Laserfiche WebLink
INTRODUCTION <br />A comparison of water ages provides a test on the degree of connection <br />between the surface hydrologic system and the deeper Williams Fork <br />Formation system. This method has been used in several study locations <br />including the San Juan Basin of Colorado and New Mexico (Snyder et al. 2003), <br />Piceance Basin of Colorado (Mayo 1998), Raton Basin of Colorado (Oldaker <br />2004, Oldaker and Fehn 2005), and Susitna Basin of Alaska (Oldaker 2005, <br />Oldaker and Fehn 2005). <br />The three water age isotopes chosen for this study were tritium (3H), carbon 14 <br />(14C), and chlorine 36 (36C1). Their age ranges are shown on Figure 1. Tritium is <br />used to age modern waters less than 65 years old. Carbon 14 is used to age <br />waters less than 30,000 years old. Chlorine 36 is used to age waters less than <br />2,000,000 years old. <br />FIGURE 1- WATER AGE ISOTOPE RANGES, SAGE CK. MINE <br />TRITIUM 3H, 60-70 YEARS <br />CARBON 14, 14C, 30,000 YEARS <br />0 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 <br />Minimum Apparent Age, years <br />The water ages were determined by natural decay of the isotopes which are in <br />or dissolved in the water sample (radiometric method). Minimum apparent age <br />is the term used to clarify that these ages are a calculated age which is at <br />least as old as the number calculated. Minimum in this term should not be <br />confused with statistical minimums usage. <br />3