Laserfiche WebLink
t 1 <br />r <br />would have to contain a significant fraction of isotopically light carbon (negative S13C). <br />Additionally, if the mixing proportions were 1:1, the dilution water would also have to <br />have 7 times more manganese, 50 times more aluminum, 7 times more barium, three <br />times more calcium, 3 times more magnesium, and 2 times more potassium, more or less. <br />As a working hypothesis, it seems feasible that burning coal could provide the light <br />cazbon, as coal S13C values can be as isotopically light as about ~0 per mil. Coal <br />residues also could provide most of the other elements, possibly with the exception of <br />aluminum. (This is where it would be useful to know how the samples were collected <br />and analyzed: e.g. whether the samples were filtered or not. At pH values previously <br />recorded, I would not expect dissolved aluminum to be as high as depicted, and thus <br />would deduce that there either is some error or would want some further explanation.) <br />Overall, given some relatively simple hydrological deductions, I would say that no more <br />than half the water from the Edwards portal could be coming from the underground <br />sump. Abetter definition of what is "representative" of the sump waters is in order, and <br />the more ordinary explanations of sampling and analytical procedures is needed to make <br />a cleaz assessment. Based on the minimal information provided, I would not agree that <br />waters from the east and west ends of the sump are homogeneous; without some <br />knowledge of the sump water sources, I can have no sense of whether an averaged <br />composition is really representative. <br />[ do agree that if the meteoric water did contain dissolved solids, the dilution factor <br />(meteoric water to sump water ratio) would be much greater. If the dilution factor is a <br />important to the Division's decisions, more information is needed. If not, I believe the <br />general interpretation, that some sump water mixes with meteoric water then gets heated <br />by a mine fire, is probably the simplest and most plausible explanation based on what we <br />know about this operation. <br />cc: Jim Pendleton <br />Jim Burnell <br />