2016-05-06_REVISION - C1981041 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JAMES A. BECKWITH LETTER TO BROCK BOWLES, CO DRMS / SNOWCAP COAL COMPANY RECLAMATION / PG. 5 Ventilation Shaft were characterized by low resistivity. [SCC Report; Pg, 5] The SCC Report suggests that the low electrical resistivity could be explained by "rubble filled pathways with higher clay content." However, air is highly resistant to electron transmission. A sub -surface void destroys the natural compactness of the soil and allows the formation of air pockets, or disaggregated soils, through which water may permeate downward into the mine cavern. The more open or disaggregated the void becomes, the greater the amount of air in the void and, thus, the higher resistance to electron flow. Thus, an air ventilation shaft — drilled for the very purpose of transmitting air through a "tube" as it were — should have a high resistivity to electron flow. A void created by the collapse of a mining cavern several tens of feet below ground would not have a direct air flow. The soil is disaggregated and has various air pockets due to subsidence and cavern collapse. The electron flow will encounter resistance from air, but the degree of resistance would be lower than the resistance in an "air tube". Moreover, "clay" is merely a term given to small particles of natural material which have certain similar characteristics. One of those characteristics is the resistance by clay to water permeability. This resistance varies from low to extremely high. Bentonite, for example, will contain water and is highly valued as a liner for various water reservoirs or ponds. Ilium and Mudstone, however, are poorly valued since they will merely deflect water (at best) or simply dissolve in water (at worst). The undisputed finding that there is high water conductivity, therefore, strongly suggests that a large percentage of clays (low water conductivity) are not present in the tested soils. Therefore, explaining the low resistivity anomalies by the presence of "rubble filled pathways with higher clay content" is contradictory to known site conditions. Curiously, the Fugro Report did not report any "anomalies" below the very sinkhole down which thousands of gallons of water had rapidly (nay, immediately!) disappeared in June, 2014 and April 4, 2016. The Fugro Report does not attempt to explain this lack of anomalies. Instead, it finds anomalies only under the air ventilation shaft down which no water was ever dumped or inserted. The Fugro Report suggests that these anomalies under the air shaft are subsurface voids, and Fugro posits their location. Yet, Fugro never took the next confirmatory step of boring into the ground to locate the suspected void! A geological report would normally include the taking of samples; the identification of soil constituents; and, if possible, a correlation between the soil constituents and undisputed surface/subsurface activity. However, neither the SCC nor the Fugro Report reference any sampling; testing; or efforts to correlate the loss of 10,000 gallons of water to the soil constituents. SCC's investigation was directed to determine the "...extent of the hydrologic communication..." existing (without dispute by SCC) between surface water and mine inflow. This has not been done. Indeed, the waters have muddied: no pun intended. SCC relies entirely upon the Fugro Report: having not reported any investigation of its own. The Fugro Report appears to rely upon opinions that do not comport with known geologic properties of clay, known resistance by air to electrons and known site conditions.