My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2016-10-27_REVISION - C1981041
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981041
>
2016-10-27_REVISION - C1981041
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/3/2017 12:00:39 PM
Creation date
10/27/2016 12:27:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981041
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
10/27/2016
From
James A. Beckwith Attorney & Councelor at Law
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR69
Email Name
BFB
DIH
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
217
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
JAMES A. BECKWITH <br />LETTER TO BROCK BOWLES, CO DRMS / SNOWCAP COAL COMPANY RECLAMATION / PG. 5 <br />subsidence as "acceptable" conduct without penalty. But Mr. Stover intentionally used the terms <br />he did and they must be interpreted as he wrote them. <br />The subsidence damages to the Fontanari and Carey properties are real, extensive, and <br />will continue for several decades. They cannot be resolved by a one time fix. Because the <br />Snowcap Plan believes one fix in a small patch of ground is the "be all end all" of repairs, then <br />the Plan must be rejected. Its operating assumption is grossly in error on science, facts and law. <br />(C) Snowcap's Field Analysis Is Self -Conflicting, Contradictory and Inconclusive. <br />The damages caused by surface subsidence are simple to describe. Surface water cannot <br />be applied in agricultural irrigation because the water runs down a sinkhole and "immediately <br />disappears". This occurred in 201411; in April, 201612; and, again, in August, 2016.13 In 2014, <br />Snowcap tracked the disappearing water directly to the collapse mine cavern. For unknown <br />reasons, Fugro, even to the most uninformed observer, the speed with which this water <br />"disappeared down the hole" suggests a direct, open and unobstructed sub -surface connection <br />between the irrigation ditch and the collapsed mine caverns 100 feet below. <br />The consensus of Snowcap's consultants is that water goes down a sinkhole in the <br />irrigation ditch 14, travels by some sub -surface anomaly to the air ventilation shaft15 and, after <br />reaching the ventilation shaft runs down into the collapsed mine caverns. 16 Snowcap's dilemma <br />is that none of its experts agree on this supposed connection, and the field evidence does not <br />support it. <br />In April, 2016, Fugro reported that ERT testing identified vertical sub -surface <br />"anomalies" below the air ventilation shaft but several yards away from the irrigation ditch <br />sinkhole. 17 [Fugro; Fig. 2; 4.18.16] Fugro admitted that it could not definitively and absolutely <br />determine a connection between mine and irrigation ditch sinkhole. [SCC Plan; Pg. A-14-14-11] <br />Nonetheless, Fugro hypothesized: <br />"A sinkhole or sinkhole like feature due to roof failure into the mine workings <br />below is a possible cause of the anomaly. It is unlikely that a large void is present <br />at the location of the anomaly but a series of smaller void and/or fracture rock <br />11 Michael Boulay Report; 6.11.2014; Fontanari Appendix A, 5.6.16 Response. This incident is also <br />described by Snowcap at Pg. 14-33 of the Proposed Plan. <br />12 Fig. 4, 4.23.16 Report <br />13 Fig. 4, 8.23.16 Report <br />14 This sinkhole is shown in Fugro's Fig. 4 (4.25.16; 8.23.16) <br />15 This ventilation shaft is shown in Fugro's Fig. 3 (4.25.16; 8.23.16] <br />16 "Based upon all of the available data, HBET believes that the horizontal anomaly (found by Fugro) <br />represents the pathway from the sinkhole openings to the old air shaft." [HEBT; 8.23.16; Pg. A14-15-1 <br />17 Fontanari commented that Fugro's ERT readings were contrary to known science. That is, Fugro <br />obtained high resistivity readings in areas where there should have been low resistivity (given natural <br />conditions) and vice -versa. 5.6.16; Letter to Brock Bowles; Pg. 4-5; Deficiency #4 Those criticisms are <br />retained and incorporated herein. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.