Laserfiche WebLink
9/5/13 State.co.us Executive Branch Mail - Fvvd: Response to Corley Co MW -NW <br />The Boulay Report has some errors and omissions. On page 11 it states that the Corley Company well is located 800 ft. <br />from the Southfield permit boundary, probably relying on the Southfield Mine Area Surface and Groundwater Hydrology <br />map which has our well mapped in the wrong location. It has been demonstrated conclusively to DRMS that our well is, in <br />fact, not only inside the Southfield permit boundary but that it was undermined with pillaring. The single statement that <br />both Magpie and Second Alkali Creeks are unaffected by the Southfield mining activity is probably a result of relying on <br />your hydrology reports that regularly show no flow; I do not believe that the Boulay Report states that Second Alkali <br />Creek is not interconnected to Southfield mine workings. The reason for no flow at your SA -1 monitoring point on Second <br />Alkali Creek is that this point is about 1000 ft. too far southwest and about 110 ft. higher in elevation than where there has <br />been perennial flow in Second Alkali Creek for many years. It was apparently unknown by DRMS that there was continual <br />flow in Second A Ikali Creek at the time of their hydrology report. <br />I question your assumption that SF -87 -07 status is the result of caving action and crushing which broke the PVC casing <br />above the mine workings thereby pinching off the casing's continuity to the mine workings. That might have happened or <br />not, but I object to your conclusion that it is based on the fact that it happened at other monitoring wells. It is an <br />assumption not of zet. <br />Yes, we used a small volume of water to test the continuity of the casing instead of 1500 gallons of water. We were told by <br />Janet Binns that the DRMS hydrologist has said that you should never have put that volume of water down MWNW. <br />Yes, the two volumes used in each well are considerably different, but our test showed that the brief elevation increase <br />from the five gallons returned to the pretest level which means that SF -87 -07 is not plugged. <br />The BBA hydrology report may be correct about the Vermejo Formation being an aquiclude, at least in its undisturbed <br />state. There is nothing in theirreport, however, that addresses the postmining situation with widespread subsidence. <br />Even if entire pillared panels subsided en masse with no fracturing of the Vermejo Formation overburden over the center of <br />the subsided panel, there would have been fracturing at the edges of the pillared area, and I really doubt that the entire <br />pillared area of 2 North for example subsided as one giant block. The description of that area during the retreat gives a far <br />different picture of very active roof and floor movement while the mining was going on. Didn't you lose a continuous <br />miner in this process? There would have to have been considerable fracturing of the Vermejo Formation overburden <br />rendering it quite permeable to vertical water transmission. Further, in my reading of the BBA report summary, their <br />conclusion was that Southfield and the monitoring wells are hydrogeologicly connected. That conclusion was the basis <br />for their recommendation that MW -23 and MW -65 are now adequate alone for the groundwater water monitoring. <br />It was visually verified when the mines were still open that the seven mines including the Rex Carbon, Canon National, <br />Double Dick, Black Diamond, Canon Chief, Corley, and Annex all interconnected. These mines were all in the top seamof <br />coal above Southfield. All are full of water, and the water elevation in each is limited by the surface discharge in Second <br />Alkali Creek - at least until the inflow into these inines exceeds the surface discharge outflow rate into Second Alkali <br />Creek which may have a finite limit yet to he determined. <br />Specifically, SF- 87 -09, MW -65, and the Corley Mine Well penetrate the working of the Double Dick, Black Diamond, and <br />the Corley mines respectively. There were no stoppings or seals of these mines' interconnections. It follows that the static <br />water elevations should be equal. Since MW -65 penetrated the Black Diamond void and is screened at that level, and <br />since the BBA report says that MW -65 is hydrogeologicly connected to the Southfield workings, it follows that the <br />flooded upper mines are also connected to the Southfield workings. In other writings I have presented some data and <br />observations that would show that inflow fromNewlin Creek in the approximately one -half mine that it crosses the <br />Southfield Mine pillared area with known subsidence overmuch of that area has greatly increased the inflow into the <br />Southfield void in the past few years. <br />Some drill logs available to me have the unconsolidated formation depths to solid formation: T132 at 35 ft., SF -87 -07 at 26.5 <br />ft. of which 4 ft. is road fill, SR -63 at 11.5 ft., SF -85 -02 at 36 ft., and SR -64 at 27 ft. The drill log for SR -27 would be very <br />revealing since it is about 110 ft. fromNewlin Creek, but since it is on Vento land I do not have that log. I do not think it is <br />valid to claim that the Newlin Creek alluvium ranges from 50 to 100 ft. deep. <br />I do not see a response to my request for immediate plugging of particularly SF -87 -07 with its defective casing and cap <br />which allow surface water to enter that well. As opposed to your assumption for the cause of the partial obstruction of <br />this well, it is possible that sufficient surface sediment has washed into the well in the 26 years that this well has been <br />allowed to remain unplugged to cause the partial obstruction. <br />Doug Corley <br />https: / /mai l.g oog le.conVmai 1 /u /0 / ?ui =2 &i Ire29129fcb5 &�iev�-- pt &search =i nbox&th= 140ea06l931 a2742 2/3 <br />