Laserfiche WebLink
Technical Revision No. 80 <br />/0 <br />August /9, 1998 <br />Page <br />two mines. MCC's geology records of the Bear Mine revealed that the seep was not, in <br />fact, an "isolated" inflow incident within the Bear Mine. At least two other fractures with <br />water were encountered by Bear in nearby development sections. The dates presented by <br />Mr. Stover in his barometer scenario could be easily extracted from the timeline presented <br />in MCC's previous responses and do not validate his claim. <br />Bear personnel observations indicate that the inflows were manifested as a wet, seeping <br />face; whereas, if the water were in direct communication with the West Elk Mine workings <br />via a fault or fracture system, the flow would have been from a specific point. According <br />to their AHRs, Bear never observed significant, nor measurable flows emanating from the <br />location around cross-cuts 24 or 25, only wet areas or seeps. The observed increased flows <br />began after the Third West Mains were sealed; therefore, the real source of the 18 to 30 <br />gpm inflows is not known. Please refer to the July 24, 1998 letter and information packet <br />for further discussion. <br />4. MCC presents a detailed discussion of how the water will flow from the NW Sealed Sumps <br />to the Bear No. 3 Mine, outcrops/subcrops, etc. (page 13). MCC concludes that there is <br />insrrffctent cross-sectional area within the B-Seam to pass the estimated inflows of 3/ to 38 <br />gpm. The water would therefore eventually discharge through the Bear No. 3 Mine, C- <br />Seam portals. <br />The sequence of water inflow itrto the Bear No. 3 Mirre provides virtually itrdisputable <br />evidence that nearly all of the inflows originate from MCC's /NW - SNW Longwall panels <br />that are now referred to as the NW Sealed Sump. Small flow was initially discovered in <br />mid /994 when Bear believes that MCC was initially developing the bleeder entries and <br />set-up rooms for longwal! panel SNW. The flow increased in mid 199 after MCC slar[ing <br />to rorainely use the NW Sealed Sump. The flow increased further to about 30 gpm ur mid <br />/996 as the NW Sealed Sump continued to fill. <br />As discussed in the above responses, Mr. Stover's allegations that "nearly all of the <br />(Bear's) inflows originate from MCC" are entirely disputed by MCC, WWE, and Mayo. <br />Please refer to the July 24, 1998 letter and information packet. Mr. Stover has failed to <br />recognize that MCC also experienced small inflows in that vicinity of the West Elk Mine, <br />and now simply blames MCC for the inflows in the Bear Mine. A clear example of the <br />lack of relationship between MCC's storage of water in the NW Panels sealed sump and <br />Bear's inflows, is Stover's above allegation that inflows in the Bear Mine began when <br />MCC was development mining the SNW longwall panel. No storage of water was <br />occurring at that time because the sealed sump did not exist until after SNW was <br />completely longwall mined. Even then, the flows pumped to the sealed area were <br />relatively small (about 10 gpm). MCC estimated inflows within the Bear No. 3 Mine of 31 <br />to 38 gpm (based on reported flow from Bear and a calculated value from MCC), but Mr. <br />Stover also failed to recognize that only about 0.7 to 8.4 gpm of these inflows were the <br />calculated (based on all available data) "worst case" range of seepage from the West Elk <br />Mine. The remaining 30 gpm of inflows (as reported in their 1996 AHIi) had to originate <br />