My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2017-01-04_PERMIT FILE - C1981044A
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Permit File
>
Coal
>
C1981044
>
2017-01-04_PERMIT FILE - C1981044A
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/30/2018 7:52:00 AM
Creation date
2/9/2017 9:13:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981044A
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
1/4/2017
Section_Exhibit Name
2.05 Operation and Reclamation Plans
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.
/
85
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
The calculated inflows are presented on Table 76, Summary of Mine Inflow Input Data - No. 6 Mine. The input data <br />is presented on Table 75, Estimated Mine Inflows. The condition in the last stages of mining would most closely fit <br />the steady-state conditions. <br />Summary. The Jacob -Lohman and Theim methods produced similar predicted mine inflows values. They both <br />predict the highest inflow to occur after year 5 of mining and to range from 1,300 to 1,800 gpm combined inflow from <br />the No. 5 and No. 6 Mines. To be conservative, the highest seepage inflow value for the No. 6 Mine was selected as <br />the prediction to be used in the estimate of the maximum probable inflow. This value, 700 gpm in year 20, was <br />doubled to take into account the unpredictable hydrologic conditions. Only the inflow from the No. 6 Mine north of <br />the No. 5 Mine was doubled. The inflow from the No. 5 Mine has been fairly constant for a number of years and <br />significant incremental inflows are not expected. No unanticipated incremental inflows should occur in the portion of <br />the No. 6 Mine that is under the No. 5 Mine, as no faults were encountered in the overlying mine. The total worst- <br />case maximum inflow is estimated to be 2,490 gpm. <br />Impacts on Aquifers <br />Mining activities at the No. 5 and No. 6 Mines are affecting piezometric levels in at least two sandstone aquifers as <br />well as the coal beds ("E" and "F" coal seams). Declines in piezometric levels have been recorded in observation <br />wells in the Middle Sandstone and the Trout Creek Sandstone. No declines in piezometric levels have been observed <br />in the Twentymile Sandstone. <br />The Trout Creek Sandstone piezometric levels were affected by continuous use of the aquifer for mine water supply. <br />Water level drawdowns in the vicinity of both Trout Creek Sandstone wells have been evaluated using the Theis, non - <br />steady solution for drawdown around a pumping well. The one -foot drawdown caused by the historic pumping at the <br />No. 5 Mine Wells is estimated to occur at a distance of about one mile from the pumping well, which is approximately <br />the distance to the Okie Plaza Well. <br />In estimating the drawdown due to pumping at the No. 5 Mine Wells near the No. 5 Mine portal, the following data <br />and assumptions were used: <br />• The aquifer is confined, and assumed to be semi -infinite, flat -lying, and homogeneous <br />• The sandstone aquifer thickness ranges from 62 to 91 feet over the property; the hydraulic conductivity lies <br />between 0.1 and 1 ft/day; the transmissivity thus lies between 6 and 91 sq. ft/day <br />• The storativity is assumed to lie between 0.001 and 0.0001 <br />• The pumping rate at the No. 5 Mine Wells is 2.5 gallons per minute, which was the average for 1992 <br />• Estimated drawdowns were first calculated for the Okie Plaza located at a distance of 5,200 feet from the No. <br />5 Mine Wells <br />• The drawdown was calculated for constant pumping for 500 days <br />Table 76A shows that the best estimate for drawdown at the Okie Plaza Well, using the Theis non -steady solution for <br />500 days of pumping, is on the order of 1 foot. The bounding range for this estimate is 0.2 to 7 feet. The high <br />estimate of 7 feet drawdown would apply only in a uniformly poor -yielding siltstone. <br />Gross aquifer impacts are also difficult to estimate for the coals because there is no potentiometric basis. There are no <br />monitoring wells screened in the mined seams to determine drawdown outside mined areas. There is typically a sharp <br />discontinuity in potentiometric head outside a mined panel, the de -stressed perimeter zone being dewatered and <br />unsaturated, so that computing drawdown as if due to a very large well is not very practical. <br />McWhorter (1981) proposed empirical methods for computing flow into coal faces, and distance/drawdown relations <br />for leaky coal seams, from sparse data. McWhorter gave the following equation relating drawdown sX, at distance .3 <br />from a mined face where the drawdown at the face is so, and where 3 is the "leakage factor". <br />TR14-36 2.05-39 Revised 03/20/14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.