Laserfiche WebLink
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 />12/96705/97 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 discharged from the mine decreased. Other factors . <br />influence the decrease in discharge but it appears that no increase in mine water <br />discharge occurred while mining the C seam. Mining the C seam rather than the B <br />• 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 />6-5 in Tab 6. Since the Operator mined in-seam to be economically viable, little out of <br />seam dilution of the coal was washed. The mine design shown on Figure 5-1 did not <br />require the use of overcasts to ventilate the mining panels; therefore, no roof rock was <br />intentionally generated. Little, if any, of the roof or floor was sent to the surface for <br />disposal. <br />• <br />Volume 3 Tab 12 12-7 12/02 <br />