2017-04-06_REVISION - C1981041 (7)

Home Browse Search

JAMES A. BECKWITH SNOWCAP COAL / TR -69 / SUMMARY OF FONTANARI OBJECTIONS / PG. 6 Fontanari has proposed this precise alternative repair. Snowcap has never objected to the Fontanari Repair Plan. Yet, Snowcap has never, on its own, accepted alternative irrigation and the piping necessary to perform drip or sprinkler irrigation. Snowcap simply — and flatly — refuses to consider these alternatives. 10. Dumping; Water In The Sinkholes After The Proposed Plugs Are Installed: The proof is in the pudding. If the Board approves installation of the proposed plugs, then Fontanari will simply apply flood irrigation to the surface troughs and the sinkholes not covered by the proposed plugs. The result is predictable. Whether by the other existing sinkholes or by puddling in the bottom of the troughs, water will flow into soils and coal caverns below the proposed plugs. 11. Failure to Fill Surface Troughs: One final comment must be made. There are two surface troughs on the two tracts. Snowcap's proposed plugs are not to be located in either trough. Snowcap does not propose to level either tract to tillable condition. Snowcap will only level the lugs, leaving the two surface troughs in their present untillable and unusable condition. 12. The Air Shaft Is Filled And Will Not Accept Water: In August, 2016, during the Fugro ERT testing, Snowcap attempted to dump 2,500 gallons of water down the air ventilation shaft. The shaft refused to accept the water and the water overflowed on to surround ground. Mr. Stover would later state that the air shaft had been filled and compacted some time, perhaps, in the 1970's. (Repair Plan; Pg. 9/16) Mr. Stover did not perform any further tests or inspections of the air shaft to determine whether it was open at deeper elevations below the surface. How, then, could he or Snowcap postulate that water flowed from the sub -surface anomalies into the air shaft and down into the coal caverns? CONCLUSION In its Decision, SL -08, DRMS insisted that Snowcap prevent the loss of surface irrigation water through subsidence caused defaults: i.e., sinkholes and sub -surface fissures, chimneys and cracks. DRMS insisted that the surface be reclaimed to tillable, irrigable condition — that is, usable by Fontanari and Carey for agricultural pursuits. This duty is explicitly set forth in Rule 4.20.3(a), Mining Rules. Snowcap has failed to comply. As discussed above, Snowcap's Repair Plan was fatally flawed from its inception: the source of the flaw being "tunnel vision". Snowcap saw one sinkhole, and failed, refused or neglected to investigate whether there were other sinkholes. Snowcap could not avoid seeing the two surface troughs, but failed, refused or neglected to report these troughs to DRMS. Snowcap postulated one connection between sinkhole -anomalies -and -air shaft, when, by its own experiment, the air shaft would not accept any water. Snowcap saw one repair which, in its mind, was expedient and a "quick cure" in order to release the bond. Put one plug in one hole; call it repaired; and forget all the other holes just waiting for water to flow down them.