Laserfiche WebLink
0 <br />W <br />~~~ <br />ENG/NEERS/CONSTRUCTORS /NC. <br />April 16, 1992 <br />Mr. AndrA Douchane <br />General Manager <br />Battle Mountain Gold Company <br />5670 Greenwood Plaza Boulevard <br />Suite 106 <br />Englewood, Colorado 80111 <br />Subject: Analysis of Well Monitoring Points <br />Dear AndrA: <br /> <br />I would like to summarize here, in writing, what I had spoken to you about <br />yesterday. <br />First, please bear in mind that I do not know what state law requires, so I am <br />not making a case to flaunt the law. However, it seems to BEI that ypu are being <br />excessive in analyzing so many elements in your well samples and particularly so <br />in view of the chemistry of the ponds. <br />Let me explain. The purpose of the well samples is to help you determine whether <br />or not the ponds are leaking. This being the case, the two components that best <br />identify a leak from BMG ponds would be (CN)~ and Cu. <br />Both (CN) and Cu_ are uniquely able to suggest pond-leak because: <br />a. (CN) is not present in the environment, only in the pohds. <br />b. Cu, relatively speaking, is abundantly present in the ponds. Any <br />leakage of the pond could most easily be detected by an increase in <br />Cu, even more so than (CN)-, which I doubt could survive passage <br />through country rock. <br />In summary, analyze for Cu only, now that you have a base from previous analyses. <br />In the long-term, when Cu is eliminated from the pond, you will need another <br />indicator. This could be a radioactive tracer (depending upon cost), or another <br />indicator that would be unique to the pond, perhaps Ag. <br />A complete analysis of pond water vs. normal ground water should allow you to <br />easily determine an "indicator." <br />Irongate a, Swte 200 • 777 South VJadswonh Blvd. • Lakewood, Colorado 80226 • Telephone (303) 989-a92t • FAX (303) 9891327 <br />