2015-06-02_REVISION - M2014045 (8)

Home Browse Search

Comment 4 Revise Section 7 so DRMS can determine potential acid generation Response: Additional discussion has added regarding the handling of potential acid generating material, if it should ever be found. Comment 5 Revise Section 10 so DRMS can determine Potential acid generation Response: The section has been modified to reflect the DRMS demand. Since the possible volume (none found to date) of any potentially acid generating rock would be small, if found at all, it can be easily managed underground without storing it on the surface. Thus, there is no need for surface containment. Comment 6 Geochemical Data and Analysis for Sample MH -3 Response: We are quite familiar with CC&V and their history with you. However, one thing you are confusing is the source of their new iron sulfide and their solution with respect to what we are dealing with. Recall back when you and I discussed the Mineral Hill project being located within rock that is similar to the top of their original pit. Also remember when you initially were adamant about the permit area on Mineral Hill being within Precambrian rock, and recall that you were wrong. You might also not have full understanding of the CC&V site and some of the nuances associated with their new orebodies. The rock they want to be sending to their mill is not quite the same as at the Mineral Hill site. As already outlined in paragraph one of Section 7 in the Environmental Protection Plan, the materials will be monitored, and will be tested if found to be potentially acid generating. I believe that the plan is sufficiently detailed to protect the environment. Per your Comment 4, a portion of this section has already been revised to provide a plan in the event potentially acid generating material is ever found. Comment 7 Map E -1A is Unacceptable, Unprofessional - Come on Mr. Braun Response: You are exactly correct that a map with those attributes would be unsuitable, especially if it the print were too small to read and the scale did not fit within DRMS rules. However, I did not submit that map for you to review, and it is somewhat of a mystery where you would have come up with it. The fact is that two copies of the map were sent along with my response letter dated February 10, 2015, to you via registered mail the next day on February 11. I have the return receipt. I would have much preferred that you had just called me so that we could have simply resolved this issue. If you had called, I could have directed you to simply look through you own DRMS files until you found them instead of trying to read something on a postage stamp. I find you words and unprofessional behavior quite distasteful in this instance. However, at this point, this issue is easiest resolved by us simply including two additional sealed maps. If you find the other maps, you will have extras, and if not, you can no longer blame us.