HYDRO20043 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and 410 degrees C for the Colonel Chinn Well sample. Such high temperatures relative to the in-mine measured temperatures suggest rapid expulsion of deep, high-temperature fluids out the faults, followed by rapid cooling in the mine. Contrary to the Mayo and Associates reports, the so-called loss of sodium between the faults and the seep does not appear to be the significant issue they indicated. The seep's sodium concentration is within the range of sodium in the fault waters, not much lower, as they concluded. Although it is not the intent of this report to call on additional sampling -- in fact, none seems to be necessary except perhaps to negate [he conclusions made herein -- it should be noted that the data and reports that are available contain none of the ordinary types of documentation that could be expected for a report of this nature. There is no information on sampling and analytical protocols. Reporting protocols, such as whether certain measurements were field or lab measurements, and the isotopic standard for carbon, are not included. Importantly, some critical analyses are incomplete, including isotopic analyses of the seep and the Lone Pine seal. Fundamental information, including a record showing how much water was pumped from each source to the NW Panels sealed sunmp, and at what time it was pumped, is not available. Many of the samples are either poorly located in the stratigraphic section, or are not located at all. Also, the mineralogical composition of the stratigraphic section, which is critical to any geochemical interpretation that requires mixing or mineral dissolution, is not provided. Furthermore, the temperature information, which is abstracted in Dr. Mayo's February 20 menmo, lacks detail on the B-East Mains fault -- time fault from which the hottest waters appear to have been recorded -- which nmight very well negate the conclusions of [he memo. Without this information, which is fundamental to an open evaluation of the results, conclusions by both the Division and the Operator must rely on potentially credulous assunmptions including high quality of the data, adequate collection procedures, and even sample locations. Obviously, in the absence of fundamental docunmentation, conclusions in the present report should be regarded as very prelinminazy, and the conclusions in the Mayo and Associate reports should be treated with professional skepticism. [f the fault waters are to be shown to be the seep water sources, there should be a clear explanation of chemical processes that caused [he waters to have or to develop different compositions. Interaction with certain nminerals, precipitation of certain minerals, and/or mixing with meteoric or other unsampled waters are required to explain the compositional differences. However, given the absence of fundanmental background information described above and Somme incomplete analyses, it should not be surprising if multiple interpretations appear, or if unique conclusions are not drawn. Even incases where samples have been collected and analyzed under ideal conditions, such as some USGS studies of basin brines or regional fommation waters, unique solutions with chenmically balanced equations to water/rock interaction problems seem difticult to attain.