2016-10-27_REVISION - C1981041 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JAMES A. BECKWITH LETTER TO BROCK BOWLES, CO DRMS / SNOWCAP COAL COMPANY RECLAMATION / PG. 7 testing methods in April were deficient and simply failed to discover the horizontal anomalies. Whichever, Fugro concluded: The ERT survey cannot determine absolutely the cause of the anomalies identified in the data. The presence of an isolated vertical anomaly in a horizontally layered geologic section is significant especially since the location of the anomaly corresponds to sink hole like surface features and is located in the area of a vertical air shaft. The natural flow of groundwater is expected to be primarily horizontal in the geologic section ... which underlies the area. Vertical flow would occur along features that create permeability across horizontal layering such as fracturing. This fracturing would also tend to decrease the bulk resistivity of the rock units particularly if the fractures are filled or at least wetted with groundwater. The vertical shaft ... may also act as a vertical pathway for groundwater depending on how it was sealed. The presence of depressions and sinkholes in the area suggest that vertical failure has occurred in the area." [Plan; Pg. A14-15-9] Once again, Fugro found a connection between collapsed caverns and surface subsidence depressions: i.e., the "vertical failure in the area". HBET did not comment on this conclusion. Yet, in keeping with its unsupported belief that a mine cavern 100 ft. below the surface was too distant to cause surface issues, HBET wrote: "Based upon all the available data, HBET believes that the horizontal anomaly represents the pathway from the sinkhole openings to the old air shaft. The recent survey also identifies a horizontal anomaly north of the air shaft. However, the anomaly does not appear to connect to the air shaft. In addition, no surface sinkhole expression was observed in this area. Although the survey identified two horizontal anomalies, the data did not identify any horizontal anomaly extending from the rock pile feature discussed in the report. 19 As indicated in the referenced Fugro report, water was dumped into this feature and as a result, HBET would have anticipated that any horizontal anomaly extending from this location would be identified during the survey." [Plan; Pgs. A14-15-1 to 15-2] (Emphasis Supplied) The problem is that undisputed and undisputable surface conditions — at least those currently known and identified by Snowcap (there are more) - simply do not support HBET's simplistic conclusion. Ironically, these unsupporting conditions do not come from Fontanari. They are found, instead, in Snowcap's own report! There are three locations of surface holes in Fontanari Tract 71: the irrigation ditch; the air ventilation shaft; and, the "rockpile". None of these surface features have the same appearance. It is important to note that Snowcap's Figure 14-17 clearly plots these three surface hole as separate and distinct from each other. SEE: Appendix J. Unfortunately, after plotting 19 The rock pile is shown in Fig. 14-17 of the Plan. It is located SE of the air ventilation shaft. A photograph taken October 23, 2016, is attached as Appendix K.