2016-10-27_REVISION - C1981041 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JAMES A. BECKWITH LETTER TO BROCK BOWLES, CO DRMS / SNOWCAP COAL COMPANY RECLAMATION / PG. 6 may be present which results in a vertical pathway for groundwater to flow." [Fugro; SCC Plan; Pg. A14-14-11] (Emphasis Supplied) Mr. Michael Berry, of Huddleston -Berry (HBET), did not share Fugro's opinion that roof collapse can cause surface subsidence. On May 9, 2016, Mr. Michael Berry wrote: "Although it is likely that some void spaces existing in the old mine workings, the mine workings are at a depth of approximately 100 feet in the subject area. ... HBET believed that it was unlikely that the water pathway to the mine workings was the result of natural sinkhole processes originating at the mine workings. HBET believed that it was far more likely that an existing feature such as an old air shaft borehole, or other vertical feature associated with the mining was the `opening' from which the sinkhole originated." [Plan; Pg. A14-14-2] (Emphasis Supplied) Obviously, HBET had not read and reviewed Surface Subsidence Over a Room and Pillar Mine In The Western United States (Jeff A. Magers; 1993; U.S. Dept of Interior, Bureau of Mines) [Appendix I attached] 18 Between 1981 and 1985, and again in 1992, Mr. Magers inspected, tested and reported on roof collapses and corresponding surface subsidences of the Powderhorn Mine in T10S R98W. Mr. Magers noted roof collapses even while miners were present in the collapsing caverns! The surface subsidences observed and reported by Mr. Magers correspond to the sinkholes in Tract 70 reported to DRMS by Fontanari on May 6, 2016. SEE ALSO: Planned Coal Mine Subsidence in Illinois: A Public Information Brochure (Robert A. Bauer; Illinois State Geological Survey 2008); Subsidence from Underground Mining: Environmental Analysis and Planning Considerations (F.T. Lee and J.F. Abel, Jr.; U.S. Department of Interior; Geological Survey Circular 876 (1983)) Clearly, there is a direct and definite connection between collapsed caverns 100 feet below the surface and subsidence depressions and sinkholes found on the surface. Any contrary belief is simply naive non -science. HBET concluded that the air ventilation shaft was "...the conduit for surface water down into the mine workings...". [A14-15-1] It further concluded that Fugro's April ERT testing "...was unable to identify the pathway from the surface sinkhole opening to the air shaft...". [Id] HBET ordered Fugro to return to the field and make more tests. In August, 2016, Fugro ran ERT tests over the same area as tested in April. Interestingly, Fugro found two horizontal anomalies: neither of which had been found before. [Compare Fig. 2, Pg. A14-14-2 with Fig. 2 Pg. A14-15-11] Notably, the test lines for transmission of electronic impulses crossed over the horizontal "Near Surface Anomalies" in April as in August. The depths, impulse strengths, test equipment appear to have been identical. The only alteration was the electrode spacing: which was smaller in August than in April, 2016. Fugro's findings in August suggest one of two alternatives. First, the horizontal anomalies were not present in April, but emerged as new sub -surface fissures or pathways between April and August. Second, the 18 All Fontanari appendices are numbered in seriatim to appendices previously filed by Fontanari.