HYDRO29484 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

So the statement that it is rare for the reaction to "proceed from products to reactants" may be true, but it is only because the reaction normally takes place in water with lower Na ion concentration than the water in this system. Theoretically, these reactions could, in fact, reduce the Na-content of the water. So the second refutation is a simple thermodynamic argument that the contention that Na' would not be diminished in the water by any of the possible listed reactions is unfounded theoretically. (3) We really don't know the composition of "sump water." The compazison of waters in the report uses a suite of samples taken from "in-mine fault waters" to represent water in the NW Panels sump. ~ No information is given as to the origin of these "fault water" samples for which analyses are presented ~ No information exists on proportions of these "fault waters" mixed into the NW sealed sump. Averaging chemical compositions of the fault waters, as was done for compazison purposes in the report, is not productive. A simple averaging gives equal value to each analysis, while no information is available on the proportions of water from various locations and/or with various chemical compositions that were combined in the NW sealed sump. If any single water composition should be compazed to the Edwazds Portal spring water to analyze a relationship, it should be a true composite water from the NW sealed sump. D An evaluation of sump water geochemistry should consider the time factor, i.e. the water first pumped into the NW sealed sump would be the first water through to the "other side" if the water migrated down-dip through the B-Seam coal into the Beaz mine. O Devising a single composite water should consider that the first water into the sump had the longest time to react chemically with its new surroundings and change its chemistry. In fact, all water put into the sump certainly evolved chemically from its composition as "in-mine fault water" used in the report. O The water also experienced an intermediate stop between the location(s) where it issued into the mine and the NW sealed sump. Some water was stored in the NE Tail Gate sump where, according to the report, it "acquired considerable total suspended solids." We don't know what occured to the water there geochemically between the time it was analyzed as "in-mine fault water" and its composition today in the N W panels sump. So the third rebuttal point is that MCC can't show that the spring water isn't the same as the water in the sump if we don't have data on the water in the sump.