My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP51016
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP51016
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 12:55:50 AM
Creation date
11/27/2007 12:59:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981011
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
11/29/2000
Doc Name
MEMO EVALUATION OF APEX MINES POTENTIAL FOR CONTAMINATING BEDROCK AQUIFERS
From
TOM ALDENBACH
To
ANNUAL HYDROLOGY REPORT FILE APEX 2 MINE PN C-81-011
Permit Index Doc Type
HYDROLOGY REPORT
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.
/
8
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
excursion of the bulk density curve in these strata, indicating the shale and shaley <br />sandstone have very low porosity. Consequently, they would have low permeability. <br />6. The resistivity curve on the log suite does not reach infinite values as it would in dry <br />rock, thus indicating all beds were water-saturated.(see attached interpreted log copy). <br />Calculation of the till-up time of Apex No. 2 Workings <br />Water is assumed to seep from bedrock in the walls and floor of the Apex No. 2 workings on the <br />downdip (north) side of the workings. The updip (south) side of the workings would be dry <br />because it is neaz the outcrop. Seepage from the downdip side of the workings could occur at a <br />velocity on the order of 0.0018 ft. per day (or 0.91 ft per year) calculated as: [(0.00025 ft/day <br />hydraulic conductivity) / (0.02 effective porosity)][0.14 ft/ft hydraulic gradient]. The values in <br />this formula are based on the following information: <br />1. Hydraulic conductivity of 0.00025 fUday. This is the mean conductivity reported <br />by the USGS for shale and siltstone samples from the Williams Fork formation in <br />Routt County (see page 66 of USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 90- <br />4020). <br />2. Effective porosity of 0.02. This assumed value is a reasonable value for shale, <br />siltstone, and coal, the lithologies exposed in the walls, roof, and floor of the <br />workings. <br />3. Hydraulic gradient of 0.14 fbft. This is slightly steeper than the northwestward dip <br />of bedrock at the Apex No. 2 Mine. <br />Eventually the water level in the workings would rise to the elevation of the highest <br />potentiometric surface of the strata exposed in the workings. Inflow into the mine would cease <br />upon reaching this elevation because all inflow is from rocks that are downdip from the <br />workings. This elevation can be expected to be approximately 7350 feet, based on the sump <br />elevation of the Apex No. 1 Mine and the potentiometric surface in surrounding bedrock that the <br />permittee estimated from pre-mining drillholes (permit page 64). <br />The Apex No. 2 Mine, covers approximately 32 acres below a depth of 7350 ft. The surface area <br />of the floor, roof, and walls in the workings below 7350 ft. is roughly twice the 32 acres, that is <br />64 acres. Seepage would occur from only half of this surface area (the surface area on the down- <br />dip side of the workings). The seepage velocity of 0.0018 ft per year from the 32 acres of surface <br />area in the workings would produce 12 acre-feet of inflow into the mine per year (0.38 ft. X 32 <br />acres). (During mining operations, the 12 acre-feet of inflow per year is assumed to have been <br />consumed by mine operations and evaporated by air-flow through the workings.) The volume <br />inside the workings in the Apex No. 2 Mine below elevation 7350 ft. is an estimated 256 acre- <br />feet. The ]2 acre-feet of inflow per year would fill up the 256 acre-foot volume in 21 years (256 <br />acre-feet/12 acre-feet per year). The actual fill-up time would be significantly longer than 21 <br />years because of a predicted discharge into a sandstone bed as explained below. <br />Page 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.