My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2016-08-29_PERMIT FILE - C1981035A (7)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Coal
>
C1981035
>
2016-08-29_PERMIT FILE - C1981035A (7)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/21/2016 9:26:57 AM
Creation date
10/20/2016 9:16:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981035A
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
8/29/2016
Doc Name
Geological and Hydrologic Data
Section_Exhibit Name
KII Appendix 04
Media Type
D
Archive
Yes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
153
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
I • coal. If this relationship is correct, the "A" Seam coal will most likely continue to thin <br />and disappeaz to the north as the tongue and Cliff House Sandstone merge. <br />This trend appears to be present on the "A" Seam coal isopach map included in the <br />"National King Coal, Inc. Geologic Report" (Henderson, 1995). The northern project <br />area would correspond with the thin coal boundary (<4.0 feet thick) identified in the <br />report to the northeast of the mine. This would result in a northwestlsoutheast trend for <br />the tongue, with a strike of approximately 50-60 degrees. However, the tongue may have <br />an irregulaz shape and while the general trend may be correct, the influence of the trend <br />may vary with slight transgressions and regressions of the sand along en echelon <br />lineaments or deeper structures (i.e., basinal compaction features). This may explain the <br />presence of the isolated coal deposit up Roberts Canyon and extending to the old <br />Hesperus Coal Mine, however correlation of the coal seams would need to be checked. <br />b) "A" Seam Coal Deposition: It became evident that the "A" Seam coal had several <br />strong depositional trends. Of extreme importance, it became evident that the National <br />King Coal Mine is not mining within the thick coal pod of the "A" Seam, but is mining <br />only the upper seam of the primary thick coal "pod" present to the northwest (figure 6 and <br />7). And second, that the higher sulfur trend along the eastern edge of National King Coal <br />Mine is not present in the thicker central coal "pod" of the project area. <br />1) "A" Seam Coal "Pod": The presence of a thick "A" Seam coal "pod" to the <br />• northwest of the National King Coal Mine (figure 7) was established. The <br />formation of the thick coal "pod" was controlled by depositional features present <br />in the Point Lookout Sandstone and the fluvial sandstones directly below, which <br />created a stable depositional platform upon which the "A" Seam coal swamp was <br />established. The "A" Seam "pod" (9-11 feet thick} splits into the Upper "A" <br />Seam coal (4.5-6.0 feet thick) and the Lower "A" Seam coal (3.0-5.0 feet thick) <br />towazds the National King Coal Mine. The lower split of the "A" seam quickly <br />splits and thins within a distance of 2000-3000 feet to the southeast. Note: Thin <br />remnants of the Lower "A"Seam are visible below the Upper "A"Seam as dirty <br />coal bands 0.5-1.0 feet thick in many of the geophysical logs present at National <br />King Coal Mine. <br />The "A" Seam "pod" ranges in thickness from 7.9 to 11.7 feet thick, averaging 9.9 <br />feet. The variation in thickness of the pod can be directly related to the immediate <br />fluvial sandstone channels deposited below; the thinner 7.9 feet thick coal has <br />only minor sandstone thickness (6.5 feet thick), while the thicker surrounding <br />holes have 20-35 feet of sandstone present. This slight reduction in the sandstone <br />platform allowed additional sediment into the swamp (drainages), generally <br />reducing the coal thickness at the top and bottom of the bed. While the reduced <br />coal thickness is not a mining concern, it is along the lower thickness trends that <br />minor in-seam partings may also be encountered as thin, lenticular, meandering <br />• bands. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.