ENFORCE29106 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' Bear Mine Inflows Prior to November 1996 - During the June 30th meeting, MCC reviewed both the West Elk Mine and Bear Mine maps t including the general locations and rates of inflows, the locations of sumps, pumps, and pipelines in the West Elk Mine, the chronology of mining, as well as mining conditions encountered in both mines (as recorded by MCC's Geologist). Also, Wright Water Engineers calculated potential ' flow magnitudes based on hydraulic conductivities, utilizing the best available data, and compazed them to the dates that Bear observed the wet rib and measured inflows at their Third West seals ' and Second West bleeder seals (Note that Bear's reported inflows were from sealed areas). The water flow paths and accumulation areas in both mines were also determined. As opposed to the statement in Division's letter that information "...correlate precisely, both in time and space...", no ' correlation was found in West Elk Mine's mining and water management activities and the observations and claims made by Bear. MCC experienced water inflows and poor roof conditions when mining under and just south of Lone Pine Gulch, and Bear had similar mining conditions and ' likely experienced inflows from Lone Pine Gulch (being on the north, down-dip side of the drainage). Graphs of the inflow data obtained by Bear (see Exhibits 2 & 3 attached to the June 30th meeting summary) reflect a seasonal pattern in 1996 as would be expected of a colluvial ' inflow. 4) (No # 4) 1 5) The hypothetical 30 AF volume was taken from the water rights discussions and represents 20% of the total volume pumped into the sealed sump from November 1996 through January 1997. It also represents the total combined volumes of both ponds MB-1 and MB-2R. In the water rights discussions, this volume was intended to represent a "worst case" diversion into the mine for mining uses that may not have been returned to the river. Nonetheless, the river's water ' rights were kept more than whole by the fault inflows added to the river. MCC had no reason to and did not pump water directly from the river to the sealed sump. ' 6) As discussed during the June 30th meeting, operational and inflow waters were pumped from the Jumbo panels and main entries to the south and then east in the B East Mains to 29 crosscut, even during longwall mining of the 4NW and SNW panels. This water then flowed along the dip to the operational sump in the northeast comer of the 1NW panel and then was pumped out of the mine as usual. As such, no water began accumulating in the NW panels operational sump until ' the ventilation seals around the 1NW - SNW panels were completed in May 1995. 7) See responses #1 & #5, above. MCC had the capability to pump from the sealed sump after ' the pump installation within the mine and the connection to the pipeline in Lone Pine Gulch was completed in December 1997. In February 1998, the NW Sump #1 horizontal hole was also completed, adding another point to discharge and sample water from the sealed sump. 8) See the above discussion and responses #5 and #6, above. ' NW Panels Sump Water Balance - The best available data from MCC's slug tests were utilized to calculate the range of seepage ' rates (0.7 gpm to 8.4 gpm), as presented in MCC's TR 80 application. The actual sump outflow