Laserfiche WebLink
n <br />u <br />Memo to Tony Waldron <br />Bowie No. 2 Geotechnical Adequacy <br />page 6 <br /> <br />extracted thickness of 12 feet results in a projected maximum vertical subsidence of 0.69 <br />x 0.56 x 12.0 feet = 4.6 feet, which is also significantly larger than the 3.5 feet <br />maximum vertical subsidence projected by the preparer of Exhibit 15. The subsidence <br />projections of Exhibit 15 and the appropriate maps will have to be revised accordingly. <br />The preparer relates a selection of local observations in projecting an anticipated angle of <br />draw for delineating areas to be effected by subsidence. The conclusion reached is the <br />assumption of a 25° angle of draw for projection of subsidence boundaries. Experience <br />at mines such as the York Canyon has concluded that draw angles can be effected by <br />overlying surface slope. In general the angle of draw increases in the direction down <br />topography slope, resulting in larger angles of draw downslope. However, experience at <br />mines such as the Mt. Gunnison No. 1 and the Bear No. 3 suggest that 25° should be <br />appropriate at the Bowie No. 2 mine. Subsequent inspection in the shallow overburden, <br />near subcrop areas of the mine should verify the propriety of this assumption. <br />1.5 BREAK ANGLES <br />The preparer states that the break angle "approximately corresponds to the cracks and <br />fractures present at the ground surface due to subsidence." I believe it would be more <br />appropriate, when generalizing, to assume that the break angle corresponds to the <br />location of maximum residual cracking and fracturing present at the ground surface. It is <br />not the only location in which cracking and fracturing would be expected to occur. <br />Transient cracking will be expected throughout the panel and adjacent areas as the strain <br />wave propagates behind the retreat line. <br />The preparer further assumed a vertical break line for this study. Particularly in the case <br />of the near subcrop, steep surface gradient areas, this assumption may be unfounded. A <br />broad area should be thoroughly inspected for the development of surface cracking <br />following the initiation of mining. <br />1.6 ZONES OF POTENTIAL FRACTURING <br />The preparer states that the risk of surface fracturing will decrease as mining depth <br />increases. This generally correct, except in the instances where mining encounters a <br />significant discontinuity, such as a fault. As mentioned earlier, significant differential <br />offset and resultant fracturing can occur rapidly above such a ground mass discontinuity. <br />The preparer relates the unusually large surface cracking observed above the 1st West <br />and 2nd West panels of the Bowie #1 mine. This area has been hypothesized to have <br />undergone a general cantilevered failure of the outcrop barrier and remnant inter-panel <br />