Laserfiche WebLink
July 7,2020 C-1981-022/Elk Creek Mine LDS <br /> documentary record of the plugging and abandonment in the form of a report from the drilling contractor(these <br /> are found in the PAP in Exhibit 2.04_E3, Item 9, Borehole Abandonment Information). <br /> Table 1 gives a complete list of sites inspected where Phase I release is requested, identified by"PointName". The <br /> "Status"column refers to the physical status of the site. The"Landowner" column is self-explanatory. <br /> "Comments"give additional clarification, or other valuable field observations that are not pertinent to a Phase I <br /> bond release application. In many cases these comments identify noxious weeds that need to be treated. Unless a <br /> row in the table has a red fill,the site was properly reclaimed and was eligible for bond release. Those sites <br /> identified with a red fill in the table have issues that must be addressed before the site can be phase I bond <br /> released. <br /> Sites where phase I&II release is requested(Table 2) <br /> The field inspection for sites where combined phase I&11 release is sought was similar to those where phase I <br /> release is sought, although greater attention was paid to vegetative cover and surface stability. A review of <br /> vegetation data submitted with the SL-2 application will take place but is outside the scope of this inspection <br /> report. Table 2 gives a complete list of these sites and is formatted in a similar way to Table 1. <br /> At the time of the inspection exploration holes ECM-10-68 through-76 were not identified on Map 2.05-M1, <br /> Sheet 6. It was assumed that they had been constructed under an exploration permit and had been erroneously <br /> included in the SL-2 application. Following further review of the PAP it was later concluded that these exploration <br /> holes had been constructed under the mining permit and should indeed be included in the SL-2 application. The <br /> Division understands that the ECM holes will be added to a revised version of Map 2.05-M1, Sheet 6 and a <br /> follow-up inspection will be made. <br /> The reclamation of the disturbance in A-gulch(sites beginning"SCM...") appeared generally very good, <br /> particularly given the very challenging terrain,however the sites were neither well marked in the field nor well <br /> documented in the PAP. See Table 2 for details. <br /> The status of wells TC1 and TC2 remains to be detennined. They were not inspected. <br /> WSC-GM-3,in C-gulch,was not clearly identified in the SL-2 application packet and was not inspected.Its status <br /> also remains to be clarified. <br /> The reclamation at site GVB-LW-11-03 was not ideal. The pad had been constructed in the road and was situated <br /> on very steep terrain. The landowner(Hotchkiss Ranches)had requested that the road not be reclaimed. These <br /> factors meant that the pad had not been completely regraded. The well casing was exposed on the surface of the <br /> pad. A plugging and abandonment report for the borehole was found in the PAP and records: "9 5/8' casing <br /> abandoned to surface with 6 cubic yds Portland type 11 cement. 4 sacks hole plug; 48 sacks (7200 gallons)plug <br /> gel; 2 sacks (10') cement September, 2009."Following the inspection, on 7/15/2020, Oxbow staff cut the casing <br /> below grade and repaired the area(see Figures 10-12). <br /> Number of Partial Inspection this Fiscal Year: 1 <br /> Number of Complete Inspections this Fiscal Year: 0 <br /> Page 4 of 34 <br />