ALIAS│Site Alias Type │RIG │DRILLING SERVICES RIG NO. │
│SITE_ALIAS│Site Alias Type │SADM │S.A. DEPT. MINES & ENERGY │
│SITE_ALIAS│Site Alias Type │SAEW │S.A. ENG. & WATER SUPPLY DEPT.│
│SITE_ALIAS│Site Alias Type │NGS │N.S.W. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY │
│SITE_ALIAS│Site Alias Type │NDW │N.S.W. DEPT. WATER RESOURCES │

│SITE_ALIAS│Site Alias Type │BMR │BUREAU OF MINERAL RESOURCES │
│SITE_ALIAS│Site Alias Type │EXP │EXPLORATION COMPANY - MINERALS│
│SITE_ALIAS│Site Alias Type │C&EL │CNR LAKE WELLINGTON │
│SITE_ALIAS│Site Alias Type │RWCH │RWC - HAMILTON HYDOGRAPHICS │
│SITE_ALIAS│Site Alias Type │MWC │MELBOURNE WATER CORPORATION │
│SITE_ALIAS│Site Alias Type │DIV │RWC DIVERSIONS BORE NUMBER │
│EXTRACTION│Extraction Method │NKN │NOT KNOWN │
│EXTRACTION│Extraction Method │AIR │AIRLIFTED │
│EXTRACTION│Extraction Method │BAL │BAILED │
│EXTRACTION│Extraction Method │PUM │PUMPED │
│EXTRACTION│Extraction Method │FLO │FLOWING │
│EXTRACTION│Extraction Method │JET │JETTED │
│EXTRACTION│Extraction Method │SUR │SURGED │
│EXTRACTION│Extraction Method │EXP │EXPLOSIVE │
│EXTRACTION│Extraction Method │WAD │WATER ADDED │
│EXTRACTION│Extraction Method │NOT │NOT TESTED │
│EXTRACTION│Extraction Method │POR │PORE WATER │
│FLUIDTYPE │Fuild Type │RAPI │RAPIDGEL │
│FLUIDTYPE │Fuild Type │BENT │BENTONITE │
│FLUIDTYPE │Fuild Type │POLY │POLYMER COMPOUND │
│FLUIDTYPE │Fuild Type │MARI │MARINE CLAY │
│FLUIDTYPE │Fuild Type │NOT │NOT KNOWN │
│DATUMPOINT│Water Level Datum Point │TC │TOP OF CASING │
│DATUMPOINT│Water Level Datum Point │GS │GROUND SURFACE │
│ENDMARKER │End of Formation │Y │YES │
│ENDMARKER │End of Formation │N │NO │
│SITEMARKER│Site Marker │Y │YES │
│SITEMARKER│Site Marker │N │NO │
│HEADOPEN │Head Open │Y │YES │
│HEADOPEN │Head Open │N │NO │
│HEADCAP │Head Cap │Y │YES │
│HEADCAP │Head Cap │N │NO │
│HEADVALVE │Head Valve │Y │YES │
│HEADVALVE │Head Valve │N │NO │
│HEADVALVE │Head Valve │N │NO │
│CASESHOE │Casing Shoe │Y │YES │

│BULLCAP │Bullnose Cap │Y │YES │
│BULLCAP │Bullnose Cap │N │NO │
│BOREDISINF│Bore Disinfected │Y │YES │
│BOREDISINF│Bore Disinfected │N │NO │
│DISINF │Disinfection Method │CHLORINE │CHLORINE WASHED │
│DISINF │Disinfection Method │STEAM │STEAM CLEANED │
│WATERSAMP │Water Sample Taken │Y │YES │
│WATERSAMP │Water Sample Taken │N │NO │
│QUALIFIER_│Qualifier Code │> │GREATER THAN │
│QUALIFIER_│Qualifier Code │< │LESS THAN │
│QUALIFIER_│Qualifier Code │~ │APPROXIMATE │
│QUALIFIER_│Qualifier Code │REJ │REJECTED │
│QUALIFIER_│Qualifier Code │DIRT │DIRTY SAMPLE │
│QUALIFIER_│Qualifier Code │INT │INTERIM │
│QUALIFIER_│Qualifier Code │REP │REPEAT ANALYSIS │
│QUALIFIER_│Qualifier Code │CONT │CONTAMINATED │
│QUALIFIER_│Qualifier Code │PRES │PRESERVED │
│QUALIFIER_│Qualifier Code │BDAM │BOTTLE DAMAGED │
│QUALIFIER_│Qualifier Code │LEAK │BOTTLE LEAKED │
│QUALIFIER_│Qualifier Code │BROK │BOTTLE BROKEN │
│QUALIFIER_│Qualifier Code │NRCD │NOT RECEIVED │
│QUALIFIER_│Qualifier Code │SED │SEDIMENT │
│QUALIFIER_│Qualifier Code │CHAN │CHANGED │
│QUALIFIER_│Qualifier Code │ND │NOT DETECTED │
│QUALIFIER_│Qualifier Code │NIP │ │
│QUALIFIER_│Qualifier Code │CONF │CONFIRMED │
│QUALIFIER_│Qualifier Code │DONE │DONE │
│QUALIFIER_│Qualifier Code │NP │NOT PRESENT │
│QUALIFIER_│Qualifier Code │OXFE │OXIDISED IRON │
│QUALIFIER_│Qualifier Code │N/A │NOT APPLICABLE │
│MATERSAMP │Material Sample Taken │Y │YES │
│MATERSAMP │Material Sample Taken │N │NO │
│CONDITION │Condition Code │A │EXTERNAL INFLUENCES │
│CONDITION │Condition Code │B │WATER REMOVED/ADDED │
│CONDITION │Condition Code │C │MAINTENANCE REQUIRED │
│CONDITION │Condition Code │D │DOUBT ABOUT ACCURACY │

│CONDITION │Condition Code │F │BORE FLOWING │
│CONDITION │Condition Code │G │WATERLEVEL FROM NS │
│CONDITION │Condition Code │N │BORE FLOODED │
│CONDITION │Condition Code │P │BORE DESTROYED │
│CONDITION │Condition Code │Q │BORE DRY │
│CONDITION │Condition Code │S │SITE/BORE WORKS DONE │
│CONDITION │Condition Code │T │ACCESS/EQUIP.PROBLEM │
│CONDITION │Condition Code │U │CASING BLOCKED/BENT │
│CONDITION │Condition Code │W │ASSUMED READING DATE │
│CONDITION │Condition Code │X │WATER SAMPLE TAKEN │
│CONDITION │Condition Code │Z │BELOW INSTRUMENT │
│CONDITION │Condition Code │CAV │BORE HAS CAVED IN │
│CONDITION │Condition Code │WAT │NO WATER LEFT │
│CONDITION │Condition Code │SAL │SALINE BORE │
└──────────┴──────────────────────────────┴──────────┴──────────────────────────────┘
(588 rows)
Activities
┌──────────────────────────────┬────────────────────┬──────────┬──────────────────────────────┐
│Inner Lining │Material │CASING │CASING │
│Inner Lining │Material │SCREEN │SCREEN │
│Inner Lining │Material │OPENHOLE │OPENHOLE │
│Inner Lining │Material │SLOT │SLOTTED CASING │
│Inner Lining │Material │N/A │NOT APPLICABLE │
│Outer Lining │Material │NOT │NOT KNOWN │
│Outer Lining │Material │CEM │CEMENT │
│Outer Lining │Material │BEN │BENTONITE │
│Outer Lining │Material │SEA │SEAL │
│Outer Lining │Material │PAC │PACKER │
│Outer Lining │Material │GRA │GRAVEL │
│Well Head Fittings │Method │N/A │NOT APPLICABLE │
│Driller Log │Method │OBS │OBSERVATION │
│Drilling Technique │Construction Method │NKN │NOT KNOWN │
│Drilling Technique │Construction Method │ROT │ROTARY │

│Drilling Technique │Construction Method │AGM │MECHANICAL AUGER │
│Drilling Technique │Construction Method │AGH │HAND AUGER │
│Drilling Technique │Construction Method │DRV │DRIVEN │
│Drilling Technique │Construction Method │JET │JET │
│Drilling Technique │Construction Method │CBT │CABLE TOOL, PERCUSSION │
│Drilling Technique │Construction Method │DHH │DOWN HOLE HAMMER │
│Drilling Technique │Construction Method │DDH │DIAMOND CORE │
│Drilling Technique │Construction Method │DRL │DRAG-LINE │
│Drilling Technique │Construction Method │ROA │ROTARY AIR │
│Drilling Technique │Construction Method │ROM │ROTARY MUD │
│Drilling Technique │Construction Method │HD │HAND DUG │
│Geological Log │Method │OBS │OBSERVATION │
│Geological Log │Method │GEO │GEOPHYSICAL LOG │
│Stratigraphic Log │Method │OBS │OBSERVATION │
│Aquifer Pumping Test │Method │ST │STEP TEST │
│Aquifer Pumping Test │Method │PE │PERFORMANCE TEST │
│Aquifer Pumping Test │Method │CO │CONSTANT RATE TEST │
│Aquifer Pumping Test │Method │FL │FLOW TEST │
│Aquifer Pumping Test │Method │IN │INJECTION TEST │
│Aquifer Pumping Test │Method │SL │SLUG TEST │
│Aquifer Pumping Test │Method │RE │RECOVERY TEST │
│Aquifer Pumping Test │Method │NOT │NOT KNOWN │
│Aquifer Pumping Test │Method │DEV │FINAL BORE DEVELOPMENT │
│Aquifer Pumping Test │Method │DRL │DRILLER PUMP TEST │
│Maintenance │Method │NOT │NOT KNOWN │
│Maintenance │Method │MON │ROUTINE MONITORING │
│Maintenance │Method │MNT │BORE MAINTENANCE │
│Maintenance │Method │PUM │PUMPING TEST │
│Maintenance │Method │LOG │DATALOGGER │
│Maintenance │Method │LAB │LAB CHEM ANALYSES │
│Maintenance │Method │CHE │FIELD CHEM ANALYSES │
│Maintenance │Method │BEF │ANN MAINT WL BEFORE TEST │
│Maintenance │Method │AFT │ANN MAINT AFTER TEST │
│Maintenance │Method │CHK │ANN MAINT WL CHECK │
│Maintenance │Method │CON │ANN MAINT BORE CONDITIONS │
│Water Level Readings │Extraction Method │NOT │NOT KNOWN │

│Water Level Readings │Extraction Method │MON │ROUTINE MONITORING │
│Water Level Readings │Extraction Method │MNT │BORE MAINTENANCE │
│Water Level Readings │Extraction Method │PUM │PUMPING TEST │
│Water Level Readings │Extraction Method │LOG │DATALOGGER │
│Water Level Readings │Extraction Method │LAB │LAB CHEM ANALYSES │
│Water Level Readings │Extraction Method │CHE │FIELD CHEM ANALYSES │
│Water Level Readings │Extraction Method │BEF │ANN MAINT WL BEFORE TEST │
│Water Level Readings │Extraction Method │AFT │ANN MAINT AFTER TEST │
│Water Level Readings │Extraction Method │CHK │ANN MAINT WL CHECK │
│Water Level Readings │Extraction Method │CON │ANN MAINT BORE CONDITIONS │
│Chemical Analysis │Sampling Method │ROU │ROUTINE │
│Chemical Analysis │Sampling Method │NKN │NOT KNOWN │
│Chemical Analysis │Sampling Method │AIR │AIR LIFTED │
│Chemical Analysis │Sampling Method │BAL │BAILED │
│Chemical Analysis │Sampling Method │PUM │PUMPED │
│Chemical Analysis │Sampling Method │FLO │FLOWING │
│Chemical Analysis │Sampling Method │JET │JETTED │
│Chemical Analysis │Sampling Method │SUR │SURGED │
│Chemical Analysis │Sampling Method │EXP │EXPLOSIVE │
│Chemical Analysis │Sampling Method │WAD │WATER ADDED │
│Chemical Analysis │Sampling Method │NOT │NOT TESTED │
│Chemical Analysis │Sampling Method │POR │PORE WATER │
│Bore Pumping Test │Test Method │DEV │FINAL DEVELOPMENT │
│Bore Pumping Test │Test Method │DRL │DRILLING │
│Bore Pumping Test │Test Method │NOT │NOT KNOWN │
│Water Intersection │Test Method │NKN │NOT KNOWN │
│Water Intersection │Test Method │AIR │AIR LIFTED │
│Water Intersection │Test Method │BAL │BAILED │
│Water Intersection │Test Method │PUM │PUMPED │
│Water Intersection │Test Method │FLO │FLOWING │
│Water Intersection │Test Method │JET │JETTED │
│Water Intersection │Test Method │SUR │SURGED │
│Water Intersection │Test Method │EXP │EXPLOSIVE │
│Water Intersection │Test Method │WAD │WATER ADDED │
│Water Intersection │Test Method │NOT │NOT TESTED │
│Water Intersection │Test Method │POR │PORE WATER │

│Cadastre Details │Method │N/A │NOT APPLICABLE │
│Sample │Method │OBS │OBSERVATION │
│Sample │Method │CORE │CORE │
│Sample │Method │SIEVE │SIEVE │
│Disinfection │Method │N/A │NOT APPLICABLE │
│Salinity Readings │Method │NOT │NOT KNOWN │
│Salinity Readings │Method │MON │ROUTINE MONITORING │
│Salinity Readings │Method │MNT │BORE MAINTENANCE │
│Salinity Readings │Method │PUM │PUMPING TEST │
│Salinity Readings │Method │LOG │DATALOGGER │
│Salinity Readings │Method │LAB │LAB CHEM ANALYSES │
│Salinity Readings │Method │CHE │FIELD CHEM ANALYSES │
│Salinity Readings │Method │BEF │ANN MAINT WL BEFORE TEST │
│Salinity Readings │Method │AFT │ANN MAINT AFTER TEST │
│Salinity Readings │Method │CHK │ANN MAINT WL CHECK │
│Salinity Readings │Method │CON │ANN MAINT BORE CONDITIONS │
└──────────────────────────────┴────────────────────┴──────────┴──────────────────────────────┘
(103 rows)
Use
┌──────────┬──────────────────────────────┐
│NKN │NOT KNOWN │
│DM │DOMESTIC │
│ST │STOCK │
│DS │DOMESTIC AND STOCK │
│IR │IRRIGATION │
│UR │URBAN │
│MW │MINERAL WATER │
│DW │DEWATERING │
│GE │GEOTHERMAL │
│IN │INDUSTRIAL │
│AI │AGRO INDUSTRIES │
│AQ │AQUACULTURE │
│DY │DAIRY │
│CO │COMMERCIAL │

│CD │COMMUNAL DOMESTIC │
│MI │MISCELLANEOUS │
│DI │DISPOSAL │
│DR │DROUGHT RELIEF │
│IV │GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATION │
│NU │NOT USED - CAPPED │
│OB │OBSERVATION │
│RE │GROUNDWATER RECHARGE │
│SEC │SEC BORES (USE UNIDENTIFIED) │
│NG │NON GROUNDWATER │
│SON │STATE OBSERVSATION NETWORK │
│GW │GROUNDWATER │
│SG │STRATIGRAPHIC │
│GI │GEN. GEOLOGICAL INV. │
│ME │MINERAL INVESTIGATIO │
│PE │PETROLEUM EXPL. │
│EX │EXTRACTIVE/QUARRYING │
│EG │ENGINEERING GEOLOGY │
│CU │CULTURE │
│DM-B │DOMESTIC - BILLABLE │
│ST-B │STOCK - BILLABLE │
│CA │COMMERCIAL AQUACULTURE │
│CR │COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL │
│DE │DEWATERING TO EVAP. BASINS │
│PD │PUBLIC DEWATERING │
│PP │PUBLIC PUMPS │
│SI │SALINITY IRRIGATION │
└──────────┴──────────────────────────────┘
(41 rows)
Trace
┌──────────┬──────────────────────────────┐
│GAM │GAMMA │
│NEU │NEUTRON │
│CAL │CALIPER │

│DEN │DENSITY │
│ELE │ELECTRIC │
│SON │SONIC │
│POT │SELF POTENTIAL │
│TMP │TEMPERATURE │
│IND │INDUCTION │
│SPR │SINGLE POINT RESISTANCE │
│E39 │EM-39 │
│MNL │MID NORMAL │
│LNL │LONG NORMAL │
│SNL │SHORT NORMAL │
│LLG │LATEROLOG │
│MIR │MICRO-RESISTIVITY │
│NOT │NOT KNOWN │
└──────────┴──────────────────────────────┘
(17 rows)
Survey
┌──────────┬──────────────────────────────┐
│SGI │SURVEYED-GROUND INSTRUMENT │
│SSA │SURVEYED-SATELITE │
│SC1 │SCALED-1:25,000 MAP │
│SC2 │SCALED-1:100,000 MAP │
│DIG │DIGITIZED-1:100,000 MAP │
│CES │CONTOUR ESTIMATE │
│CAD │SCALED-1:63360 CADAST.PLAN │
│CAM │CALCULATED MANUALLY │
│GDA │TRANSLATION TO GDA94 │
│GPS │GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM │
└──────────┴──────────────────────────────┘
(11 rows)

Site
┌──────────┬──────────────────────────────┐
│BOR │DRILLED BORE │
│SPR │SPEAR POINT │
│W/S │WELL/SHAFT │
│ADI │ADIT, DRIVE │
│ISP │IMPROVED SPRING │
│DRG │DRAGLINE │
│JET │JETTED │
│SPN │SPRING - UNIMPROVED │
└──────────┴──────────────────────────────┘
(9 rows)
Equipment
┌──────────┬──────────────────────────────┐
│N/A │NOT APPLICABLE │
│COMPROBE │COMPROBE LOGGER AT DRILLING SE│
│GEARHART-O│DRILLING SERVICES PORT MELBOUR│
│HANDHELD G│RWC H.O./ TATURA LOGGERS │
│EM-39 │TATURA-BASED GEOTERREX EM-39 │
│CONTRACT L│GENERIC EXTERNAL LOGGER │
│GEOSCIENCE│GEOSCIENCE LOGGER PORT MELBOUR│
│NOT KNOWN │NOT KNOWN │
└──────────┴──────────────────────────────┘
(8 rows)

Conditions
┌──────────┬──────────────────────────────┐
│A │EXTERNAL INFLUENCES │
│B │WATER REMOVED/ADDED │
│C │MAINTENANCE REQUIRED │
│D │DOUBT ABOUT ACCURACY │
│F │BORE FLOWING │
│G │WATERLEVEL FROM NS │
│N │BORE FLOODED │
│P │BORE DESTROYED │
│Q │BORE DRY │
│S │SITE/BORE WORKS DONE │
│T │ACCESS/EQUIP.PROBLEM │
│U │CASING BLOCKED/BENT │
│W │ASSUMED READING DATE │
│X │WATER SAMPLE TAKEN │
│Z │BELOW INSTRUMENT │
│CAV │BORE HAS CAVEDIN │
│WAT │NO WATER LEFT │
│SAL │SALINE BORE │
│DEC │BORE DECOMMISSIONED │
│O │OTHER │
└──────────┴──────────────────────────────┘
(21 rows)
Analysis
┌──────────┬──────────────────────────────┐
│TS │THEIS │
│CJ │COOPER-JACOB │
│SL │SLUG TEST │
│WA │WALTON │
└──────────┴──────────────────────────────┘
(5 rows)

Appendix E—Bibliography of bore
design, construction, rehabilitation and
decommissioning publications

ARCMANZ [Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand]
1995, Guidelines for groundwater protection in australia, national water quality
management strategy, Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and
New Zealand and Australian and NZ Environment and Conservation Council.
ARCMANZ [Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand]
1997, Minimum construction requirements for water bores in Australia, Agriculture and
Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand and Australian and NZ
Environment and Conservation Council.
AWWA 1995, Guidelines for groundwater protection in Australia, prepared for the National
Water Quality Management Strategy.
Australian Drilling Manual 1992, Australian Drilling Industry Training Committee Ltd.
Centre for International Economics 2003, Farm costs, benefits and risk from bore capping and
piping in the Great Artesian Basin, prepared for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry,
Australia, July 2003.
EPA Victoria 1997, Hydrogeological assessments (groundwater quality), EPA Victoria
Publication.
Great Artesian Basin Consultative Council 1998), Great Artesian Basin – resource study
summary.
Great Artesian Basin Consultative Council 2000), Great Artesian Basin – strategic
management plan.
Groundwater and Wells 2nd Edition, Driscoll, 2003.
Groundwater management review – management approaches for resolving incompatibilities
across jurisdictional borders, Prepared for the Department of Water Land and
Biodiversity Conservation (South Australia), Sep 2004.
Groundwater as the Cinderella of water laws, policies, and institutions in Australia, Dr Jennifer
McKay, Director for the Centre of Comparative Water Policies and Laws, School of
Commerce, University of SA.
HydroTechnology 1994 Development of a long term deep bore refurbishment program,
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Victoria.
McAuley 1999, Casing corrosion – in-situ examples identified by ultrasonic and multi-finger
calliper geophysical techniques, Australian Drilling, May/June 1999.
McLaughlan et al. 1993, Fouling and corrosion of groundwater wells, University of Technology
Sydney, prepared for Land and Water Resource, 1993.
McLaughlan 2002, Managing water well deterioration, International Association of
Hydrogeologists Publication, Vol 22, 2002.
MDBC 2003, Projections of groundwater extraction rates and implications for future demand
and competition for surface water, MDBC publication.
Minimum construction requirements for water bores in Australia, Edition 2, Land and Water
Biodiversity Committee, 2003.
Minimum standards for the construction and reconditioning of water bores that intersect the
sediments of Artesian Basins, Department of Natural Resources and Mines,
Queensland, 2004.
NGWA 1998, Manual of water well construction practices, National Groundwater Association
1998.

Schlumberger Publication – Corrosion evaluation.
Schlumberger Publication – Ultrasonic imaging.
SKM 2004, Great Artesian Basin groundwater management review – Management
approaches for resolving incompatibilities across jurisdictional borders, Prepared for the
Department of Water Land and Biodiversity Conservation (South Australia), Sep 2004.
SKM 2008, Great Artesian Basin Sustainability Initiative, prepared for the Department of the
Environment and Water Resources, Australian Government, Feb 2008.

Appendix F—Bore replacement,
rehabilitation, decommissioning and
condition assessment cost estimates
Consolidated Costings - National Statistics
Data obtained through GHD's professional experience in the groundwater industry.

Costs may be considered a generic average for the specific activity / project aspect
Data obtained from a range of drilling contractors around Australia. Costs vary
based on geological conditions
Bore Decommissioning
Depth Interval 0 - 20 20 - 100 100 - 200 200 - 500 >500
Mobe $1,000 $2,000 $908 $10,000 $20,000

Accom $500 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000
Rig / Works $1,470 $2,570 $3,264 $6,000 $22,850
Materials $1,000 $2,000 $1,325 $10,000 $20,000
Regulatory $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000
Hydro/eng support $2,000 $4,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000
SUB-TOTAL $6,970 $12,070 $11,497 $34,500 $73,850
geophysical factor 1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2

Artesian head
management factor 1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2
Age risk factor 1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2
TOTAL $6,970 $16,065 $15,303 $59,616 $127,613
Bore Treatment
Depth Interval 0 - 20 20 - 100 100 - 200 200 - 500 >500
Diagnosis $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000

Mobe $1,500 $900 $5,000 $10,000 $20,000
Rig / Works $10,000 $71,600 $2,000 $6,000 $12,000
Materials $500 $2,350 $1,000 $2,000 $4,000
Develop / redevelop $500 $1,000 $1,000 $5,000 $10,000
SUB-TOTAL $14,500 $77,850 $11,000 $25,000 $48,000
geophysical factor 1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2
environmental factor 1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2
TOTAL $14,500 $94,199 $13,310 $36,000 $69,120

Bore Condition Assessment
Depth Interval (m) 0 - 20 20 - 100 100 - 200 200 - 500 >500
Water Sampling $1,000 $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000
Hydrograph/operation review $1,000 $2,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000
Geophysical Inspection - $3,300 - - -

Caliper Log $500 $3,000 $2,000 $4,000 $4,000
Temperature Log $2,000 $3,000 $2,000 $4,000 $4,000
Sonic Log $500 $5,000 $1,000 $2,000 $2,000
Neutron Log - $3,000 - - -
Specialist Tools $4,000 $40,000 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000
Pumping/Specific Capacity Test $10,425
Pumping Test (24 hr) $7,850
Bore Casing Refurbishment

Depth Interval (m) 0 - 20 20 - 100 100 - 200 200 - 500 500 500 - 1,750
Mobe $1,500 $2,000 $5,000 $10,000 $20,000 -

Accom $500 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 -
Rig / Works $2,000 $2,000 $4,000 $10,000 $55,000 $275,000
Materials $1,000 $2,000 $20,000 $75,000 $150,000 -
Regulatory $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 -
Hydro/eng support $2,000 $4,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 -
SUB-TOTAL $8,000 $11,500 $35,000 $103,500 $236,000 $275,000
geophysical factor 1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3

Artesian head
management factor 1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3
Age risk factor 1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3
TOTAL $8,000 $15,307 $46,585 $178,848 $407,808 $604,175
Bore Drilling Costs

Depth Interval (m) 0 - 20 20 - 100 100 - 200 200 - 500 >500
Tendering/planning $500 $320 $100 $6,000 $6,000

Mobe $1,586 $2,188 $4,245 $9,500 $157,676
Accom $357 $543 $21,150 $12,000 $15,000
Rig/Works $2,827 $11,802 $35,741 $195,961 $705,765
Materials $2,696 $5,270 $8,861 $38,750 $697,096
Regulatory $1,000 $70 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000
Hydro/eng support $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $10,000 $20,000
SUB-TOTAL $10,465 $23,874 $76,997 $267,211 $1,596,537
Cementing 1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2

Artesian head
management factor 1 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2
TOTAL $10,465 $28,888 $93,166 $384,784 $2,299,013

Obtained Bore Cost Estimates
Date of cost
Details Costs Units Source of Cost Estimate State/Territory Details of estimate
estimate
BORE ESTABLISHMENT COSTS

Construction of a new bore
total,
$30,000 - $40,000 indicative 2009 SA Water - Peter Forward interview SA estimate does not include consultants
Mine bore, large diameter $190,000 total 2007 Previous GHD project VIC total depth 130 m.
360 m deep bore $432,485 total 2008 Previous GHD project VIC for Gippsland, Victoria
FRP Pumphouse / Transmission
1,150 m deep bore $2,050,100 total 2007 Previous GHD project - Otway Basin VIC Casing / Stainless Well Liner
Carbon Steel Pumphouse /
Transmission Casing / Stainless Well
1,150 m deep bore $1,754,220 total 2007 Previous GHD project - Otway Basin VIC Liner
1,150 m deep bore $1,877,720 total 2007 Previous GHD project - Otway Basin VIC Stainless Steel (400 series) full depth
includes drilling pilot hole and
reaming production bore to 320 mm
30 m deep bore $27,020 total 2009 Western District Drilling VIC diameter
Tax invoice from J.M.J. Drilling and
Development (2hrs setting up) $470 total Nov-08 Pumps VIC
$11,200 (80 m @ Tax invoice from J.M.J. Drilling and
Rig and Equipment (Auger) $140 per metre) total Nov-08 Pumps VIC
Rig and Equipment (Mud $10,800 (30 m @ Tax invoice from J.M.J. Drilling and
Rotary) $360 per metre) total Nov-08 Pumps VIC
$8,400 (60 m @ Tax invoice from J.M.J. Drilling and
Hammer drilling $140 per metre) total Nov-08 Pumps VIC
Casing: (Class 12 PVC casing $2,240 (70 m @ $32 Tax invoice from J.M.J. Drilling and
100mm) per metre) total Nov-08 Pumps VIC
Casing: (Class 12 PVC casing $3,864 (20 m @ Tax invoice from J.M.J. Drilling and
200mm) $138 per metre) total Nov-08 Pumps VIC
Screens (100 mm Class 12 $1,200 (10 m @ Tax invoice from J.M.J. Drilling and
PVC) $120 per metre) total Nov-08 Pumps VIC
$2,394 ( (18 m @ Tax invoice from J.M.J. Drilling and
Screens (125 mm) $133 per metre) total Nov-08 Pumps VIC
Tax invoice from J.M.J. Drilling and
Grout $1,280 (800L) total Nov-08 Pumps VIC
Drillers fee for installation of Tax invoice from J.M.J. Drilling and
80 m deep bore $18,359 Nov-08 Pumps VIC
Drillers fee for installation of Tax invoice from J.M.J. Drilling and
90 m deep bore $36,682 Nov-08 Pumps VIC
Contract with Sides drilling contractors pty
Mobilisation $78,420 total Jun-07 ltd VIC

Date of cost
estimate

Bore construction $79,256 total Jun-07 ltd VIC
Drilling 570,000 total Jun-07 ltd VIC
Casing Supply $576,500 total Jun-07 ltd VIC
Casing installation $135,765 total Jun-07 ltd VIC
Materials and consumables $42,000 total Jun-07 ltd VIC
Bore development, site Contract with Sides drilling contractors pty
disposal, rehabilitation $78,596 total Jun-07 ltd VIC
Total cost $1,560,537 total Jun-07 ltd VIC
Mobilisation $1,650 Bore Jan-07 Aussie water bores quote VIC
135mm hammer drilling $99 metre Jan-07 Aussie water bores quote VIC
50mm PVC $11 metre Jan-07 Aussie water bores quote VIC
Hole construction $440 Bore Jan-07 Aussie water bores quote VIC
Development $495 hour Jan-07 Aussie water bores quote VIC
Bentonite pellets $88 pail Jan-07 Aussie water bores quote VIC
Site clean up $385 hour Jan-07 Aussie water bores quote VIC
bore installed within an alluvial
Mobilisation $1,320 total Jul-03 Confidential NSW aquifer near Dubbo, NSW
Drilling to 48 m $11,280 total Jul-03 Confidential NSW
Ream to 48 m $11,040 total Jul-03 Confidential NSW

Installation of screen and
casing $2,280 total Jul-03 Confidential NSW
Tremmie grout $2,500 total Jul-03 Confidential NSW
Development $11,970 total Jul-03 Confidential NSW
Materials $15,500 total Jul-03 Confidential NSW
Total Cost $55,890 total Jul-03 Confidential NSW

bore installed within shallow alluvium
Mobilisation / Setup $2,500 per bore Apr-08 WaterMin Drillers NSW near Rylestone, NSW

Date of cost
estimate

Drilling test hole using mud-
rotary method $260 per metre Apr-08 WaterMin Drillers NSW
Drilling test hole using rotary
air method $150 per metre Apr-08 WaterMin Drillers NSW
estimate
Materials $2,000 only Apr-08 WaterMin Drillers NSW
Drilling 150 mm bore with PVC
casing/screen $320 per metre Apr-08 WaterMin Drillers NSW
Stainless Steel Screens $800 per metre Apr-08 WaterMin Drillers NSW
Filter Gravel $150 per 200 L Apr-08 WaterMin Drillers NSW

bore installed to 80 m, within an
fractured rock aquifer near Dubbo,
Mobilisation $7,200 per bore Nov-08 Confidential - Drilling contractor NSW NSW
Drilling $10,400 per bore Nov-08 Confidential - Drilling contractor NSW
Hourly Rates $1,750 per bore Nov-08 Confidential - Drilling contractor NSW
Consumable Rates $5,500 per bore Nov-08 Confidential - Drilling contractor NSW
Total Cost $24,850 per bore Nov-08 Confidential - Drilling contractor NSW
Mobilisation $8,000 bore Aug-08 Quote from Drilltec Victoria bore installed to 360 m
Administration and
management $2,500 bore Aug-08 Quote from Drilltec Victoria
Drilling costs $375,695 bore Aug-08 Quote from Drilltec Victoria
Bore development $41,250 bore Aug-08 Quote from Drilltec Victoria
Supply plant $6,400 bore Aug-08 Quote from Drilltec Victoria

Materials $8,000 bore Aug-08 Quote from Drilltec Victoria
Total cost $441,845 bore Aug-08 Quote from Drilltec Victoria
mobilisation $20,000 bore Jul-08 Quote from K H Adams and Sons pty ltd Victoria
drilling/casing $236,000 bore Jul-08 Quote from K H Adams and Sons pty ltd Victoria
Development $24,000 bore Jul-08 Quote from K H Adams and Sons pty ltd Victoria
Accommodation $12,000 bore Jul-08 Quote from K H Adams and Sons pty ltd Victoria
Crane hire $8,000 bore Jul-08 Quote from K H Adams and Sons pty ltd Victoria
Screen $117,000 bore Jul-08 Quote from K H Adams and Sons pty ltd Victoria

Date of cost
estimate

Total cost $470,379 bore Jul-08 Quote from K H Adams and Sons pty ltd Victoria
Mobililisation/demobilisation $6,400 bore Jun-09 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA Construction of 120 m deep bore
Set up $3,460 bore Jun-09 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
Drill 444 m diam $401 per metre Jun-09 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
surface casing $425 per metre Jun-09 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
Drill 250 mm diam pilot hole $99 per metre Jun-09 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
Ream 311 mm diam to ~38
mBGL $104 per metre Jun-09 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
200 mm cl 12 PVC casing $67 per metre Jun-09 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
Supply and install 150 mm
PVC plain $62 per metre Jun-09 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
Screen $422 per metre Jun-09 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
Stainless steel sump ~2 m
long $325 bore Jun-09 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
Casing centralisers $49 Each Jun-09 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
Gravel Pack $493 Ton Jun-09 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
Work time for gravel packing
(est) $580 per hour Jun-09 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
Pac R $269 Each Jun-09 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
PacL $269 Each Jun-09 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
Aus Gel $27 Each Jun-09 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
Soda Ash $28 Each Jun-09 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
Well Clean $75 Each Jun-09 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
Cement $12 20 kg Jun-09 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
Total Cost $72,999 Jun-09 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
Mobilisation $1,800 per bore Aug-09 Verbal quote- Olympic Boring SA <100 m deep bore (8" hole)
Drilling all inclusive $250 per metre Aug-09 Verbal quote- Olympic Boring SA
Accommodation Varies Aug-09 Verbal quote- Olympic Boring SA
Regulatory $70 each Aug-09 Verbal quote- Olympic Boring SA
Mobililisation/demobilisation $42,195 2 Bores Sep-07 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA Construction of two 180 m bores
Set up $5,546 Bore Sep-07 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA

Date of cost
estimate

Drill 444 m diam $275 per metre Sep-07 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
surface casing $283 per metre Sep-07 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
Drill 216 mm diam pilot hole $99 per metre Sep-07 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
Standby for geophysical
logging $456 per hour Sep-07 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
Geophysical logging $3,150 bore Sep-07 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
Ream pilot hole to 340 mm
diam $122 per metre Sep-07 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
Supply and install casing and

screen assembly $221,578 2 Bores Sep-07 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
Supply Drilling Fluids 2 Bores Sep-07 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
Total $355,536 Sep-07 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
establishment $3 per km Mar-09 Quote from KMR Drilling TAS
per person,
Accommodation and meals $180 per night Mar-09 Quote from KMR Drilling TAS
Travel to/from depot after 1
week of drilling $300 Each way Mar-09 Quote from KMR Drilling TAS
Hourly Rate $260 Per hour Mar-09 Quote from KMR Drilling TAS
H size casing advancer $35 per metre Mar-09 Quote from KMR Drilling TAS
HQ Casing advancer $30 per metre Mar-09 Quote from KMR Drilling TAS
Running casing only $10 per metre Mar-09 Quote from KMR Drilling TAS
U75 tubes and SPT's $23 Each Mar-09 Quote from KMR Drilling TAS
HQ3 Wireline Coring $45 per metre Mar-09 Quote from KMR Drilling TAS
Down hole hammer drilling $35 per metre Mar-09 Quote from KMR Drilling TAS
50 mm pvc screen $34 per metre Mar-09 Quote from KMR Drilling TAS
50 mm pvc casing $24 per metre Mar-09 Quote from KMR Drilling TAS
50 mm pvc push on caps $8 each Mar-09 Quote from KMR Drilling TAS
8/16 Sand pack $13 per bag Mar-09 Quote from KMR Drilling TAS
Med bentonite chips $85 per bag Mar-09 Quote from KMR Drilling TAS
bentonite powder $55 per bag Mar-09 Quote from KMR Drilling TAS
concrete $13 per bag Mar-09 Quote from KMR Drilling TAS
Lockable protection cover and $155 Each Mar-09 Quote from KMR Drilling TAS

Date of cost
estimate

keys
Drill Rig and 2 man crew $220 per hour Jan-09 Price list for Total Drilling NSW Environmental Drilling, Newcastle
establishment $220 per hour Jan-09 Price list for Total Drilling NSW Environmental Drilling, Newcastle
Sim-cas drilling $270 per hour Jan-09 Price list for Total Drilling NSW Environmental Drilling, Newcastle
Air compressor hire $400 per day Jan-09 Price list for Total Drilling NSW Environmental Drilling, Newcastle
Air compressor establishment POA Jan-09 Price list for Total Drilling NSW Environmental Drilling, Newcastle
Geoprobe continues sampler $220 per hour Jan-09 Price list for Total Drilling NSW Environmental Drilling, Newcastle
Geoprobe liner $15 Each Jan-09 Price list for Total Drilling NSW Environmental Drilling, Newcastle
Concrete core 220 mm $15 per cm Jan-09 Price list for Total Drilling NSW Environmental Drilling, Newcastle
Accommodation $350 per night Jan-09 Price list for Total Drilling NSW Environmental Drilling, Newcastle
50 mm x 3.0 m screen $76 each Jan-09 Price list for Total Drilling NSW Environmental Drilling, Newcastle
50 mm x 1.5 m screen $55 each Jan-09 Price list for Total Drilling NSW Environmental Drilling, Newcastle
50 mm x 3.0 m riser $51 each Jan-09 Price list for Total Drilling NSW Environmental Drilling, Newcastle
50 mm x 1.5 m riser $42 each Jan-09 Price list for Total Drilling NSW Environmental Drilling, Newcastle
50 mm push in (or push on)
cap $10 each Jan-09 Price list for Total Drilling NSW Environmental Drilling, Newcastle
5/2 gravel $45 per bag Jan-09 Price list for Total Drilling NSW Environmental Drilling, Newcastle
Bentonite plug $12 each Jan-09 Price list for Total Drilling NSW Environmental Drilling, Newcastle
Filter sock 100 mm $45 per metre Jan-09 Price list for Total Drilling NSW Environmental Drilling, Newcastle
Concrete $12 per bag Jan-09 Price list for Total Drilling NSW Environmental Drilling, Newcastle
Geotech / Environmental Drilling,
establishment $600 unit Local Driller, Nambucca NSW mud rotary
setup of rig $550 per bore Local Driller, Nambucca NSW mud rotary
mud drililng $50 per metre Local Driller, Nambucca NSW mud rotary
water cart $300 per day Local Driller, Nambucca NSW mud rotary
3m screen $76 each Local Driller, Nambucca NSW mud rotary
3 m casing $54 each Local Driller, Nambucca NSW mud rotary
pvc caps $75 each Local Driller, Nambucca NSW mud rotary
sand $25 per bag Local Driller, Nambucca NSW Geotech / Environmental Drilling,

Date of cost
estimate

mud rotary
bentonite $70 per bag Local Driller, Nambucca NSW mud rotary
concrete $25 per bag Local Driller, Nambucca NSW mud rotary
Establishment and travel costs
(Sydney) $440 per night Feb-09 Price list for Terratest NSW Environmental Drilling, Sydney

(regional NSW) $6 per km Feb-09 Price list for Terratest NSW Environmental Drilling, Sydney
(Newcastle) $880 per week Feb-09 Price list for Terratest NSW Environmental Drilling, Sydney
Accommodation $440 per night Feb-09 Price list for Terratest NSW Environmental Drilling, Sydney
Hollow Flight Augers $110 per day Feb-09 Price list for Terratest NSW Environmental Drilling, Sydney
HQ3 coring kit $110 per day Feb-09 Price list for Terratest NSW Environmental Drilling, Sydney
NQ3 coring kit $110 per day Feb-09 Price list for Terratest NSW Environmental Drilling, Sydney
Decon unit $165 per day Feb-09 Price list for Terratest NSW Environmental Drilling, Sydney
Grout unit $110 per day Feb-09 Price list for Terratest NSW Environmental Drilling, Sydney
Downhole hammer and
compressor $1,100 per day Feb-09 Price list for Terratest NSW Environmental Drilling, Sydney
Tubex drill/casing and
compressor $1,980 per day Feb-09 Price list for Terratest NSW Environmental Drilling, Sydney
1000 L water tank and pump $110 per day Feb-09 Price list for Terratest NSW Environmental Drilling, Sydney
Truck mounted rigs $275 per hour Feb-09 Price list for Terratest NSW Environmental Drilling, Sydney
Geoprobes $275 per hour Feb-09 Price list for Terratest NSW Environmental Drilling, Sydney
XC drill, XP 60 and Eze cat $275 per hour Feb-09 Price list for Terratest NSW Environmental Drilling, Sydney
50 mm class 18 EZE Screen $88 3m Feb-09 Price list for Terratest NSW Environmental Drilling, Sydney
50 mm class 18 EZE casing $66 3m Feb-09 Price list for Terratest NSW Environmental Drilling, Sydney
50 mm class 9 uPVC pipe $66 6m Feb-09 Price list for Terratest NSW Environmental Drilling, Sydney
50 mm class 18 caps and
joiners $9 each Feb-09 Price list for Terratest NSW Environmental Drilling, Sydney
Filter sock $7 per metre Feb-09 Price list for Terratest NSW Environmental Drilling, Sydney
Sand: 1-2 mm graded $11 20 kg Feb-09 Price list for Terratest NSW Environmental Drilling, Sydney
Gravel: 2-5 mm graded $22 20 kg Feb-09 Price list for Terratest NSW Environmental Drilling, Sydney
Cement/concrete $11 20 kg Feb-09 Price list for Terratest NSW Environmental Drilling, Sydney

Date of cost
estimate

Bentonite pellets $165 23 kg Feb-09 Price list for Terratest NSW Environmental Drilling, Sydney
Bentonite Granules $77 23 kg Feb-09 Price list for Terratest NSW Environmental Drilling, Sydney
Bentonite powder $44 25 kg Feb-09 Price list for Terratest NSW Environmental Drilling, Sydney
Easyprobe 1700 truck Environmental and geotechnical
mounted drill rig $220 per hour 2007 Price list for Dags location services NSW services
Travel $300 per hour 2007 Price list for Dags location services NSW Sydney
$300 per hour 2007 Price list for Dags location services NSW Regional NSW
Every
additional
$180 hour 2007 Price list for Dags location services NSW Regional NSW
Accommodation $260 per night 2007 Price list for Dags location services NSW off peak
$280 per night 2007 Price list for Dags location services NSW on peak
Environmental and geotechnical
utility travel charge $30 per hour 2007 Price list for Dags location services NSW services
Quickset concrete $30 25 kg 2007 Price list for Dags location services NSW services
Concrete $20 20 kg 2007 Price list for Dags location services NSW services
Cement $20 20 kg 2007 Price list for Dags location services NSW services
10 mm crushed blue metal $30 40 kg 2007 Price list for Dags location services NSW services
Cold mix (asphalt) $40 20 kg 2007 Price list for Dags location services NSW services
Bentonite Pellets $145 20 kg 2007 Price list for Dags location services NSW services
Bentonite granules $50 20 kg 2007 Price list for Dags location services NSW services
2 mm screening sand $20 20 kg 2007 Price list for Dags location services NSW services
Class 18 PVC Screen (50 Environmental and geotechnical
mm) $90 3m 2007 Price list for Dags location services NSW services
Class 18 PVC Casing (50 mm) $60 3m 2007 Price list for Dags location services NSW services
Class 18 PVC Joiners (50 Environmental and geotechnical
mm) $15 each 2007 Price list for Dags location services NSW services
Class 18 PVC caps and plugs Environmental and geotechnical
(50 mm) $15 each 2007 Price list for Dags location services NSW services
Filter sock $8 per metre 2007 Price list for Dags location services NSW services
Intertech Establishment (Sydney) $400 per day Mar-09 Price list for Intertech drilling services NSW services

Date of cost
estimate

Establishment (regional NSW) POA Mar-09 Price list for Intertech drilling services NSW services
Accommodation $350 per night Mar-09 Price list for Intertech drilling services NSW services
Drill rig hire $300 per hour Mar-09 Price list for Intertech drilling services NSW services
Pressure cleaner $120 per day Mar-09 Price list for Intertech drilling services NSW services
Grout unit $500 per day Mar-09 Price list for Intertech drilling services NSW services
Down hole hammer / RAB Environmental and geotechnical

equipment and compressor $800 per day Mar-09 Price list for Intertech drilling services NSW services
50 mm PVC well screen $84 3m Mar-09 Price list for Intertech drilling services NSW services
50 mm PVC well casing $54 3m Mar-09 Price list for Intertech drilling services NSW services
50 mm Push on PVC well Environmental and geotechnical
caps and joiners $8 each Mar-09 Price list for Intertech drilling services NSW services
Gravel pack (1-2 mm) $20 25 kg Mar-09 Price list for Intertech drilling services NSW services
Gravel pack (2-5 mm) $25 20 kg Mar-09 Price list for Intertech drilling services NSW services
Bentonite granules $66 33 kg Mar-09 Price list for Intertech drilling services NSW services
Bentonite (Chips) $100 25 kg Mar-09 Price list for Intertech drilling services NSW services
Bentonite Powder $50 25 kg Mar-09 Price list for Intertech drilling services NSW services
Concrete $12 20 kg Mar-09 Price list for Intertech drilling services NSW services
Cement $12 20 kg Mar-09 Price list for Intertech drilling services NSW services
Cold Mix $45 20 kg Mar-09 Price list for Intertech drilling services NSW services
Filter sock $10 per metre Mar-09 Price list for Intertech drilling services NSW services
Specialist inductions $300 per hour Mar-09 Price list for Intertech drilling services NSW services
Macquarie Establishment (Sydney) $400 per day Feb-09 Price list Macquarie Drilling PTY. LTD. NSW Prices exclude GST
Establishment (regional NSW) POA Feb-09 Price list Macquarie Drilling PTY. LTD. NSW Prices exclude GST
Accommodation $300 per night Feb-09 Price list Macquarie Drilling PTY. LTD. NSW Prices exclude GST
Drill rig hourly rate $296 per hour Feb-09 Price list Macquarie Drilling PTY. LTD. NSW Prices exclude GST

Date of cost
estimate

High pressure water cleaner $120 per day Feb-09 Price list Macquarie Drilling PTY. LTD. NSW Prices exclude GST
Pneumatic- Grout unit $600 per day Feb-09 Price list Macquarie Drilling PTY. LTD. NSW Prices exclude GST
Downhole hammer and
compressor $800 per day Feb-09 Price list Macquarie Drilling PTY. LTD. NSW Prices exclude GST
Compressor and Tubex hire $1,000 per day Feb-09 Price list Macquarie Drilling PTY. LTD. NSW Prices exclude GST
50 mm PVC well screen $97 3m Feb-09 Price list Macquarie Drilling PTY. LTD. NSW Prices exclude GST
50 mm PVC well casing $74 3m Feb-09 Price list Macquarie Drilling PTY. LTD. NSW Prices exclude GST
50 mm Push on PVC well
caps $11 each Feb-09 Price list Macquarie Drilling PTY. LTD. NSW Prices exclude GST
50 mm Joiners $9 each Feb-09 Price list Macquarie Drilling PTY. LTD. NSW Prices exclude GST
Gravel pack sand (1-2 mm) $22 per bag Feb-09 Price list Macquarie Drilling PTY. LTD. NSW Prices exclude GST
Gravel pack Gravel (2-5 mm) $22 per bag Feb-09 Price list Macquarie Drilling PTY. LTD. NSW Prices exclude GST
Bentonite (Chips) $147 25 kg Feb-09 Price list Macquarie Drilling PTY. LTD. NSW Prices exclude GST
Bentonite Powder $51 25 kg Feb-09 Price list Macquarie Drilling PTY. LTD. NSW Prices exclude GST
Concrete $16 20 kg Feb-09 Price list Macquarie Drilling PTY. LTD. NSW Prices exclude GST
Cement $16 20 kg Feb-09 Price list Macquarie Drilling PTY. LTD. NSW Prices exclude GST
Cold Mix $45 20 kg Feb-09 Price list Macquarie Drilling PTY. LTD. NSW Prices exclude GST
Filter sock $7 per metre Feb-09 Price list Macquarie Drilling PTY. LTD. NSW Prices exclude GST
Specialist inductions $296 per hour Feb-09 Price list Macquarie Drilling PTY. LTD. NSW Prices exclude GST
Rail Corp Inductions $50 per hour Feb-09 Price list Macquarie Drilling PTY. LTD. NSW Prices exclude GST
Geotechnical and environmental
BHC Drilling Establishment (Sydney) $300 per day Jun-09 Price list BHC Drilling NSW services
Establishment (regional NSW) $5 per km Jun-09 Price list BHC Drilling NSW services
Accommodation and meals $350 per night Jun-09 Price list BHC Drilling NSW services
Hire of drill rig and crew (6am- Geotechnical and environmental
6pm) $230 per hour Jun-09 Price list BHC Drilling NSW services
200 mm hollow flight augers $150 per day Jun-09 Price list BHC Drilling NSW services
1000 L water tank $100 per day Jun-09 Price list BHC Drilling NSW services
Compressor, fuel and DH Geotechnical and environmental
equipment $550 per day Jun-09 Price list BHC Drilling NSW services
50 mm class 18 PVC well Geotechnical and environmental
screen $85 3m Jun-09 Price list BHC Drilling NSW services

Date of cost
estimate

50 mm class 18 PVC well Geotechnical and environmental
casing $65 3m Jun-09 Price list BHC Drilling NSW services
50 mm Push on PVC well Geotechnical and environmental
caps $9 each Jun-09 Price list BHC Drilling NSW services
50 mm Joiners $9 each Jun-09 Price list BHC Drilling NSW services
2 mm graded sand $15 20 kg Jun-09 Price list BHC Drilling NSW services
Bentonite pellets $150 20 kg Jun-09 Price list BHC Drilling NSW services
Cold mix $40 25 kg Jun-09 Price list BHC Drilling NSW services
Bentonite Powder $45 25 kg Jun-09 Price list BHC Drilling NSW services
Concrete $15 20 kg Jun-09 Price list BHC Drilling NSW services
Cement $15 20 kg Jun-09 Price list BHC Drilling NSW services
Filter sock $6 per metre Jun-09 Price list BHC Drilling NSW services
Establishment rig/crew $600 per bore Aug-09 Informal price list for Aimil PTY LTD NSW Quote obtained for Coffs Harbour
Daily establishment $300 per day Aug-09 Informal price list for Aimil PTY LTD NSW Quote obtained for Coffs Harbour
Set up over BH auger $100 per bore Aug-09 Informal price list for Aimil PTY LTD NSW Quote obtained for Coffs Harbour
mud $250 per bore Aug-09 Informal price list for Aimil PTY LTD NSW Quote obtained for Coffs Harbour
Augering $45 per metre Aug-09 Informal price list for Aimil PTY LTD NSW Quote obtained for Coffs Harbour
Mud drilling $50 per metre Aug-09 Informal price list for Aimil PTY LTD NSW Quote obtained for Coffs Harbour
SPT $45 each Aug-09 Informal price list for Aimil PTY LTD NSW Quote obtained for Coffs Harbour
Water Cart Hire $300 per day Aug-09 Informal price list for Aimil PTY LTD NSW Quote obtained for Coffs Harbour
Mud additive $15 per kg Aug-09 Informal price list for Aimil PTY LTD NSW Quote obtained for Coffs Harbour
Well installation $150 each Aug-09 Informal price list for Aimil PTY LTD NSW Quote obtained for Coffs Harbour
screens $76 3m Aug-09 Informal price list for Aimil PTY LTD NSW Quote obtained for Coffs Harbour
Casing $54 3m Aug-09 Informal price list for Aimil PTY LTD NSW Quote obtained for Coffs Harbour
Top/bottom cap set $75 Each Aug-09 Informal price list for Aimil PTY LTD NSW Quote obtained for Coffs Harbour
Cap padlocks $15 Each Aug-09 Informal price list for Aimil PTY LTD NSW Quote obtained for Coffs Harbour
Filter Sand $25 per bag Aug-09 Informal price list for Aimil PTY LTD NSW Quote obtained for Coffs Harbour
Filter Sock $5 per metre Aug-09 Informal price list for Aimil PTY LTD NSW Quote obtained for Coffs Harbour

Date of cost
estimate

Bentonite $70 per tub Aug-09 Informal price list for Aimil PTY LTD NSW Quote obtained for Coffs Harbour
Concrete $25 per bag Aug-09 Informal price list for Aimil PTY LTD NSW Quote obtained for Coffs Harbour
Establishment $3.25 per km $1,950 km Jan-09 Job estimate Numac drilling services QLD for groundwater monitoring bores
Accommodation and meals $175 per day $13,125 75 days Jan-09 Job estimate Numac drilling services QLD
Rig hire (monitoring wells and ~$3,000 per
coreholes day $75,000 25 days Jan-09 Job estimate Numac drilling services QLD
Core Trays $55 each $2,750 50 trays Jan-09 Job estimate Numac drilling services QLD
Miscellaneous materials $2,000 estimate Jan-09 Job estimate Numac drilling services QLD
50 mm well casing $20 per metre $2,300 115 metres Jan-09 Job estimate Numac drilling services QLD
50 mm well screen $25 per metre $1,250 50 metres Jan-09 Job estimate Numac drilling services QLD
50 mm end cap $5 each $30 6 caps Jan-09 Job estimate Numac drilling services QLD
6 lockable
50 mm lockable well cap $35 each $210 caps Jan-09 Job estimate Numac drilling services QLD
6
standpipe
50 mm standpipe cover $130 each $780 covers Jan-09 Job estimate Numac drilling services QLD
Cement 20 kg bags $12.50 each $875 70 bags Jan-09 Job estimate Numac drilling services QLD
Graded sand 8/16 25 kg bag $10 each $400 40 bags Jan-09 Job estimate Numac drilling services QLD
Bentonite 25 kg bag $70 each $420 6 bags Jan-09 Job estimate Numac drilling services QLD
$12.50 per
Rapid set cement 20 kg bag $150 12 bags Jan-09 Job estimate Numac drilling services QLD
Compressor $525 per day $5,250 10 days Jan-09 Job estimate Numac drilling services QLD
GST $10,649 Jan-09 Job estimate Numac drilling services QLD
Total $117,139 Jan-09 Job estimate Numac drilling services QLD
Site mobilisations, Truck mounted washbore rig for
demobilisation and shallow groundwater bores (5 to 20
priliminaries $3,819 Per bore Jun-09 Job estimate Pioneer drilling Co. QLD m depth)
Drilling operations and $3,250 per
investigations day $16,250 5 days Jun-09 Job estimate Pioneer drilling Co. QLD
Fill cost excluding travel time $0.06 per Litre Jun-09 Job estimate Pioneer drilling Co. QLD
Travel to fill $275 per hour Jun-09 Job estimate Pioneer drilling Co. QLD
Air compressor hire $400 per day Jun-09 Job estimate Pioneer drilling Co. QLD
Air compressor furl $180 per Litre Jun-09 Job estimate Pioneer drilling Co. QLD
Packer Test equipment hire $300 per day Jun-09 Job estimate Pioneer drilling Co. QLD

Date of cost
estimate

Symmetrix system hire $300 per day Jun-09 Job estimate Pioneer drilling Co. QLD
Day rate with compressor for $2,000 per

bore development day Jun-09 Job estimate Pioneer drilling Co. QLD
Sub-Total $18,250 Jun-09 Job estimate Pioneer drilling Co. QLD
Drilling supervision &
management $150 per hour Jun-09 Job estimate Pioneer drilling Co. QLD
Additional offsider $80 per hour Jun-09 Job estimate Pioneer drilling Co. QLD
accommodation and meals for
2 men $360 per day $1,800 5 days Jun-09 Job estimate Pioneer drilling Co. QLD
All consumables used $11,000 per bore Jun-09 Job estimate Pioneer drilling Co. QLD
HSEC PPE allowance $200 Per job Jun-09 Job estimate Pioneer drilling Co. QLD
Travel fares/Transfers Cost + 15% Jun-09 Job estimate Pioneer drilling Co. QLD
Core trays/pace splits etc Cost + 15% Jun-09 Job estimate Pioneer drilling Co. QLD
Freighting samples and
equipment Cost + 15% Jun-09 Job estimate Pioneer drilling Co. QLD
Saturday work penalty rates $300 per day Jun-09 Job estimate Pioneer drilling Co. QLD
Sunday work penalty rates $500 per day Jun-09 Job estimate Pioneer drilling Co. QLD
6
monument
Monuments $175 each $1,050 s Jun-09 Job estimate Pioneer drilling Co. QLD
Total Including GST $36,419 Jun-09 Job estimate Pioneer drilling Co. QLD
Mobilisation to site (from Bore drilled to 150 m depth in Pilbara
within Pilbara) $10,000 total Jun-09 Confidential - drilling contractor WA Region, WA. 200 mm diameter bore
Installed in Tertiary Detritals and
Set up at bore $4,500 total Jun-09 Confidential - drilling contractor WA Lower Proterozoic bedrock.
Drill dual rotary 300mm casing $44,700 total Jun-09 Confidential - drilling contractor WA Dual rotary drilled.
Drill open hole, 300mm
diameter $1,500 total Jun-09 Confidential - drilling contractor WA Bore was one of 5 production bores.
Worktime $48,100 total Jun-09 Confidential - drilling contractor WA Actual cost of bore.
Dual rotary casing & drive
shoes $13,740 total Jun-09 Confidential - drilling contractor WA
Plain & slotted 200mm PVC
casing $8,412 total Jun-09 Confidential - drilling contractor WA
Gravel pack $5,639 total Jun-09 Confidential - drilling contractor WA
Headworks & site rehab. $1,350 total Jun-09 Confidential - drilling contractor WA
Total cost $137,941 total Jun-09 Confidential - drilling contractor WA

Date of cost
estimate

Construction of a 30m deep, 155mm
Mobilisation to site $7,500 total Jan-08 Confidential - drilling contractor WA cased water bore
Conventionally drilled, using mud
rotary method. Margaret River Area,
Set up at bore $1,200 total Jan-08 Confidential - drilling contractor WA WA.
Health & Safety plan & admin. $320 total Jan-08 Confidential - drilling contractor WA
Drill & install temporary casing $1,600 total Jan-08 Confidential - drilling contractor WA
Mud drilling $5,700 total Jan-08 Confidential - drilling contractor WA
Worktime & standby $1,970 total Jan-08 Confidential - drilling contractor WA
Development & jetting $3,200 total Jan-08 Confidential - drilling contractor WA
155mm PVC casing and
screens $2,539 total Jan-08 Confidential - drilling contractor WA
Compressor & water truck hire $1,400 total Jan-08 Confidential - drilling contractor WA
Consumables $728 total Jan-08 Confidential - drilling contractor WA
Headworks $375 total Jan-08 Confidential - drilling contractor WA
Total cost $26,532 total Jan-08 Confidential - drilling contractor WA
Mallee drilling program*. Technical
support for the Mallee salinity
Drilling contractor mobilisation $180,000 total Aug-04 management program, p17, 08/04 VIC Mallee Drilling program (Deep)
Technical support for the Mallee salinity
Drilling and construction $848,860 total Aug-04 management program, p17, 08/04 VIC Mallee Drilling program (Deep)
Materials $385,679 total Aug-04 management program, p17, 08/04 VIC Mallee Drilling program (Deep)
Supervision $88,000 total Aug-04 management program, p17, 08/04 VIC Mallee Drilling program (Deep)
Core analysis $2,400 total Aug-04 management program, p17, 08/04 VIC Mallee Drilling program (Deep)
Pump testing $51,300 total Aug-04 management program, p17, 08/04 VIC Mallee Drilling program (Deep)
Water level monitoring $1,000 total Aug-04 management program, p17, 08/04 VIC Mallee Drilling program (Deep)
Groundwater sampling and Technical support for the Mallee salinity
analysis $2,000 total Aug-04 management program, p17, 08/04 VIC Mallee Drilling program (Deep)
Reporting $15,000 total Aug-04 management program, p17, 08/04 VIC Mallee Drilling program (Deep)
Total $1,574,239 total Aug-04 management program, p17, 08/04 VIC Mallee Drilling program (Deep)
40 bores Technical support for the Mallee salinity
Drilling contractor mobilisation $5,000 <60 m Sep-09 management program, p20, 09/04 VIC Mallee Drilling program (Shallow)

Date of cost
estimate

Drilling and construction $20,500 <60 m Sep-09 management program, p20, 09/04 VIC Mallee Drilling program (Shallow)
Supervision $50,000 <60 m Sep-09 management program, p20, 09/04 VIC Mallee Drilling program (Shallow)
Core analysis $1,000 <60 m Sep-09 management program, p20, 09/04 VIC Mallee Drilling program (Shallow)
Geophysical logging $25,000 <60 m Sep-09 management program, p20, 09/04 VIC Mallee Drilling program (Shallow)
Groundwater sampling and 40 bores Technical support for the Mallee salinity
analysis $35,000 <60 m Sep-09 management program, p20, 09/04 VIC Mallee Drilling program (Shallow)
Data analysis, assessment 40 bores Technical support for the Mallee salinity
and reporting $15,000 <60 m Sep-09 management program, p20, 09/04 VIC Mallee Drilling program (Shallow)
Total $151,500 <60 m Sep-09 management program, p20, 09/04 VIC Mallee Drilling program (Shallow)
SKM (2008) SOBN Whole-of-Life Cycle
Mobilisation $450 per bore 2007 Asset Planning Study VIC
Rig and Equipment (Auger) $593 per bore 2007 Asset Planning Study VIC for augered bores <20 m depth
per bore,
Rig and Equipment (Mud 150 m SKM (2008) SOBN Whole-of-Life Cycle
Rotary) $10,842 depth 2007 Asset Planning Study VIC for bores >20 m depth
Reporting $100 per bore 2007 Asset Planning Study VIC
Accomodation $350 per night 2007 Asset Planning Study VIC
Waste disposal $85 per hour 2007 Asset Planning Study VIC
Drilling in rock $240 per metre 2009 Boart Longyear Consultation Quote VIC
Drilling in sand or gravel $275 per metre 2009 Boart Longyear Consultation Quote VIC
Skip Hire $275 per skip 2009 Boart Longyear Consultation Quote VIC
Drillers fee for installation of
70 m deep bore $118,400 total 2008 GHD (2008) Moolort Production Bore VIC previous GHD project in central VIC
Drillers fee for installation of
77 m deep bore $73,744 total 2008 GHD (2008) Evansford Bore VIC previous GHD project in central VIC
$389.88 (for 10 m
depth); $261.13 (for
Casing: <200 m (Class 18 35 m depth); $198.63 SKM (2008) SOBN Whole-of-Life Cycle
uPVC casing) (for 75 m depth) per metre 2007 Asset Planning Study VIC Quote only includes material costs
$629.81 (for 500 m
depth); $596.13 (for SKM (2008) SOBN Whole-of-Life Cycle
Casing: >200 m (FRP casing) 1000 m depth) per metre 2007 Asset Planning Study VIC
Screens (slotted Class 18 SKM (2008) SOBN Whole-of-Life Cycle
uPVCl) $30 per metre 2007 Asset Planning Study VIC

Date of cost
estimate

Screens (100 mm stainless SKM (2008) SOBN Whole-of-Life Cycle
steel) $300 per metre 2007 Asset Planning Study VIC
Grout $12 per metre 2007 Asset Planning Study VIC
Bentonite $75 per bag 2007 Asset Planning Study VIC
Gravel Pack $9 per bag 2007 Asset Planning Study VIC
Geophysics $210 per day 2007 Asset Planning Study VIC
Air lifting (bore development $220 per hour 2007 Asset Planning Study VIC
Drilling Supervision $1,200 per day 2009 approx GHD rates VIC
Solid Determination of particle size GHD Morwell Laboratory & Technical Generally, 1 sample collected per
sampling distribution (4.75 mm or less) $75 per sample 2008 Services Price List VIC metre of aquifer thickness
Surveying $1,500 per day 2009 previous quote to GHD VIC

Date of cost
estimate
BORE CONDITION ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES
Monitoring Bore Performance

Hydraulic (i.e.monitoring flow Southern Rural Water (SRW) and SRW and GM-W include metering in
rate) Free n/a 2009 Goulburn Murray Water (GM-W) VIC the licence cost
$500 per unit 2009 experience within GHD VIC Impellor flow meter
4 inch Magflo flowmeter. Price
increases with increased meter
$2,000 per unit 2009 experience within GHD VIC diameter
Monitoring
Water
Quality - Costs depend on analytical scope
per monitoring
Basic chemical suite $300 - $500 event 2009 experience within GHD VIC
Potable supply (incl. per monitoring

Radioactivity and biological) $1000 - $2000 event 2009 experience within GHD VIC
some telemetry has in-built
Telemetry including physical establishment temperature, EC and ORP
parameters $10,000 fee 2009 experience within GHD VIC monitoring
Monitoring
power details displayed on meter box.
consumptio Pump control panel may also record
n Free n/a 2009 experience within GHD VIC usage/ampage and operation starts
the power required to extract
Implications of reduced yield due per 10 m water groundwater is increased when the
to iron fouling $1,000 loss 2009 SA Water - Peter Forward interview SA pump is affected by iron fouling
Geophysical Techniques
Quote based on South Australia's
DWLBC mobilising to regional
Victoria. Does not include
Downhole DWLBC (2009) Cost estimate for GHD professional fees for inspection
Camera $3,300 total 2009 project SA logging
$180/hr + $650
establishment fee total 2009 experience within GHD - Rod Smith VIC
Caliper Log
single arm / 3 arm $2,000 - $3,000 per day 2009 experience within GHD VIC contractor costs included only
multi arm 36 / 72 finger $20,000 per bore 2009 experience within GHD VIC contractor costs included only
$415 mobilisation GHD Morwell Laboratory & Technical
Caliper log + $4.50 per metre 2008 Services Price List VIC
Temperatur
e Log $2,000 - $3,000 per day 2009 experience within GHD VIC contractor costs included only

Date of cost
estimate

$415 mobilisation
Temperature log + $4.50 per metre 2008 VIC
Obtained from:
http://www.auslog.com.au/forms/rent
Sonic Log A799 Sonic Tool (48mm) $5,040 per month 2009 Auslog Pty Ltd Nationwide als_main.htm
Televiewer Log $2,000 - $5,000 per day 2009 experience within GHD VIC contractor costs included only
Schlumberger UltraSonic Imager
(USI) $20,000 - $40,000 per bore 2009 experience within GHD VIC costs dependent on bore depth
Neutron Log $2,000 - $3,000 per day 2009 experience within GHD VIC contractor costs included only
Natural
Gamma & $415 mobilisation
Density + $4.50 per metre 2009 experience within GHD - Rod Smith VIC
Physical Testing
Specific
Capacity
Test Contractor costs $4,000 - $10,000 total 2009 experience within GHD VIC
Hydrogeologist costs $4,000 - $10,000 total 2009 experience within GHD VIC
Step-
drawdown
Test Contractor costs $4,000 - $10,000 total 2009 experience within GHD VIC
Hydrogeologist costs $4,000 - $10,000 total 2009 experience within GHD VIC
24hr Pumping Test <35L/sec $6,000 total 1999 DLWC Groundwater Drilling NSW
24hr Pumping Test >35L/sec $7,700 total 1999 DLWC Groundwater Drilling NSW
6hr Multi stage pump test $2,000 total 1999 DLWC Groundwater Drilling NSW
24hr Pumping Test & Recovery
Test $8,000 total Nov-08 Confidential - Drilling contractor NSW
24hr Pumping Test $2,800 total Apr-08 Confidential - Drilling contractor NSW near Rylestone, NSW
Recovery Test $56 per hour Apr-08 Confidential - Drilling contractor NSW near Rylestone, NSW
Step and
Constant
Rate
Pumping Bore tested in Margaret River area,
Test Mobilisation $1,100 total Jan-08 Confidential - drilling contractor WA WA.
Health & Safety plan & admin. $490 total Jan-08 Confidential - drilling contractor WA
Install & remove pump $1,725 total Jan-08 Confidential - drilling contractor WA
Preliminary test $330 total Jan-08 Confidential - drilling contractor WA
Step test: 5 x 100 minute steps $1,370 total Jan-08 Confidential - drilling contractor WA

Date of cost
estimate
Constant rate test: 24 hour $3,960 total Jan-08 Confidential - drilling contractor WA
Recovery (2 hours) $300 total Jan-08 Confidential - drilling contractor WA
Total cost $9,275 total Jan-08 Confidential - drilling contractor WA
Step and
Constant
Rate
Pumping
Test - Up to
33 L/s flow
rate Mobilisation $1,000 total May-09 Confidential - test pumping contractor WA Bore tested in Pilbara Region, WA
Install & remove pump $1,500 total May-09 Confidential - test pumping contractor WA Flow rate 33 L/s.
Preliminary test $150 total May-09 Confidential - test pumping contractor WA One of 5 bores tested.
Step test: 5 x 100 minute steps $1,245 total May-09 Confidential - test pumping contractor WA
Constant rate test: 24 hour $3,600 total May-09 Confidential - test pumping contractor WA
Recovery (2 hours) $240 total May-09 Confidential - test pumping contractor WA
Total cost $7,735 total May-09 Confidential - test pumping contractor WA

Date of cost
estimate
BORE CASING REFURBISHMENT

Bore Re-casing
$2,450 for 10 m depth
$5,287 for 35 m depth
$9,839 for 75 m depth based on re-casing of observation
$19,436 for 150 m SKM (2008) SOBN Whole-of-Life Cycle bores, and includes investigation,
Generic estimate depth per bore 2007 Asset Planning Study VIC material and supervision costs
Costs vary based on geological
Development of a long term deep bore conditions, bore purpose, existing
Re-casing at Depth of 1500 m $275,000 1994 refurbishment program 11/94, p3 VIC bore conditions etc
Relining of Bores
Depth 500 - Development of a long term deep bore approx costs estimated using
575 m $55,000 per bore Nov-94 refurbishment program 11/94, p32 VIC Hydrotechnology rig No.7 or 35
650 m $58,000 per bore Nov-94 refurbishment program 11/94, p32 VIC Hydrotechnology rig No.7 or 35
Depth 650 - Development of a long term deep bore Approx costs estimated using
900 m $175,000 per bore Nov-94 refurbishment program 11/94, p32 VIC Hydrotechnology rig No.4
1150 m $205,000 per bore Nov-94 refurbishment program 11/94, p32 VIC Hydrotechnology rig No.4
Depth 1,150 Development of a long term deep bore Approx costs estimated using
- 1,400 m $245,000 per bore Nov-94 refurbishment program 11/94, p32 VIC Hydrotechnology rig No.4
- 1650 m $275,000 per bore Nov-94 refurbishment program 11/94, p32 VIC Hydrotechnology rig No.4
Fouling and corrosion- chemical methods
Oxidants,
acids, indicative only and does not include
surfactants "BluBac" boreclean product $3,100 for 1,000 L Apr-09 WaterWell Solutions Nationwide works (i.e.driller costs) or GST
indicative only and does not include
"BluBac" boreclean product $730 for 200 L Apr-09 WaterWell Solutions Nationwide works (i.e.driller costs) or GST
indicative only and does not include
"BluBac" boreclean product $90 for 20 L Apr-09 WaterWell Solutions Nationwide works (i.e.driller costs) or GST
Iron
Hydroxide
Treatment Rig setup $900 per bore Oct-99 DLWC Groundwater Drilling NSW
Mechanical and Chemical
treatment $4,800 per bore Oct-99 DLWC Groundwater Drilling NSW
Chemical for treatment $1,700 per bore Oct-99 DLWC Groundwater Drilling NSW
Total Cost $7,400 per bore Oct-99 DLWC Groundwater Drilling NSW
total,
including
Electrolytic Chlorination $10,000 installation 2009 SA Water - Peter Forward interview SA cost is indicative only

Date of cost
estimate
BORE CASING REFURBISHMENT

Cathodic Protection
estimate is indicative only and does
not include operational costs, annual
impressed current cathodic in the order of monitoring/adjustment and potential
protection (ICCP) system $200,000 total 2009 experience within GHD VIC replacement of anodes after 30 years
estimate is indicative only and does
not include operational costs,
monitoring every 3-5 years, and
sacrificial anode cathodic in the order of potential replacement every 10-15
protection (SACP) system $120,000 total 2009 experience within GHD VIC years
cost is indicative only. Plus on-going
Generic generic rehabilitation $10,000 total 2009 SA Water - Peter Forward interview SA monitoring costs.
Pump maintenance

Date of cost
estimate
BORE DECOMMISSIONING COSTS

10 m deep SKM (2008) SOBN Whole-of-Life Cycle
bore $1,470 per bore 2007 Asset Planning Study VIC
bore 2570 per bore 2007 Asset Planning Study VIC
Depth 500 - SKM (2008) SOBN Whole-of-Life Cycle
1000+ $63,425 per bore 2007 Asset Planning Study VIC
575 m $16,000 per bore 1994 refurbishment program 11/94, p32 VIC Hydrotechnology rig No.7 or 35
650 m $18,000 per bore 1994 refurbishment program 11/94, p32 VIC Hydrotechnology rig No.7 or 35
900 m $82,000 per bore 1994 refurbishment program 11/94, p32 VIC Hydrotechnology rig No.4
1150 m $103,000 per bore 1994 refurbishment program 11/94, p32 VIC Hydrotechnology rig No.4
- 1,400 m $107,000 per bore 1994 refurbishment program 11/94, p32 VIC Hydrotechnology rig No.4
- 1,650 m $112,000 per bore 1994 refurbishment program 11/94, p32 VIC Hydrotechnology rig No.4
Bores
constructed
using
outdated Bore decommisioning in the Mallee 09/05,
methods $3,000 average 1999/2000 p19 VIC
bores
average 120 Bore decommisioning in the Mallee 09/05,
m depth $1,151 average 1995/1996 p18 VIC
Depth not Bore decommisioning in the Mallee 09/05,
specified $2,185 average 2002/2003 p22 VIC
150 m Bore Set up fee $908 per bore Dec-08 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
Hourly rate for all onsite works $519 Per hour Dec-08 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
Standby rate $363 Per hour Dec-08 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
Abandonment grout $530 m3 Dec-08 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA

Consumable abandonment
polypipe $5 metre Dec-08 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
Dec-08 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA
Total $9,664 Dec-08 Quote from Bunbury Drilling Company WA

Date of cost
estimate
BORE DECOMMISSIONING COSTS

Hourly rate for onsite works $150 per hour Aug-09 B & M Drilling QLD
Depends on size of
Mobilisation and travel costs job/location Aug-09 B & M Drilling QLD
Accommodation Varies with location Aug-09 B & M Drilling QLD
<100 m
deep bore Hourly rate and cement use $1,000 per hour Aug-09 Olympic Boring SA
>100 m
deep bore Hourly rate and cement use $3,500 - $4,500 per hour Aug-09 Olympic Boring SA

32 Groundwater

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

32 Groundwater

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Groundwater bore

Waterlines Report Series No 32, October 2010

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES i

This work is copyright.

Online/print: ISBN: 978-0-9807727-8-4

Published by the National Water Commission

Date of publication: October 2010

Cover design by: Angelink

An appropriate citation for this report is:

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES iii

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES iv

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES v

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES vi

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES vii

The project outcomes provide groundwater management agencies, licensing authorities,

Bore casing deterioration extent

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES viii

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES ix

Bore design standards and bore construction licensing

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES x

Bore casing condition assessment

Groundwater bore condition assessment techniques should be selected according to bore

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES xi

Economic cost implications of bore casing deterioration

Bore replacement, refurbishment, decommission and condition assessment costs

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES xii

Bore casing deterioration abatement, rehabilitation, and bore asset management

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES xiii

The specific objectives of this project are to:

The outcomes of this project provide groundwater management agencies, licensing

Project investigation phases

Phase 1: Bore casing deterioration extent

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 1

Phase 3: Bore deterioration economic impact and rehabilitation cost

Structure of this report

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 2

2.1.1 Microbial encrustation (biofouling)

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 3

Figure 1: Encrustation of bore casing

Source: DSE (2004)

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 4

The rate of biofouling that occurs is a function of the following processes:

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 5

Encrustation Types in Germany

Source: adapted from Houben (2008)

Encrustation Types in Australia

Source: after data from

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 6

Potential symptoms of biofouling of bore materials include:

Treatment through electrolytic chlorination

Preventative maintenance measures employed have included electrolytic chlorination (Figure

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 7

Source: Forward (2008)

Figure 4: Electrolytic chlorination

Source: Forward (2008)

NATIONAL WATER COMMISSION — WATERLINES 8

Treatment techniques generally consist of chemical products (primarily chlorine based),

Figure 5: Iron bacteria treatments in the Mallee Prescribed Wells Area

Source: SA MDB NRM Board (2006)

Sulphamic acid (NH3SO3) is used worldwide as a common constituent of bore cleaning

Figure 6: Acid dosing

Source: Forward (2008)