Small-scale field evaluation of geochemical blending of waste rock to mitigate acid rock drainage potential
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blending of potentially acid generating (PAG) waste rock with non-PAG waste rock to create a rock mixture which performs as non-PAG is a possible approach to permanent prevention of acid rock drainage (ARD) for PAG waste rock. In 2012, a field weathering study using 300 kg samples was implemented at Teck Coal's Quintette Project located in northeastern British Columbia, Canada to test the prevention of acid generation in the PAG waste rock by dissolved carbonate leached from overlying non-PAG waste rock and direct neutralization of acidic water from PAG waste rock by contact with non-PAG waste rock. After eight years of monitoring the experiments, the layered non-PAG on PAG barrels provided proof-of-concept that as the thickness of the PAG layer increases relative to the thickness of the non-PAG layers, acidic waters are more likely to be produced. The PAG on non-PAG layering has resulted in non-acidic water and no indications of metal leaching despite accelerated oxidation in the PAG layer shown by sulfate loadings. The study has demonstrated that the scale of heterogeneity of PAG and non-PAG materials is a critical consideration for providing certainty that rock blends designed to be non-PAG will perform as non-PAG in perpetuity. This is contrary to the standard paradigm in which an excess of acid-consuming minerals is often considered sufficient alone to ensure ARD is not produced.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".