Laserfiche WebLink
the floor was constantly wet and the movement of equipment created mud. The mine <br />• <br />was then turned on strike and finally up dip allowing the water to run away from the <br />working faces which improved mining conditions. <br />The amount of water coming into the C seam mine works was not accurately <br />measured before pumping into the mine de-watering system for discharge with water <br />from the B seam. Analysis of discharge records for a three year period December to <br />May is shown below. <br />PERIOD TOTAL(oal) GAUDAY GAUMIN <br />12/96 70 5/97 21,626,200 141,348 98.2 <br />12/97 TO 5/98 17,984,000 116,779 81.1 <br />12/99 TO 5/99 16,112,900 103,287 71.7 <br />The total amount of water being discharged from the mine decreased. Other <br />U <br />factors influence the decrease in discharge but it appears that no increase in mine <br />water discharge occurred while mining the C seam. Mining the C seam rather than <br />the B seam had no additional impact on the hydrologic regime of the area. <br />Geo-chemistry <br />Chemical analysis of the coal, roof and floor is contained in Figures 6-3 through <br />• <br />6-5 in Tab 6. Since Powderhorn must mine in-seam to be economically viable, little out <br />of seam dilution of the coal will need to be washed and disposed. The mine design <br />shown on Figure 5-1 did not require the use of overcasts to ventilate the mining <br />panels; therefore, no roof rock was intentionally generated. Little, if any, of the roof or <br />floor was sent to the surtace for disposal. <br />Volume 3 lab 12 <br />12-7 <br />5/00 <br />