My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE134368
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
400000
>
PERMFILE134368
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:35:04 PM
Creation date
11/26/2007 2:12:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981022
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
12/11/2001
Doc Name
Water Communication Potential from Overlying Workings /Abel, 1992
Section_Exhibit Name
Exhibit 2.04-E4 Part 6
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Sanborn Creek Project Page 17 August 21, 1992 <br />• "C" AND "E" SEAM INTERACTION ANALYSIS <br />The "E" Seam workings in the Hawk's Nest East Portal and West <br />Portal Mines are approximately 340 feet above the planned "C" Seam <br />workings and 380 feet above the planned "B" Seam workings in the <br />Sanborn Creek Mine, Table 1. The Hawk's Nest Mines overly most of <br />the planned panels in the Sanborn Creek Mine. The possibility of <br />chimney collapse penetrating through 34o feet of interburden is <br />extremely remote and would be unprecedented. Piggott and Eynon's <br />(1977) geometric calculation, Figure 1 and Table 2, indicate the <br />maximum height that a collapse could progress upward is <br />approximately 182 feet above the "C" Seam. This calculation <br />conservatively assumes worst-case conical chimney collapse, 20 feet <br />of coal extracted at the "C" Seam elevation and the entire <br />interburden composed of lower swelling, 33 percent, shale. Gray et <br />al (1977) found no chimney collapses reaching a height of over 200 <br />feet above the Pittsburgh Seam, Table 3. <br />The increased permeability accompanying planned pillar <br />crushing during pillar robbing during panel retreat mining in the <br />"C" and "B" Seams will probably progressively drain any water that <br />may be impounded in overlying Hawk's Nest Mine workings. The <br />maximum calculated "E" Seam tensile strain, 16300 micro-strain <br />under low-cover and 12900 micro-strain under high-cover as shown on <br />Table 4, is sufficient to open up any bedding plane and joint <br />• weaknesses present. If water is impounded in the Hawk's Nest Mine <br />workings it must be anticipated that it will find a path to slowly <br />drain into the Sanborn Creek Mine. Pre-drainage of impounded <br />water, if found in the Hawk's Nest Mines, is recommended. <br />OTHER POTENTIAL WATER PROBLEMS <br />Four exploratory NX, nominal 3-in. outside diameter, holes, <br />WSC DH 5, 6, 7 and 8, were apparently drilled downward from Hawk's <br />Nest Mine "E" Seam workings through the "B" Seam. These holes <br />present a restricted potential path for water that may be impounded <br />in the Hawk's Nest Mine to drain into the planned Sanborn Creek <br />Mine workings. The rate at which water can enter the Sanborn Creek <br />Mine will be limited by the 3-in. diameter of the boreholes. If <br />water is found to be impounded in the Hawk's Nest Mines and the <br />head present measured it will be possible to calculate the rate at <br />which such a borehole would release water into the Sanborn Creek <br />Mine workings. It is recommended that if water found to be <br />impounded in the abandoned Hawk's Nest Mine workings that it be <br />pre-drained to eliminate this potential problem. Standby pumping <br />capacity could be maintained to accommodate such a water inflow. <br />It is also possible to leave protective pillars around the <br />drillhole locations if they can be accurately located. The USBM <br />guidelines recommend leaving 150-foot radius pillars between oil <br />• and gas wells and mine workings. These later courses of action are <br />not recommended, because of the cost of standby pumping capacity in <br />the first case and the disruption of mining plans in the second <br />case. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.