My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE47750
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
500000
>
PERMFILE47750
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:49:46 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 1:17:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981026
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Doc Name
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY
Section_Exhibit Name
APPENDIX C - PART 1 0F 3
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
90
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
beyond the highwall side of the proposed pit. These two holes are <br />• also utilized in Cross Section D-D' (Exhibit C-4) which is along <br />strike through the proposed permit area. Lithologic samples from <br />both holes were collected by a Wyoming Fuel Company staff geologist <br />on September 6, 1980, during drilling operations. Samples were <br />collected from air drilled cuttings as they were discharged <br />from the hole. <br />When collecting the air drilled cuttings samples, the following <br />methodology was used; air drilled cuttings were collected with a <br />sieve and are representative of five foot increments, except where <br />the lithology visually changed between increments, in which case <br />the cuttings were collected at the lithologic change. Samples were <br />described by the on-site geologist, and subsequently placed in bags <br />which were labeled. The lithologic descriptions as well as electric <br />logs for these two holes are found at the end of this Appendix. <br />Since all cuttings were air drilled, major lithologic changes <br />were readily apparent as the cuttings were blown from the hole. <br />• Power and Sandoval, 1976, concluded that this method was probably <br />the least contaminating of those tested, so it is assumed that <br />samples collected using this technique are as representative as a <br />continuous core. Due to the bad boring conditions (i.e., dipping <br />strata, fractured zones, faulting, etc., which cause core loss) it <br />is our belief that the cuttings samples are a more definitive method <br />of obtaining representative overburden samples, at least for this <br />site specific case. <br />Once the samples were collected and the lithologies docu- <br />mented, the cuttings samples were divided for analysis in the <br />following manner: <br />i 1. Each major lithologic unit was individually analyzed. <br />• <br />-32- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.