Coal and allogenic symbiotic uranium mine coordinated mining degree evaluation method based on mining staggered distance

Abstract

The invention discloses a coal and allogeneic symbiotic uranium ore coordinated mining degree evaluation method based on mining dislocation distance, and the method comprises the steps: depicting the influence of coal mine mining on underground water and uranium ore leaching through building a mining dislocation distance model, and analyzing the mutual interference relation in the mining process of two ores; according to different space staggered distance conditions, four levels of no / weak risk, low risk, high risk and coordinated mining failure are divided, corresponding technical measures such as natural isolation, dynamic regulation and control or engineering isolation are matched, and a resource loss risk and prevention and control capability evaluation matrix is established. On the basis, the resource preservation level and the pollution risk are quantified, a coordinated mining degree index system covering resource safety, production safety and environmental protection is constructed, and comprehensive evaluation is conducted by combining standardization and an analytic hierarchy process. According to the method, the high-risk staggered distance situation can be effectively identified and avoided, and safe and efficient utilization and sustainable development of mineral resources are realized.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention belongs to the field of mineral resource development technology, specifically relating to a method for evaluating the coordinated mining degree of coal and heterogeneous uranium deposits based on mining offset. Background Technology

[0002] Coal-series minerals are an important component of my country's energy and strategic resources, often forming symbiotic relationships with uranium, bauxite, and rare metals during their occurrence. In actual mining operations, due to differences in the occurrence conditions and mining methods of different minerals, traditional independent mining methods easily lead to resource loss, increased production safety risks, and exacerbated environmental pollution. Particularly in coal-uranium symbiotic areas, surface subsidence and fracture zone development caused by longwall mining alter aquifer structure and form drawdown cones, thus affecting the hydrological conditions for uranium leaching mining. Simultaneously, uranium leaching solutions and chemical agents may migrate along fractures to the coal mining area, posing long-term pollution risks. Therefore, promoting coordinated mining of coal-series associated minerals is urgently needed.

[0003] To address this, some studies have proposed the concept of "coordinated mining degree" to measure the level of synergy between coal and associated uranium deposits during the mining process, reflecting the systematic nature, sustainability, and resource utilization efficiency of the development model. Its core lies in embedding the synergistic relationship into production schedule planning, quantitatively evaluating the coupling between different ore bodies. However, in practical applications, coordinated mining involves not only production capacity and schedule but is also significantly constrained by the spatial misalignment of ore bodies. Insufficient misalignment is often a direct cause of coordination failure and escalating risks. Existing research largely focuses on the safe mining or production capacity optimization of single mineral types, lacking a systematic characterization of the spatial interference and mutual influence between multiple ore bodies, especially lacking scientific quantification and hierarchical control of mining offset. In engineering practice, coal mines and heterogeneous uranium deposits often fail to coordinate mining due to unreasonable spatial layout or insufficient offset, even leading to resource waste and environmental risks.

[0004] Therefore, there is an urgent need to establish a coordinated mining degree assessment method based on mining offset, which can scientifically identify the risk level under different offset conditions, match corresponding technical measures, and achieve a comprehensive balance between resource security, production safety and environmental protection. Summary of the Invention

[0005] To address the aforementioned problems in existing technologies, this invention proposes a method for evaluating the coordinated mining degree of coal and heterogeneous uranium deposits based on mining offset. The method is rationally designed, overcomes the shortcomings of existing technologies, and has good results.

[0006] To achieve the above-mentioned objectives, the following technical solution is adopted: A method for assessing the coordinated mining degree of coal and heterogeneous uranium deposits based on mining offset includes the following steps: Step 1: Using field data, characterize the disturbance effect of coal mining on regional hydrogeological conditions and uranium leaching process, reveal the two-way interference mechanism under the condition of coordinated coal and uranium mining, and determine the mining misalignment level. Step 2: Using the mining misalignment level as a key control variable, and combining the technical measures under different levels, construct a risk-measure assessment matrix of resource loss risk and prevention and control capabilities; Step 3: Construct a coordinated mining evaluation index system. By quantifying the resource preservation level and pollution risk under different misalignment conditions, a systematic evaluation of the safety of coordinated mining of scarce strategic minerals can be achieved, and the ideal safety state of coordinated mining can be defined accordingly. Step 4: Based on the coordinated mining degree evaluation index system constructed in Step 3 and the defined ideal coordinated mining safety state, and in combination with the actual production progress plan, the coordinated mining degree is quantitatively evaluated.

[0007] Furthermore, in step 1, based on the monitoring data from the on-site hydrological observation wells, a groundwater level map of the first mining area and surrounding areas is drawn using numerical simulation or interpolation methods, thereby observing the bidirectional disturbance between the coal mining area and the uranium mining area. The mining misalignment levels are divided into four levels: Level I is a risk-free or low-risk misalignment, and the criterion is that the average water level drop in the uranium mine is ≤0.2m; Level II is a low-risk misalignment, and the criterion is that the average water level drop in the uranium mine is 0.2–0.5m; Level III is a high-risk misalignment, and the criterion is that if the average water level drop in the uranium mine is 0.5–1.0m and radon gas is detected in the coal mine; Level IV is a misalignment indicating that coordinated mining has failed, and the criterion is that if the water level drop in the uranium mine is ≥1.0m and radon gas exceeds the standard in the coal mine.

[0008] Furthermore, in step 2, the specific technical measures adopted under different mining misalignment levels are as follows: Level I adopts natural isolation; Level II adopts dynamic control measures, including coal mining intensity control, dynamic water level adjustment and transition zone pollution monitoring, uranium mine circulation system optimization and seepage prevention measures; Level III adopts engineering isolation measures, including the construction of underground continuous water-tight curtains, supplemented by dynamic monitoring and emergency mechanisms; Level IV adopts measures to stop conventional mining, and ensures safety through adjustments to mining sequence or spatial layout.

[0009] Furthermore, in step 2, a risk-measure assessment matrix of resource loss risk and prevention and control capability is constructed with the misalignment level as the horizontal axis, the measure type as the vertical axis, and the risk mitigation capability score as the cell content; The scoring principle for risk mitigation capability is based on expert discussion, mainly considering the magnitude of resource loss risk, the control capability of measures, and the technical feasibility and economy. The magnitude of resource loss risk includes the amplitude of water level disturbance and the possibility of pollutant migration. The control capability of measures includes the applicability and effectiveness of natural isolation, dynamic regulation, and engineering isolation. The technical feasibility and economy include the scale of engineering investment and marginal benefits. Among them, the risk mitigation capability score is negatively related to the misalignment level, that is, the higher the misalignment level, the lower the score, and even increasing the intensity of the measure type cannot significantly improve the situation. Within a safe range, adopt technical measures that match the offset level; avoid excessive technical investment under low risk; prohibit the use of insufficient measures when approaching or exceeding the safe offset threshold; and adjust the mining sequence or spatial layout when the operation is deemed infeasible at level IV.

[0010] Furthermore, in step 3, the coordinated mining degree evaluation index system consists of a risk layer and a state layer, wherein: The risk layer includes three criteria layers: resource loss risk, safety accident risk, and environmental damage risk. Resource loss risk includes the matching degree between mining misalignment and technical measures. Safety accident risk includes three indicators: unit mining casualty rate, ratio of shutdown time caused by safety accidents, and occupational disease incidence rate. Environmental damage risk includes four indicators: ratio of surface subsidence damage area to the entire mining area, ratio of untreated or substandard wastewater, ratio of untreated or substandard solid waste, and ratio of untreated or substandard exhaust gas. The status layer includes three criteria layers: resource recovery rate, production safety, and ecological environment status. The resource recovery rate includes two indicators: the recovery rate of coal mining areas and the recovery rate of heterogeneous uranium mining areas. The production safety status includes six indicators: the ratio of safe production time, the ratio of people receiving safety production training, the score of the safety production knowledge questionnaire, the coverage rate of safety risk classification and control, the integrity rate of safety facilities and equipment, and the pass rate of emergency rescue plan drills. The ecological environment status includes the comprehensive utilization rate of gangue, the comprehensive utilization rate of wastewater, the comprehensive utilization rate of solid waste, the green coverage rate of mining areas, the land reclamation rate of mining areas, and the ratio of the duration of compliance with air pollution standards.

[0011] Furthermore, in step 4, the coordinated mining degree evaluation step includes: For indicators with different dimensions, range standardization is used to perform dimensionless processing; For indicators with uniform standards, a threshold-based piecewise function is used for scoring. For indicators that lack unified standards, benchmark values ​​are set based on expert experience and scoring functions are constructed.

[0012] Furthermore, the weights of the indicators are determined using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), including the following steps: Construct judgment matrices for each criterion layer and for different indicators within each criterion layer, and perform pairwise comparisons for each criterion layer and for each indicator within the same criterion layer. Calculate the largest eigenvalue and eigenvector to obtain the weights of each indicator; A consistency test is performed, and the weight allocation is considered reasonable when the consistency ratio is less than 0.1.

[0013] Furthermore, calculate the comprehensive evaluation value of coordinated mining degree: For each criterion level, the standardized score of each indicator is weighted and summed with its weight relative to the criterion level to obtain the score of each criterion level. Then, the scores of each criterion level are weighted and summed with the weight of the criterion level relative to the target level to obtain the comprehensive evaluation value of the coordinated mining degree, which characterizes the degree of deviation between the actual mining plan and the ideal coordinated state.

[0014] The beneficial technical effects of this invention are as follows: By establishing a coordinated mining degree assessment method based on mining misalignment, we can scientifically identify the risks of resource loss and pollution under different mining misalignment conditions, achieve precise matching of technical measures and risk levels, effectively avoid high-risk or failure misalignment situations, and thus ensure resource security and sustainable mine development. Attached Figure Description

[0015] Figure 1 This is a flowchart of the steps of the present invention; Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of a water level funnel according to an embodiment of the present invention; Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram illustrating the classification of mining offset levels according to an embodiment of the present invention; Figure 4 This is a schematic diagram of the assessment matrix for resource loss risk and prevention capabilities in an embodiment of the present invention; Detailed Implementation

[0016] The specific embodiments of the present invention will be further described below with reference to specific examples: A method for assessing the coordinated mining degree of coal and heterogeneous uranium deposits based on mining offset, such as... Figure 1 As shown, it includes the following steps: Step 1: Using field data and data simulation methods, characterize the disturbance effect of coal mining on regional hydrogeological conditions and uranium leaching process, reveal the two-way interference mechanism under the condition of coordinated coal and uranium mining, and determine the mining misalignment level. In the coordinated mining of coal and uranium, uranium leaching is highly dependent on groundwater. Longwall mining in coal, through dewatering, alters the aquifer structure, creating a drawdown cone, leading to insufficient water supply to the uranium deposit and solution loss. Simultaneously, the drawdown cone changes the groundwater flow field, potentially allowing uranium-containing pollutants to migrate to the coal mining area, threatening production safety. Therefore, scientifically determining the reasonable spatial offset between coal and uranium mining areas, controlling the horizontal distance at the boundaries, and severing hydraulic connections are crucial to reducing resource loss and pollution risks.

[0017] Based on the monitoring data from the on-site hydrological observation wells, groundwater level maps of the first mining area and surrounding areas are drawn using numerical simulation or interpolation methods, thereby observing the bidirectional disturbance between the coal mining area and the uranium mining area.

[0018] The mining misalignment levels are divided into four levels. Level I is a risk-free or low-risk misalignment, characterized by minimal disturbance to uranium mine water levels, with an average water level drop of ≤0.2m. Level II is a low-risk misalignment, characterized by slight impact on uranium mine water levels, with minor fluctuations, and an average water level drop of 0.2–0.5m. Level III is a high-risk misalignment, characterized by an average water level drop of 0.5–1.0m and the detection of radon in the coal mine. Level IV is a misalignment indicating uncoordinated mining failure, characterized by water level fluctuations that are difficult to control with engineering measures, requiring replanning of mining operations, and characterized by a water level drop of ≥1.0m and radon exceeding the standard in the coal mine.

[0019] Step 2: Using the mining misalignment level as a key control variable, and combining the technical measures under different levels, construct a risk-measure assessment matrix of resource loss risk and prevention and control capabilities; Specifically, the technical measures adopted under different mining offset levels are as follows: Level I adopts natural isolation; Level II adopts dynamic control measures, including coal mining intensity control, dynamic water level adjustment and transition zone pollution monitoring, uranium mine circulation system optimization and seepage prevention measures; Level III adopts engineering isolation measures, including the construction of underground continuous water-tight curtains, supplemented by dynamic monitoring and emergency mechanisms; Level IV adopts measures to stop conventional mining, and ensures safety through adjustments to mining sequence or spatial layout.

[0020] A risk-measure assessment matrix for resource loss risk and prevention and control capability is constructed with misalignment level as the horizontal axis, measure type as the vertical axis, and risk mitigation capability score as the cell content. The scoring principle for risk mitigation capability is based on expert discussion, mainly considering the magnitude of resource loss risk, the control capability of measures, and the technical feasibility and economy. The magnitude of resource loss risk includes the magnitude of water level disturbance and the possibility of pollutant migration. The control capability of measures includes the applicability and effectiveness of natural isolation, dynamic regulation, and engineering isolation. The technical feasibility and economy include the scale of engineering investment and marginal benefits. Among them, the risk mitigation capability score is negatively related to the misalignment level, that is, the higher the misalignment level, the lower the score, and even increasing the intensity of the measure type cannot significantly improve the situation. Within a safe range, adopt technical measures that match the offset level; avoid excessive technical investment under low risk; prohibit the use of insufficient measures when approaching or exceeding the safe offset threshold; and adjust the mining sequence or spatial layout when the operation is deemed infeasible at level IV.

[0021] Step 3: Construct a coordinated mining evaluation index system. By quantifying the resource preservation level and pollution risk under different misalignment conditions, a systematic evaluation of the safety of coordinated mining of scarce strategic minerals can be achieved, and the ideal safety state of coordinated mining can be defined accordingly. The coordinated mining efficiency evaluation index system consists of a risk layer and a state layer, wherein: The risk layer includes three criteria layers: resource loss risk, safety accident risk, and environmental damage risk. Resource loss risk includes the matching degree between mining misalignment and technical measures. Safety accident risk includes three indicators: unit mining casualty rate, ratio of shutdown time caused by safety accidents, and occupational disease incidence rate. Environmental damage risk includes four indicators: ratio of surface subsidence damage area to the entire mining area, ratio of untreated or substandard wastewater, ratio of untreated or substandard solid waste, and ratio of untreated or substandard exhaust gas. The status layer includes three criteria layers: resource recovery rate, production safety, and ecological environment status. The resource recovery rate includes two indicators: the recovery rate of coal mining areas and the recovery rate of heterogeneous uranium mining areas. The production safety status includes six indicators: the ratio of safe production time, the ratio of people receiving safety production training, the score of the safety production knowledge questionnaire, the coverage rate of safety risk classification and control, the integrity rate of safety facilities and equipment, and the pass rate of emergency rescue plan drills. The ecological environment status includes the comprehensive utilization rate of gangue, the comprehensive utilization rate of wastewater, the comprehensive utilization rate of solid waste, the green coverage rate of mining areas, the land reclamation rate of mining areas, and the ratio of the duration of compliance with air pollution standards.

[0022] The evaluation index system covers three dimensions: (1) Resource security, assessing resource recovery rate and preservation status; (2) Mine safety production, assessing injury rate, occupational health level, equipment integrity rate and emergency response capability; (3) Environmental protection, assessment of surface subsidence treatment, waste disposal in compliance with standards, ecological restoration and pollution prevention and control.

[0023] Step 4: Based on the coordinated mining degree evaluation index system constructed in Step 3 and the defined ideal coordinated mining safety state, and in combination with the actual production progress plan, the coordinated mining degree is quantitatively evaluated.

[0024] The steps for coordinating the mining intensity assessment include: For indicators with different dimensions, range standardization is used to perform dimensionless processing; For indicators with uniform standards, a threshold-based piecewise function is used for scoring. For indicators that lack unified standards, benchmark values ​​are set based on expert experience and scoring functions are constructed.

[0025] The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is used to determine the weights of indicators, including the following steps: Construct a judgment matrix and perform pairwise comparisons of indicators under the same criterion level; Calculate the largest eigenvalue and eigenvector to obtain the weights of each indicator; A consistency test is performed, and the weight allocation is considered reasonable when the consistency ratio is less than 0.1.

[0026] Calculate the comprehensive evaluation value of coordinated mining degree: The standardized scores of each indicator are weighted and summed with their corresponding weights to obtain a comprehensive evaluation value of the coordinated mining degree, which characterizes the degree of deviation between the actual mining plan and the ideal coordinated state. Example

[0027] A coal-uranium coordinated mining area in Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region was selected as the research object. The mining area is approximately 23 km long from east to west and 10 km wide from north to south, with a total area of ​​approximately 207.91 km². It is generally a gently dipping monocline structure with a dip angle of 5°–8°. The primary coal mining area is located in the southeast of the mining area, covering approximately 32 km², and mainly mines the No. 12 coal seam using the longwall mining method. The uranium mining area is located in the southwest of the mining area, covering approximately 27.29 km², and is mined using the solution leaching method.

[0028] In the implementation of this invention, the basic data used include geological data of the mining area, hydrogeological data, and production technology and economic indicators.

[0029] Based on monitoring data from on-site hydrological observation wells, a groundwater level map of the initial mining area and surrounding areas was drawn, such as... Figure 2 As shown in the figure. The results indicate that coal mining has not yet had a significant impact on the uranium mining area, the groundwater level has remained basically stable, and no pollutants from uranium ore leaching solutions were detected in the coal mining area. The data in the groundwater level map are shown in Table 1; Table 1 Groundwater Observation Data ; Based on the misalignment classification standard proposed in this invention, the spatial relationship of the current coal-uranium mining area is determined to be Level I (no / weak risk misalignment), such as... Figure 3 As shown. At this level, the hydraulic connection is extremely weak, the risk of pollution is extremely low, and each mining area can be mined independently without the need for additional engineering measures.

[0030] Combining the mining offset-measure assessment matrix, such as Figure 4 As shown, the prevention and control capabilities under different scenarios are analyzed. Since we are currently at Level I, this embodiment only needs to maintain natural isolation conditions and continue routine monitoring of water level and water quality.

[0031] To quantify the degree of coordination, an evaluation index system for coordinated mining was constructed, encompassing resource security, production safety, and environmental protection. A judgment matrix was constructed based on expert opinions, and the weights were calculated using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) with consistency checks performed. The results showed that the weight allocation was reasonable. The scores of each indicator were weighted and summed to obtain a comprehensive evaluation value of 0.9093 for the coordinated mining degree of the mining area.

[0032] To evaluate the coordination level of actual mining schemes, a coordinated mining degree evaluation index system covering the risk layer and the state layer was constructed, as shown in Table 2.

[0033] Table 2 Evaluation Index System for Coordinated Mining of Coal and Heterogeneous Uranium Deposits ; In the process of assigning values ​​to indicators, the range standardization method is used to normalize indicators with different dimensions; for indicators with clear standards, a threshold judgment function is constructed to assign scores; for indicators without standards, a benchmark value is set and a function is constructed by combining expert experience.

[0034] In determining the weights, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is used to construct weight judgment matrices for each indicator layer and the criteria layer. Pairwise comparisons are then performed on each criterion layer and the indicators within the same criterion layer. The judgment matrix for the criteria layer indicators is as follows: ; The largest eigenvalue and eigenvector are calculated, the weights of each indicator are obtained, and a consistency check is performed. The calculation results show that the largest eigenvalue... =6.2169, consistency ratio CR=0.035, less than 0.1, the weight allocation is reasonable, and the scores of each indicator, weight allocation and final coordinated mining degree of the mine are shown in Table 3.

[0035] Table 3 Assessment of Coal-Uranium Mine Coordination in Mining ; According to the coordinated mining degree grading standard, as shown in Table 4, this mine belongs to the "excellent" level, indicating that the current offset in the coal-uranium mining area is reasonable, the resource preservation level is high, and the pollution risk is controllable. This result verifies the applicability of the method of this invention, enabling the scientific identification of risk levels under different offset conditions, matching corresponding measures, and quantitatively evaluating actual mining plans.

[0036] Table 4. Standards for Coordinated Mining Degree Grading ; This embodiment demonstrates that the coordinated mining degree assessment method based on mining offset proposed in this invention can effectively guide the spatial layout and safety management of coal-uranium co-existing areas, improve resource utilization efficiency and reduce environmental risks, and provide technical support for the sustainable development of scarce strategic minerals.

[0037] Of course, the above description is not intended to limit the present invention, and the present invention is not limited to the examples given above. Any changes, modifications, additions or substitutions made by those skilled in the art within the scope of the present invention should also fall within the protection scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for assessing the coordinated mining degree of coal and heterogeneous uranium deposits based on mining offset, characterized in that, Includes the following steps: Step 1: Using field data, characterize the disturbance effect of coal mining on regional hydrogeological conditions and uranium leaching process, reveal the two-way interference mechanism under the condition of coordinated coal and uranium mining, and determine the mining misalignment level. Step 2: Using the mining misalignment level as a key control variable, and combining the technical measures under different levels, construct a risk-measure assessment matrix of resource loss risk and prevention and control capabilities; Step 3: Construct a coordinated mining evaluation index system. By quantifying the resource preservation level and pollution risk under different misalignment conditions, a systematic evaluation of the safety of coordinated mining of scarce strategic minerals can be achieved, and the ideal safety state of coordinated mining can be defined accordingly. Step 4: Based on the coordinated mining degree evaluation index system constructed in Step 3 and the defined ideal coordinated mining safety state, and in combination with the actual production progress plan, the coordinated mining degree is quantitatively evaluated.

2. The method for evaluating the coordinated mining degree of coal and heterogeneous uranium deposits based on mining offset as described in claim 1, characterized in that, In step 1, groundwater level maps of the first mining area and surrounding areas are drawn using numerical simulation or interpolation methods based on monitoring data from on-site hydrological observation wells, thereby observing the bidirectional disturbance between the coal mining area and the uranium mining area. The mining misalignment levels are divided into four levels: Level I is a risk-free or low-risk misalignment, and the criterion is that the average water level drop in the uranium mine is ≤0.2 m; Level II is a low-risk misalignment, and the criterion is that the average water level drop in the uranium mine is 0.2–0.5 m; Level III is a high-risk misalignment, and the criterion is that the average water level drop in the uranium mine is 0.5–1.0 m and radon gas is detected in the coal mine; Level IV is a misalignment indicating that coordinated mining has failed, and the criterion is that the water level drop in the uranium mine is ≥1.0 m and radon gas exceeds the standard in the coal mine.

3. The method for evaluating the coordinated mining degree of coal and heterogeneous uranium deposits based on mining offset as described in claim 1, characterized in that, In step 2, the specific technical measures adopted under different mining misalignment levels are as follows: Level I adopts natural isolation; Level II adopts dynamic control measures, including coal mining intensity control, dynamic water level adjustment and transition zone pollution monitoring, uranium mine circulation system optimization and seepage prevention measures; Level III adopts engineering isolation measures, including the construction of underground continuous water-tight curtains, supplemented by dynamic monitoring and emergency mechanisms; Level IV adopts measures to stop conventional mining, and ensures safety through adjustments to mining sequence or spatial layout.

4. The method for evaluating the coordinated mining degree of coal and heterogeneous uranium deposits based on mining offset as described in claim 1, characterized in that, In step 2, a risk-measure assessment matrix of resource loss risk and prevention and control capability is constructed with the misalignment level as the horizontal axis, the measure type as the vertical axis, and the risk mitigation capability score as the cell content. The scoring principle for risk mitigation capability is based on expert discussion, mainly considering the magnitude of resource loss risk, the control capability of measures, and the technical feasibility and economy. The magnitude of resource loss risk includes the amplitude of water level disturbance and the possibility of pollutant migration. The control capability of measures includes the applicability and effectiveness of natural isolation, dynamic regulation, and engineering isolation. The technical feasibility and economy include the scale of engineering investment and marginal benefits. Among them, the risk mitigation capability score is negatively related to the misalignment level, that is, the higher the misalignment level, the lower the score, and even increasing the intensity of the measure type cannot significantly improve the situation. Within a safe range, adopt technical measures that match the offset level; avoid excessive technical investment under low risk; prohibit the use of insufficient measures when approaching or exceeding the safe offset threshold; and adjust the mining sequence or spatial layout when the operation is deemed infeasible at level IV.

5. The method for evaluating the coordinated mining degree of coal and heterogeneous uranium deposits based on mining offset as described in claim 1, characterized in that, In step 3, the coordinated mining degree evaluation index system consists of a risk layer and a state layer, wherein: The risk layer includes three criteria layers: resource loss risk, safety accident risk, and environmental damage risk. Resource loss risk includes the matching degree between mining misalignment and technical measures. Safety accident risk includes three indicators: unit mining casualty rate, ratio of shutdown time caused by safety accidents, and occupational disease incidence rate. Environmental damage risk includes four indicators: ratio of surface subsidence damage area to the entire mining area, ratio of untreated or substandard wastewater, ratio of untreated or substandard solid waste, and ratio of untreated or substandard exhaust gas. The status layer includes three criteria layers: resource recovery rate, production safety, and ecological environment status. The resource recovery rate includes two indicators: the recovery rate of coal mining areas and the recovery rate of heterogeneous uranium mining areas. The production safety status includes six indicators: the ratio of safe production time, the ratio of people receiving safety production training, the score of the safety production knowledge questionnaire, the coverage rate of safety risk classification and control, the integrity rate of safety facilities and equipment, and the pass rate of emergency rescue plan drills. The ecological environment status includes the comprehensive utilization rate of gangue, the comprehensive utilization rate of wastewater, the comprehensive utilization rate of solid waste, the green coverage rate of mining areas, the land reclamation rate of mining areas, and the ratio of the duration of compliance with air pollution standards.

6. The method for evaluating the coordinated mining degree of coal and heterogeneous uranium deposits based on mining offset as described in claim 1, characterized in that, Step 4, the coordinated mining degree evaluation step, includes: For indicators with different dimensions, range standardization is used to perform dimensionless processing; For indicators with uniform standards, a threshold-based piecewise function is used for scoring. For indicators that lack unified standards, benchmark values ​​are set based on expert experience and scoring functions are constructed.

7. The method for evaluating the coordinated mining degree of coal and heterogeneous uranium deposits based on mining offset as described in claim 1, characterized in that, The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is used to determine the weights of indicators, including the following steps: Construct judgment matrices for each criterion layer and for different indicators within each criterion layer, and perform pairwise comparisons for each criterion layer and for each indicator within the same criterion layer. Calculate the largest eigenvalue and eigenvector to obtain the weights of each indicator; A consistency test is performed, and the weight allocation is considered reasonable when the consistency ratio is less than 0.

1.

8. The method for evaluating the coordinated mining degree of coal and heterogeneous uranium deposits based on mining offset as described in claim 1, characterized in that, Calculate the comprehensive evaluation value of coordinated mining degree: For each criterion level, the standardized score of each indicator is weighted and summed with its weight relative to the criterion level to obtain the score of each criterion level. The scores of each criterion layer are then weighted and summed with the weights of the criterion layers relative to the target layer to obtain a comprehensive evaluation value of the coordinated mining degree, which characterizes the degree of deviation between the actual mining plan and the ideal coordinated state.

Images