My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP14910
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP14910
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:44:36 PM
Creation date
11/27/2007 1:32:30 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1983194
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
4/21/2003
Doc Name
Submittal of Geotechnical Reports from 1995
From
Natural Soda Inc.
To
DMG
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.
/
50
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
Page 9 <br />3.0 CAVITY SHAPES AND COLLAPSE MECHANISMS <br />3.1 Possible Solution Mining Cavern Shapes <br />Recovery of 40% of the nahcolite resource would remove a layer of material up to 18-fr <br />thick. This quantity of nahcolite could be recovered entirely from the UBB or could be distrib- <br />uted vertically to include some resource from above the UBB. <br />Figure 3-1 shows three possible cavem shape scenarios. The first scenario shows recov- <br />ery of nahcolite from all beds in the sequence with wider spans developed in the high- <br />bicarbonate strata (UBB and L-SE bed). This results in pillars remaining between the caverns. <br />These pillazs could be as much as 60% of the plan azea, but locally would be more or less. This <br />is the most credible scenario based on experience with solution mining completed to date. It has <br />been difficult to monitor or survey the development of the cavem shape, but observations from <br />Cavem 1 support the development of an inegulaz-shaped cavern which is primazily controlled by <br />nahcolite content. <br />Scenazio b shown in Figure 3-1 restricts all nahcolite recovery to the Boies Bed. This is <br />possible and would result in caverns that would often interact and interconnect. However, rem- <br />nant pillars between the roof and floor would be common. In other locations, wedges of unre- <br />covered nahcolite would remain on the floor between two adjacent cavems. Some load transfer <br />between the roof and floor would be anticipated. <br />The third scenario somewhat unrealistically assumes that all recovery is focused in a sin- <br />gle continuous layer, say in the highest grade section of the UBB. With this scenario, not all of <br />the vertical column of the UBB would be recovered and no pillazs or wedges of material would <br />~- connect between the roof and floor. Cleazly during mining of such a large span opening, collapse <br />of the overlying strata would occur. <br />This last scenario is not considered credible, but is included because it results in the most <br />adverse impacts on the overlying strata. With this scenario, maximum movement of the overly- <br />ing strata can be anticipated. <br />In plan view, the cavem shape is controlled by the location of injection points, duration <br />of injection from each location, and the continuity of the resource. Some areas may be left <br />~ unmined because of halite intrusion. In plan view, the cavem-to-pillaz ratio will be vaziable and <br />Agapito Associates, Inc. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.