|
Post a reply ||
Back to
Future elevation of land????!!!!
Submitted by Robert Motkoski <motkod@yahoo.ca> on 25/Jun/2008
69.31.221.13
Message:
Hi everyone:
What about the increase of elevation of land after reclamation not decrease like we were all were thinking originally? I am saying this because a few months ago I was having problems with my coal stoker so to get repair and find information in how to repair it that took me to Three Hills and on the way there I had a few things to take off in Forestburg then I headed to the Battle river power plant where I had to find out information about possibly getting coal from there. Anyway when I left the power plant I ended up going south on 855 and I had a look around the area that was reclaimed from strip mining and it looked higher then the land that was not mined. So I was headed west on 601 and lone and behold there was a farmer in the field doing something with the grain in the bins so I decided to stop in and ask him what the land was like after reclamtion. He said to me it is about thirty feet higher than they first started. This does make sense when you think about because even Mr. Drinkwater said at one of the previous meetings that we, humans, cannot pack that ground as good as the forces of nature can do through water infiltration and through ice ages and time itself. So this leads me to ask about not mining Amisk Creek is there a possiblity is that does not get mined could it become Amisk river? Another thing what about all the people living around the mine area would they not have water flowing down there way through surface water? I would like to know what Kyle Nahirniak thinks about this. Sorry Kyle for putting you on the spot. If you drive by Dodds Old Coal mine you can see that evelation change for yourself but only on a smaller scale. The farmer also said to me he would not farm that land because of the way they spread the topsoil.
Replies to this post
|