Laserfiche WebLink
Portal spring water to analyze a relationship, it should be a true composite water from <br />the NW sealed sump. <br />O An evaluation of geochemistry of water in the sump should consider the time factor, <br />i.e. the water first pumped into the NW sealed sump would be the first water through to <br />the "other side" if the water migrated down-dip through the B-Seam coal into the Bear <br />mine. <br />~ Even use of a single composite water should consider that the first water into the sump <br />had the longest time to react chemically with its new surroundings and change its <br />chemistry. In fact, all water put into the sump certainly evolved chemically from its <br />composition as "in-mine fault water" used in the comparisons in the report. <br />D The water even experienced an intermediate stop between the location(s) where it <br />issued into the mine and the NW sealed sump. Some water was stored in the NE Tail <br />Gate sump where, according to the report, it "acquired considerable total suspended <br />solids." We don't know what occured to the water there geochemically between the time <br />it was analyzed as "in-mine fault water" and its composition today in the NW panels <br />sump. <br />So the second rebuttal point is that MCC can't show that the spring water isn't the same as the <br />water in the sump if we don't have data on the water in the sump. <br />(2) The second refutation is a simple thermodynamic observation. On page 5 of the report, <br />several possible reactions involving Na' are discussed as potential mechanisms for reducing Na- <br />content of water. These ion exchange reactions are <br />2NaA1SiZ06•HZO+CaZ =Ca(AISiZObjZ•HZO+2Na <br />2NaA1SiZ06•HZO+MgZ =Mg(A1S1Z06)•HZO+2Na' <br />CaZ +Na-clav=2Na'+Ca-cfav <br />d1g Z +Na -clay=2Na ' +Mg-clay <br />