Laserfiche WebLink
7/17/2015 <br />State.co.us Executive Branch Mail - Fwd: 2012 Southfield AHR <br />Appendix A is attached. Please include it in our formal response. It was apparently inadvertently dropped as <br />the document was finalized and circulated for review. This was my mistake. My apologies for any <br />inconvenience. <br />Kent Gorham <br />Gorham Energy Consultants, LLC <br />13356 Wild Basin Way <br />Broomfield CO 80020 <br />(303) 870-3787 (c) <br />(303) 465-1274 (h) <br />This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual(s) named. If you are not <br />the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender <br />immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E- <br />mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error -free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, <br />lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for <br />any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If <br />verification is required please request a hard -copy version. <br />-------- Original Message -------- <br />Subject: Re: 2012 Southfield AHR <br />From: "Simmons - DNR, Leigh" <leigh.simmons(state.co.us> <br />Date: Tue, July 14, 2015 11:16 am <br />To: Kent Gorham <kent gorhamenergyconsultants.com> <br />Cc: Rob Zuber <Rob.Zuber@state.co.us>, Mike Boulay - DNR <br /><mi ke. boulay@state. co. us> <br />Kent, <br />The 2012 AHR is the first in which I see the blockage documented, but as George acknowledged in <br />his letter of June 11 (http://drmsweblink.state.co.us/drmsweblink/0/doc/l085251/Pagel.aspx? <br />searchid= b694bb4d-3d7d-4563-8f4f-82d36d461783): <br />"When the well casing failed and the partial obstruction occurred in the casing is <br />unknown. With the well being dry since it was approved for monitoring and the electronic well <br />monitoring probe only responding when the probe contacts water, if water is contacted, the well <br />is then measured for depth to water." <br />He goes on to assert that: <br />"There was no reason to suspect that the probe was not reaching the full depth of the well. It is <br />reasonable to expect that the earlier monitoring of MW -NW... was reaching the bottom of the <br />well and the "dry" monitoring readings recorded are considered as viable monitoring data for the <br />hydrologic records." <br />I don't accept that as a valid conclusion. It is unlikely that the mine workings were dry at that location <br />(based on mine inflow data reported previously, and the local topography in that part of the mine). The <br />conclusion I draw from the fact that George's probe did not contact water is that his probe did not <br />reach the full depth of the hole - however, since depth was never measured we can't prove it one way <br />or the other. In the absence of any additional information all we can state with any confidence is that <br />the hole was dry to the depth where a blockage was later identified. <br />EFCI's case is not strengthened by a continued promotion of the value of data recorded at MWNW, <br />so let's leave that to one side. <br />The reason for this email is to follow up on the letter you hand delivered yesterday. In it you referred to <br />Appendix A, which apparently documents the results of the effort to secure additional bids for the <br />drilling project. The appendix was not included in the document you delivered - can you forward a copy <br />to us? <br />Thanks, <br />https://m ai I .googl e.com/m ai I/u/0/?ui= 2&i k=e29129fcb5&view= pt&search= i nbox&th=14e98deOe63c521 a&si m l=14e98deOe63c521 a 213 <br />