Laserfiche WebLink
Ta'chnical Revision No. 80 <br />August 19, 1998 <br />Page 9 <br />rather than appear as dispersed flow. Additionally, MCC's experiences with the NW #1 <br />horizontal drill hole and the B East Mains and 14 SE Headgate faults support <br />permeabilities as low as or lower than those calculated from the slug tests on B-Seam wells <br />slug test data. <br />2. MCC presents a compelling argument that the maximum seepage rate from the NW Sealed <br />Sump to the Bear No. 3 Mine would be 0.7 to 8.4 gpm. These calculations are based o» <br />measured permeability values for the B-Seam that range from 5.0 x 105 to 4.0 x 106 cm/sec <br />and values for hydraulic gradient and maximum head. Bear has no reason to dispute these <br />calculations except they apparently are Trot applicable [o at least orre isolated area between <br />the West Elk Mine and the Bear No. 3 Mine. Bear's arly concern is whether the maximum <br />head will increase upon: final abandonment of the Wes[ Elk Mirre. Are hydraulic seals to be <br />installed in the Lone Pine G:rlch entries? /f the maximum head does increase, the Bear No. <br />3 Mine could be trrrrndated with water from [he West Elk Mirre. <br />MCC is pleased that Mr. Stover agrees with MCC's maximum seepage rate calculations. If <br />Mr. Stover or Bear have any additional data regarding secondary porosity between the <br />mines, MCC and WWE would be interested to review it. However, the available data, <br />including MCC's Geologist's inspection records and Bear's observations, support the lack <br />of a significant fracture zone through the coal block. <br />MCC has no plans to construct hydraulic seals to replace the ventilation seals currently <br />installed in the Lone Pine Gulch entries to allow filling of the NW Panels sealed sump <br />beyond its current maximum capacity. Thus, there would be no increase in the maximum <br />calculated head or seepage rate. <br />3. The isolated area between the West Elk Mine acrd the Bear No. 3 Mine was discovered in <br />/994. It is located around cross-ctrl 24 -25 in the 3rd West Mains (500 feet west of the <br />south quarter corner of section /7). These maims were developed during July /993 and <br />were virtually dry during development. Approximately one year later, Bear noted wet spots <br />and small flows in this isolated area. The water emerged from the floor and lower half of <br />the rib. Apparently the barrier pillar between [he two mines is fractured in this isolated <br />area. Il is the only area in the Bear No. 3 Mine where MCC's water storage practices hm~e <br />produced arty discernible impacts. <br />It may be instnrctive to determine when MCC actually began to store water in the small <br />capacity sumps in the INW - SNW lorrgwall parcels. If the Bear No. 3 Mine is an effective <br />barometer of MCC's water storage practices, then the bleeder entries and set-up rooms for <br />longwall panel SNW were developed during mid 1994. <br />Mr. Stover's "barometer" scenario only reveals that both Bear and MCC experienced wet <br />conditions when mining in the same vicinity beneath the Lone Pine Gulch drainage as <br />could be expected. MCC was development mining this area and no water was being stored <br />at the time that Mr. Stover now claims that Bear observed "small flows" (as opposed to wet <br />rib and floor as reported in Bear's AHRs). As recorded by MCC's Geologist and per <br />Bear's AHRs, there was no evidence of fracturing in the unmined coal block between the <br />