Laserfiche WebLink
Technical Revision No. 80 <br />August 19, 1998 <br />Page 8 <br />were sealed, water was collected acrd stored trr the sumps and the longwall panels. MCC <br />states that the operation water as well as minor inflow water from the 8NW panel naturally <br />flowed to the NW Sealed Srrmp. Presumably, MCC had no reason to minimize the amount <br />of water that flowed Jo the NW Sealed Sump. <br />Bear states in its /995 AHR that beginning in June of 1995, 77re Bear No. 3 Mine began to <br />notice a measurable amount of water building behind the seals in the 3rd West Section. <br />This unanticipated flow coincides perfectly with MCC's sealing of its INW - SNW panels. <br />MCC sealed the panels in May 1995 which allowed tr:creased quantities of water to be <br />stored in the NW Sealed Sump. The resultant seepage from the NW Sealed Sump reached <br />Bear's 3rd West Section during June 1995. The fact the flow from the West Elk Mine to <br />Bear No. 3 Mine increased from 16 gpm to 30 gpm during the flow year would be expected <br />since the NW Sealed Sump continued to filly. Bear is coneerrred the flow between the mines <br />may exceed 30 gpm since MCC began to pump and store huge quantities of water in the <br />NW Sealed Sump in November /996. <br />It is apparent that Mr. Stover is not clear on the sequence of events with respect to MCC's <br />water management practices nor of Bear's actual encounters with fractures and water <br />within the Bear No. 3 Mine. As discussed in the July 24, 1998 letter and information <br />packet, operational and inflow water (of approximately 10 gpm) that Flowed from the <br />longwall and development mining sections, even while mining the 4NW and SNW panels, <br />were routed in pipelines through the B West Mains to 29 crosscut (at the southwest comer <br />of the 3NW panel). From there the water flowed along the dip through the caved material <br />to the operational sump in the northeast corner of the 1NW panel and then was pumped out <br />of the mine as usual. As such, very little water would have accumulated within the 1NW <br />through SNW sealed panels from May 1995 to June 1995 (when the panels were sealed and <br />when 18 gpm flows were evidently seen by Bear at their Third West seals). <br />Until May 1995, when longwall panels 1NW through SNW were sealed, there was virtually <br />no accumulation of water occurring in these longwall panels and, consequently, no seepage <br />down-gradient. During the period May 1995 to November 1996 (prior to large volumes of <br />water pumped to the sealed sump), assuming a direct flow-through fracture system through <br />the barrier existed (as portrayed by Mr. Stover) and that MCC's 10 gpm flows were being <br />pumped to the sealed area, then only 10 gpm flows could be flowing through Mr. Stover's <br />hypothetical free-flowing fracture system. As such, no water accumulated in the 1 NW <br />through SNW Panels while mining; and Bear's inflows of 18 gpm beginning in June of <br />1995 (based on Bear's 1995 AHR) could not have originated in MCC's NW Panels sealed <br />sump, since there was not 18 gpm (only ]0 gpm) of water being pumped to the sealed area <br />during this period. In addition, when Bear noticed increased inflows of 30 gpm in <br />May/June of 1996, there was no corresponding change in water management in the West <br />Elk Mine that could have been responsible for this increase. <br />Finally, Mr. Stover has argued for Bear that hypothetical secondary porosity could explain <br />a faster travel time. However, Bear personnel observations, when mining in Third West, <br />indicate that the inflows were manifested as a wet, seeping face; whereas, if the water were <br />traveling through fault or fracture systems, the flow would have been from a specific point, <br />