2008-06-12_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1980007 ‎(3)‎

• Permit No: C1980007
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Date: 6/12/2008
• Doc Name: Mining Plan Decision Document COC-67232
• From: OSM
• Permit Index Doc Type: Other Permits
• Email Name: TAK
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Summary
•

•
and on the south by inferred mineable coal
(unleased) (BLh/ 2004). Therefore, it is assumed
that access to the coal reserves in the Dry Fork LBA
tract would most easily be achieved from the
existing underground workings at the West Elk
Mine with existing surface facilities.
Understanding that federal coal is leased through a
competitive bid process, the analysis assumes that a
company other than Ark Land[MCC may be the
successful bidder at the lease sale. if there were a
successful bidder other than Ark Land/.CC, the
tract could potentially be subleased back to IVTC C
(because the successful bidder would not have the
advantage of existing coal handling facilities or
control of adjacent coal reserves, as does MCC).
Subleasing would be a high-risk business
proposition for an outside bidder because MCC
may refuse any such sublease agreement. The coal
does not outcrop on the Dry Fork LBA tract,
therefore no portals could be located, and there may
not be a reasonable shaft location.
Production at the West Elk Mine is limited to 8.2
million tons per year based on current air quality
and mining operation plans and corresponding
permits. Current production ranges between 6.5 and
7 million tons per year using the longwall mining
method, and is capable of peaking at a rate of 7.5
million tons per year. Annual production will
depend on several factors, including rail
transportation, which ultimately limit production
from the North Fork Valley. It is assumed that the
coal would be transported to market using the
existing coal handling facilities and existing spur
rail line.
The,UN1P for the Dry Mork tract assumes that coal
in the E Seam would be extracted from Ion'-wall
panels trending northwest southeast. These longwall
panels and corresponding development raining are
planned to occur on an adjacent lease already held
by N1CC. The foreseeable mine operations plan in
the Dry Fork LBA tract is an eastward extension of
the longwall panels planned in the existing lease to
the west. The raining would "retreat" to the main
entries of the mine. Continuous miner development
would be used to drive development entries for the
Ion-wall panels, with the primary coal production
being achieved using the longwall method and
equipment.
The E Seam coal reserves in the Dry Fork LBA
tract represent about 30 months of additional coal
reserves based on the rate of mining currently
employed at the West Elk Mine (LNi: 2004). The E
Seam coal in the Dry Fork LBA tract would be
mined from about 2008 to 2015. Some variations to
these timeframes may occur based on permitting,
unforeseen mining or geologic circumstances, coal
contract variability; etc.
Ark Land's application for the Dry Fork LBA tract
did not include foreseeable mining in the B Seam.
However, BLM has documented possible
recoverable reserves in the B Seam. The coal lease,
if it is issued, will encompass all coal within the
lease boundaries. Therefore, although it is not
anticipated that the B Seam reserves would be
mined at this time, the RFIAP includes a projection
for eventually reining in the B Seam. The B Seam
coal in the Dry Fork LBA may be mineable in the
northwestern portion of the tract. Longwall panels
would likely extend into these reserves from the
northwest. The RFMP assumes the B Seam coal in
the Dry Fork LBA tract would be mined between
2015 and 2016. The B Seam coal reserves represent
about 14 months of additional coal reserves based
on the rate of mining currently employed at the
West Elk Mine. If the B Seam were ever to be
mined, it is presumed that it would be mined in a
similar fashion to the E Seam, from the existing
mine and using existing facilities.
The RFMP assumes a longwall panel configuration
that would cross Deep Creek and the Dry Fork of
Minnesota Creek perpendicularly to obliquely. The
RFMP was used to develop the coal mine
subsidence prediction used to assess potential
surface resource impacts.
Re€ s oF4.ably e1 r c' i<S st?Je ? ? ? Ss".°d? ? S1i6,-'cf
Use
in recent years, coal mines operating in the
Somerset coal field have experienced build-up of
methane gas in the underground workings after the
rock strata have subsided due to mining. Under
Dining, Safety, and Health Administration
regulations, mines are required to maintain methane
levels at or below certain levels to ensure worker
safety underground. Typically, the mine ventilation
system cannot effectively keep methane levels
Dn, Fork Lease-By-Application FcIS
S-3