2016-10-27_REVISION - C1981041 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JAMES A. BECKWITH LETTER TO BROCK BOWLES, CO DBMS / SNOWCAP COAL COMPANY RECLAMATION / PG. 9 We need not argue further. Snowcap dumped water down the air shaft — not the rockpile — and the air shaft repelled the water causing surface overflow. How much is not reported, but we can postulate mathematically. It takes 7.48 gallons of water to comprise one cubic foot. 2,000 gallons of water means 267.4 cubic feet. If the air shaft is 1 ft square and 100 ft deep to the collapsed mine cavern, that would equal only 100 cubic feet leaving 167.4 cubic feet (1,252 gallons) of water. If the air shaft is plugged, say, 25 ft down from the surface, then only 25 cubic feet is in the shaft and the remainder (1,813 gallons of water) would be spilling on to the surface. That amount of spillage would not go unnoticed — even by a non-scientist — and would indicate significant blockage in the air shaft. Indeed, Snowcap makes the following conclusion — adjusting for its mistaken reference to the rock pile: "...the water reached equilibrium and overflowed, spilling out on to the adjacent ground. The water did not disappear down hole which indicates no hydrologic connectivity....". [Pg. 14-35] Thus, HBET's hypothesis that there exists a ditch -to -anomaly -to -shaft -to -mine hydrologic communication is not simply unsupported by the Fugro reports but it is refuted by Snowcap's own experiment. Water does not travel down the air shaft because it is plugged. For water to disappear down the irrigation ditch sinkhole, there must be another sub -surface void, whose location is unknown. Moreover, the refutation of Mr. Berry's hypothesis also confirms (caused?) the disclaimers made by Fugro and HBET. Fugro was unable to establish any definite connection between the anomalies, the irrigation ditch and the air shaft. Indeed, Fugro openly states: " The ERT survey cannot determine absolutely the cause of the anomalies identified in the data." [8.23.16 Report; Pg. A14-15-9] For itself, HBET ultimately admits, after review of Fugro's April and August, reports, that it is only "apparent" and not "definite" that sub -surface "anomalies" connected to any surface manifestations. (A14-15-1) Snowcap's refutation of HBET's hypothesis also discredits the reliability of the Repair Plan proposed by Snowcap. A reasonable person would not commit to digging, grouting and covering up the air shaft when there is no connectivity between the air shaft, the mine, and the irrigation ditch. Accordingly, the Repair Plan must be dismissed as unreliable and unfounded. (D) Snowcap's Claim of Agricultural Abandonment Is Without Factual Support Snowcap blithely states that prior agrarian activities on Fontanari and Carey lands were not "...in any way successful....". [9.27.16 Cover letter; Pg. 2] Snowcap cites the presence of invasive weeds (cheat grass) to conclude that the landowners have "abandoned" agricultural pursuits on the property. This claim is without supporting evidence and embarrassingly simplistic.