PERMFILE105687

• Permit No: C1981011
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 12/11/2001
• Section_Exhibit Name: RULE 2.04.7 HYDROLOGY
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Hydrologic consequences of mining to Middle Creek
In the year or so which has passed since the
proceeding pages (p63-65) were compiled and submitted,
underground mining has advanced into fault block q2.
Entries have been driven in a northeasterly direction as
indicated on Exhibit C. This set of entries presently
extends entirely across fault block #2, and has intersected
and faced-up the fault separating block #3 from block N2.
These entries extend essentially along the strike of fault
block ir2 from an elevation of 7324 MSL at the 1-2 fault to
7329' MSL at the 2-3 fault.
The total thickness of dra (or gouge) associated with
the 1-2 fault is less than 18" extending approximately 9"
on each side of the scarp). Two 10' x 10' raises were
driven along the throw of the fault to allow mining access
to block q2. NO groundwater was encountered in the mining
of these raises. furthermore, NO groundwater flow or
seepage has been produced i.n the raises or anywhere the
fault was exposed from the time of initial exposure to
date.
The 2-3 fault was initially intersected on 04/14/1982.
Drill hole information indicates the throw of the 2-3 fault
to be approximately 75' (or roughly 3 times the
displacement of the 1-2 fault). Visible drag thickness as
measured on the footwall exposed by mining is less than 4".
As with all the other faults encountered or traversed by
the Apex mine, no degradation of roof or floor competency
accompanies the fault. N'0 groundwater was encountered at
the 2-3 fault. Mining was continued several feet into the
hangingwall (to assure ourselves that we really had found
the fault) and NO groundwater was encountered.
Trout Creek has an average elevation of 7380' MSL
through our permit area. The entries traversing fault block
#2 average 7327' MSL. If a hydrologic connection exists
between Trout Creek and the Lower Pinnacle coal seam or
adjacent strata, the supposed connection obviously does not
exist in the area we are presently mining. Furthermore, our
mining exposure of three of the four faults traversing our
permit area indicates that the physical attributes of the
faults make them very poor candidates for hydraulic flow.
Aside from the evidence just presented (and the very
small inflow as delineated on the accompanying mine-inflow
map), several significant practical considerations serve to
preclude groundwater degradation to the recharge of Middle
Creek if indeed any such groundwater connection even exists
via our permitted area:
1. Were groundwater to be encountered in the course of
our mining at an inflow rate sufficient to be of
consequence to Middle Creek, the cost of our moving;
pumping; treating; and otherwise handling such a volume of
water would preclude our ability to continue to operate.
Furthermore, the increase in moisture in the coal produced
would not only lower AR BTU's (meaning a lower sales price)
(oS.OI