World's oldest flowing water discovered

[Still Waters]

Water found in a deep, isolated reservoir in Timmins, Ont., has been trapped there for 1.5 billion to 2.64 billion years — since around the time the first multicellular life arose on the planet — Canadian and British scientists say.

The water pouring out of boreholes 2.4 kilometres below the surface in the northern Ontario copper and zinc mine is older than any other free-flowing water ever discovered. It is rich in dissolved gases such as hydrogen and methane that could theoretically provide support for microbial life, the researchers report in a paper published Wednesday online in the journal Nature.

http://www.cbc.ca/ne...mmins-mine.html

[spud the mackem]

Maybe they'll find a new species of micro life.

[Lava_Lady]

OH great! Tell everyone all about it. It will get polluted in no time...

[dharma warrior]

They'll bottle it and sell it in 7-11.

[paperdyer]

Maybe they'll find a new species of micro life.

Hopefully it won't be one that kills us.

[paperdyer]

They'll bottle it and sell it in 7-11.

Well Nestles was looking for a new souce of spring water for their Poland Springs brand.

[paperdyer]

OH great! Tell everyone all about it. It will get polluted in no time...

Maybe we'll find out how the water stayed pure for so long and be able to use the knowledge to clean-up the water we poluted.

[pallidin]

Nice find!

[xYlvax]

Astounding.. Hopefully we will learn something from it.

[shirleedee]

First, is new water being created somewhere on the earth's surface and has no connection with this underground reservoir? Where is this water flowing from and where is it flowing to? Is it isolated from the rest of the world's water? Is it flowing in a sealed area circling in its own isolated space like water in a fish tank? wouldn't you think all of the world and it's water would be the same age? By the way, how do they measure the age of flowing water? Well, enquiring minds want know all the facts and there's not enough info here to think this is a unique find. Hope they write a follow up with more info on this in the near future.

First, is new water being created somewhere on the earth's surface and has no connection with this underground reservoir? Where is this water flowing from and where is it flowing to? Is it isolated from the rest of the world's water? Is it flowing in a sealed area circling in its own isolated space like water in a fish tank? wouldn't you think all of the world and it's water would be the same age? By the way, how do they measure the age of flowing water? Well, enquiring minds want know all the facts and there's not enough info here to think this is a unique find. Hope they write a follow up with more info on this in the near future.

[CRIPTIC CHAMELEON]

Hmm hopefully they don't unleash some deadly bacteria while taking samples.

[dibatag]

I'll take a dozen bottles

[Allterspace]

All water has been on earth since the beginning. It just moves around. the earth will never take more water on, nor lose any water. so how do you judge how old water is? you don't. you can judge how old the species living within it. The aquifer is also the oldest source of water as well, hidden below the earth's surface.

[Raptor Witness]

Very cool, thanks for the info.

[Setton]

All water has been on earth since the beginning. It just moves around. the earth will never take more water on, nor lose any water. so how do you judge how old water is? you don't. you can judge how old the species living within it. The aquifer is also the oldest source of water as well, hidden below the earth's surface.

Well that's simply not true...

Can't help thinking a lot of people watch way too many movies reading this thread.

Interesting find though

[Allterspace]

Well that's simply not true...

Can't help thinking a lot of people watch way too many movies reading this thread.

Interesting find though

I would love to hear your your reason for disagreeing with me. Please explain!

[Setton]

I would love to hear your your reason for disagreeing with me. Please explain!

Well, water forms and breaks up all the time. Dissolve anything in water and that's some gone. Likewise if you throw some free hydrogen and oxygen together, you'll form some more.

[Setton]

I think both of you are slightly misinformed and confused. The onset of the age of groudwater starts from precipitation and percolation into groundwater. In very basic terms, the water they have found last went through the hydrological cycle 2.64 billion years ago (2.64 billion year old rainwater). The atmospheric tracers captured within the water from the time of recharge is what we measure to calculate the age. For me, the most useful thing about aging groundwater is that it gives useful recharge estimations for water balances. The fact that the water in Timmins mine has remained separate from modern day hydrological cycle has meant that the original composition and, therefore, microbiology should remain the same.

The major problem the mine has is that this aquifer will most likely need to be dewatered in order to proceed with mining (which, of course, the international scientific community would not allow). If you own shares in Timmins mine, I would seriously consider selling them!

With respect, holding a degree in this subject, I don't think I'm misinformed. Everything you've stated is correct but, unfortunately, has no bearing on what we were discussing. It sounds like you have begun to study hydrology but not really followed everything.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Setton

[Setton]

"Dissolve anything in water and thats gone" - this is misleading, the water does not reduce. You have simply upped the concentration.

"Throw some free hydrogen and oxygen" - unfortunately this has no basis in nature and to actually do this artificially requires huge ammounts of energy.

I'm not sure what degree you have (chemistry maybe?), but I hold a degree in geology and a masters in hydrogeology along with 5 years experience of mining hydrogeology. I deal with water issues in mines all over the world on a daily basis for my job. I'd like to think that I followed on from my degree.

My degree is in Environmental Geoscience with an integrated masters. Might I ask where you studied?

As to your claims, obviously, these were simplified for non-scientists but if you want it i full, here's an example:

Pyrite Oxidation:

FeS₂ + 3.5O₂ + H₂O = Fe²⁺ + 2SO_4^2-+2H⁺

As you can see, the amount of water molecules has fallen to be replaced by sulphuric acid. There are any number of similar reactions and, as someone in the mining industry, it's a little disturbing you don't seem to know them. To simplify it, they're what messes everything up after you've gone.

It does take a lot of energy to form water just from free molecules. As for 'has no basis in nature', what the hell's all this wet stuff then? A simpler way to form more water is reversing a reaction as mentioned above.

[Setton]

Now pyrite oxidation is a little more complex and we are delving into slight differences in definition. Chemically you are absolutely right but the wider picture is that this sort of reaction just creates "contaminated water" which can be reversed using remediation techniques.

The water ceases to be water. The fact that you call it that in mining for convenience does not change that. You can then create water from compounds such as sulphuric acid. My original point.

I deal with mine closure as well so am well aware of the legacy of mining (thanks for that snide comment, by the way),

Any time. Perhaps when people like me no longer have to tidy up your mess, we might gain some respect for you.

although admittedly we have geochemists who specialise specifically in AMD so my knowledge does fall short on this topic.

Hello

[Setton]

You clearly don't have any grasp on the concept of hydrogeology and how to apply it to large groundwater problems.

Riight... Obviously four years at one of the top universities in the country studying precisely that, wouldn't teach any of that I refer you to my earlier question, just where did you study?

The oxidation of pyrite, for example, at the end of the day is releasing H+ INTO THE WATER that that then lowers pH and maintains the solubility of ferric iron. There is no magical transformation of the entire discharge, it is simply highly concentrated and highly contaminated.

And where did I say there was a transformation of the entire discharge? I said that water is created and destroyed constantly. Water is H2O. If you change H2O into anything else, even just one molecule, some water is destroyed. The reverse is also true.

Please, tell me a bit about yourself and your background in tidying up my mess?

Again, not what I said. I imagine you're going to have an easy time arguing this if you just invent parts of the conversation. I said 'people like me'. I.e. those with an understanding of the environmental impacts of resource exploitation. I plan on becoming a teacher but, if that hadn't worked out, I'd be working for the EA.

As I have already mentioned, I also assist with closure planning which is so often a requirement nowadays. If you are referring to historic mines that are currently polluting, I'm sorry but you are picking a fight with the wrong guy. Try going back 50 years.

Amuse me. What's the latest method you've employed to supposedly stop a mine from polluting? I'm not a mining specialist, just as you are plainly not an environmental specialist, but all the mine closure and remediation techniques we covered that companies are willing to employ were focused on reducing the pollution (marginally) rather than actually avoiding it.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Setton

[Setton]

Honestly, kid, I haven't got time for this. If you want to learn more, find some work experience.

And yet you had time to jump in before... Interesting that you don't when someone asks hard questions.

Well, enjoy screwing up the planet. See if you can learn some chemistry while you're there.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Setton

[Setton]

I would be happy to find time to talk to someone in a civilised manner and to share some of the details from our current projects. Unfortunately, you feel the need to not only to prove a point with a somewhat aggressive overtone but also to insult me and attempt to belittle my education. So no, I haven't got time for a kid who clearly has got a lot of growing up to do. And also, don't come out with the line "I go to one of the top universities"... that really doesn't sit well with people, it will be hard enough for you to get a job in this economic climate as it is.

Given that your opening line was that I was misinformed and confused, you're in no position to judge. Especially given that I have not belittled your education. I asked a genuine question as to where you studied. Not out of any elitism, just genuine curiosity because it seems the teaching is very different to Durham.

As to saying I went to one of the top universities, why not? It's a statement of fact and I see no reason for false modesty. I worked damn hard and earned my place there. I'll take the reputation I worked for, thanks. Obviously I wouldn't say it in an interview. They can see it for themselves in my application. But when someone like you is pretending to be some oracle on something, it doesn't hurt to none of us are all-knowing.

And thanks for your employment advice but, as I've never had an unsuccessful interview and have a job lined up to start in September, I think I'll get by.

[Setton]

The teaching seems very different to Durham?? You got that from our conversation? Ok, so not only did I study geology and hydrogeology (I don't really think environmental geoscience is a fair comparison, unless your integrated masters is more related)

Perhaps if you looked into what environmental geoscience is, you'd understand the comparison. Effectively, it's the same as Durham's geology course but with less focus on structural geology and mineralogy and more focus on hydrology, chemistry and pollution. My entire dissertation was related to water systems and the chemistry of them. The masters year is an extension of the same but more specialised (so no looking at rocks at all and just your own research interests).

but most of what I have discussed has come directly from my working experience in Australia, the middle east, Europe and the UK. It is converstations like this I realise I am just speaking to a student.

I went to Birmingham University if you must know. Pretty prestigious, however I have the life experience to realise that there is more to just a degree. Hence why I don't really care where you did your degree. We employ people from lesser universities just because we prefer their attitude and experience.

Obviously in life, there is more to employability than just a degree. Given that this conversation started as a result of you attempting to correct a very basic statement, however, it seems pertinent to know which university doesn't even teach simple water chemistry as part of its geology course. I looked at Birmingham's geology course myself. Obviously it might have changed since you were there but these days they have one module lasting one semester on hydrology. I had one in my first year, one in second and two in my third year (plus dissertation). So that's 6 modules, each lasting two semesters on water and its properties or 12x the content at Birmingham. So forgive me if I'm a little skeptical when you try to correct a very simple statement.

Your attempts to play the experience card really just show the holes in your understanding. Given that we're dealing with basic chemistry, any experience beyond some study isn't really relevant. If anything, it sounds like your work has geared you to the understanding necessary for the job. There's nothing wrong with that and I'm sure it's more useful than sticking strictly to the scientific facts. Nevertheless, the original statement that water is created and destroyed all the time is, scientifically, true. No amount of work experience, mines dug or water polluted will change that.

However, I do wish you the best of luck for your future career despite our clear differences.

Thank you. I wish I could say the same but I just can't support mining companies. I'm sorry. It would make a mockery of everything I've studied.

[Setton]

Unfortunately for you, an understanding of structural geology is critical to hydrogeology. Particuarly in mining environments since most mineralisation of ore is enriched with the aid of fluid flow through fractures. Rarely does a mine present itself with a homogenous porous aquifer, unless your dealing with commodities such as Uranium sandstone deposts which have formed in palaeochannels, or boring quaries. Well done on the "12x" statement, it just goes to show how much growing up you have to do, I guess you missed my masters in hydrogeology when summing that up.

As you plainly missed my masters...

I repeat, given that the original disagreement is not about mining, all the knowledge of mines in the world doesn't change the basic chemistry.

I agreed with you, scientifically. All you said was "dissolve anything in water and thats gone" was a misleading comment. Afterwards you suggests reactions such as pyrite oxidation, for which I again agreed with you, scientifically speaking. I am just looking at the bigger picture, which when dealing with large groundwater problems is essential.

Which wasn't the point being discussed...

No wonder we seem to be at cross-purposes.

If you feel that way about mining maybe you should reconsider using that laptop you are writing this on, turn off your fridge freezer, stop driving your car, the list goes on. You are being a massive hypocrite.

Solar power, wind power and I don't drive, genius.

If you truly knew about modern day mining and the practices involved you would know that things are now different, and people like me actually do things in the most environmental friendly way possible.

As for hypocrisy, don't claim to be doing things the environmentally friendly way when you're ripping stuff out of the ground. I'm still waiting to hear of these remediation techniques you're employing...

My comment and apology before were genuine. If you were in pretty much any other field, I would wish you the best of luck with your career. But I just can't. I think the nearest I can get is:

I hope the company you work for goes bankrupt and collapses but you instantly find equally gainful employment in another field.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Setton