2017-05-24_REVISION - C1981041 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

101 1 Palisade, Colorado. 1 looking at the bulk resistivity distribution, you 2 Q. What was your role in the preparation 2 can make an estimate of the geology of the 3 of the first report marked Exhibit A-29? 3 substance. 4 A. From the beginning I was responsible 4 Q. Okay. You said a little while ago 5 for developing the program to do the exploration 5 that you didn't do the actual data collection? 6 survey to meet the objectives of Huddleston- 6 A. Physically, no, I did not. 7 Berry/Snowcap. I also -- I did not collect the 7 Q. Okay. Is that a general -- how do I 8 data, but I did analyze the data, and-- through 8 describe it? Do you normally rely upon data 9 using a series of commercial, state-of-the-art 9 collected by other professionals within your 10 programs. At the completion of the data analysis, 1 10 organization? 11 wrote the report that is presented here. 11 A. Yes. 12 Q. Okay. Why don't we go ahead and 12 Q. Okay. 13 review that first report, and you've already 13 A. At this point in my career, yes. 14 answered a number of my questions. 14 Q. Okay. I understand. Would you be 15 Why don't you first start by 15 able to tell the Board the names and titles of those 16 summarizing the objective of the initial 16 individuals within Fugro who did take care of 17 investigation in the exhibit marked A-29, being your 17 that? 18 April 28, 2016, report? 18 A. Yeah. In this particular — the 19 A. We were approached in trying to 19 first survey is was Jim Pfeiffer and Lincoln Steele 20 identify if there were any physical pathways from i20 who did the field work. Do you want to discuss the 21 the surface to a coal mine at depth at the site -- 21 second one too? 22 at the Snowcap mine site, Palisade, Colorado. 22 Q. Why don't we just go ahead and focus 23 It was requested, is there any 23 on the first report. 24 geophysical methods that may be useful in 24 A. Okay. 25 identifying these pathways. We went through several 25 Q. Why don't we turn to Figure 2 of this 101 103 1 discussions on this particular scope that was 1 work. I think we've already had a lot of discussion 2 required. 2 regarding the site and the location and the 3 We recamenbed using an ERT survey, 3 Fontanari trench. 4 which is an electrical resistivity tomography 4 What does Figure 2 represent? 5 survey, in which we lay out a surface array of 5 A. Figure 2 shows the lines which we 6 electrodes, inject current into the ground, and from 6 acquired data -- the M data along. 7 the feedback are able to make evaluations of the 7 Q. And were you here for the testimony 8 distributions of the electrical resistivity of the 8 of Mr. Stark and Mr. Boulay earlier? 9 sub -- changes along the line both vertically and 9 A. Yes. 10 horizontally. 10 Q. Is the trench they described shown in 11 Q. Would you be able to tell the Board 11 this figure? 12 why that technique was chosen? 12 A. From the best of my knowledge, it is, 13 A. Yes. It's got some advantages. 13 yes. 14 There are obviously otter geophysical techniques 14 Q. Okay. What about the structure 15 that may be used. We settled on an -- excuse me -- 15 referred to as the Carey Pond? 16 an electrical method because it is -- two things. 16 A. That was not clear. I'm assuming 17 One is what we're looking for is water movement fron 17 that this (indicated) is the Carey Pond. 18 the surface to the ground. 18 Q. Okay. Where would that be on this 19 The electrical resistivity -- the 19 figure? 20 bulk electrical resistivity of subsurface units are 20 A. That would be along line 2 -- along 21 greatly affected by the amount of fluid, the amount 21 line 2. 22 of water within the unit you are measuring. In 22 Q. Are there any other, I guess, items 23 addition, the lithology of the different units -- 23 that are identified in this figure? 24 the clays, sands, sandstone, shales -- normally have 24 A. Yes. We do show sane surface 25 a different electrical bulk resistivity, and by 25 sinkhole expressions. At least our crew identified 102 104