Laserfiche WebLink
Mayo and Associates, LC <br />I • <br />~• <br />1 <br /> <br />Damage zones associated with all of the faults described above have the potential to <br />locally increase both the permeability and storage capacity of the channels, thus increased <br />roof inflow could occur in the vicinity of the faults. The extent of potential fault- <br />controlled compartmentalization in the sandstone channels is unlmown; however <br />appreciable compartmentalization occurred in the underlying Rollins Sandstone. Such <br />compartmentaIizationtyould tend to restrict large inflows to the fault damage zones. <br />Sandstone channel groundwater inflows are common in similar terrains in Utah and some <br />inflow should not be discounted in the E Seam without further data. In the Utah coal <br />regions most channel sandstone inflows have been small, dispersed, and easily managed. <br />However, significant sandstone channel inflows have occurred in the Blind Canyon Seam <br />in the Co-Op mine. There single inflows as great as 250 gpm were sustained for several <br />yeazs. In the Co-Op mine the sandstone channel was only about 3,000 feet long and <br />perhaps 1,000 feet wide. In the proposed E Seam workings, a channel that crops ouY <br />along the Minnesota Creek Cliff face is more than 2 miles long in a down dip direction <br />and is cut by both the 14HG and the Deep Creek Faults (Figure 17). The 14HG Fault <br />strikes pazallel to the channel and its damage zone crops out along the Minnesota Creek <br />drainage. Thus, inflows associated with the 14HG and possible Deep Creek Faults could <br />be more than encountered in the Co-Op mine. Single inflows as great as 500 gpm could <br />occur if much of the 14HG Fault damage zone is water saturated. <br />Evaluation of Potential Groundwater Inflows <br />Associated with E Seam Mining, <br />West Elk Mine, Somerset, Colorado <br />61 <br />February 24, 2004 <br />