Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Mr. Derry Ferguson - 6 - June 21, 1993 <br />~~ <br />1~~ 3~~ On page 5-3, under paragraph that starts with "2.05.2(2)", the applicant <br />~'~~ / states"...with sufficient room to crate a haul back method of on-pit <br />mining". What is "on-pit" mining? Is this "open-pit" mining? <br />Additionally, on page 5-3 in the paragraph that starts "Thereafter, <br />total production..", the applicant states "The project operation is <br />expected to extend for five years after full development activities are <br />initiated (emphasis added). As "Maintenance Mining" will not be allowed <br />in this application, references to time periods following "maintenance <br />mining" should also be removed. <br />34. Under the paragraph that starts "2.05.3(2) Operation Description", the <br />applicant states "the initial (emphasis added) and continuing activity of <br />this permit will be maintenance of the existing disturbance. <br />Oakridge...has established the initial mining activity (emphasis added) <br />in this permit as 'Maintenance'. <br />Haver, in the last paragraph of the same page, the applicant states <br />i'Phase I is designated as the first mining activity" (emphasis added). <br />Further, the applicant in the last paragraph states "Phase I..initially <br />involves (emphasis added) the mining of the west pit of the dip slope' <br />and continuing with (emphasis added) the development of the maximum open <br />pit. Yet, in the paragraph in the middle of the page (still on page <br />5-4), the applicant states "the initial (our emphasis again) and largest <br />pit is shown on Cross Section (M-N)". Looking at M-N line on Map 5-2, <br />this not the west pit of the dip slope, but the large pit in the middle <br />of the mine. It would appear that as "maintenance mining" will not be <br />allowed by the Division, these responses need to be readdressed. <br />On page 5-4, in the paragraph that starts "2.05.3(2.)", the applicant <br />~ should describe what the actual maximum highwall height will be. There <br />' seems to be a discrepancy between the 180-foot tall highwall proposed on <br />`~ Map 5-6, and the 300-foot tall highwall proposed on cross-section M-N. <br />~;~ Please address. <br />V` \ <br />n page 5-4, in the paragraph that starts "The mine plan will be <br />presented in phases...", the enumeration of the different parts of the <br />operation has developed to the point that the plan itself is now <br />difficult to follow. The applicant discusses Phases, Sections, Coal-cut <br />Segments and Overburden lifts on page 5-4. However, on page 5-5, the <br />applicant discusses four "Sequences" of mining. Then, on page 5-6, in <br />the next to last paragraph, the applicant starts discussing the operation <br />in terms of "Stages." <br />Furthermore, in the last paragraph on page 5-4, the applicant discusses <br />the "west pit of the dip-slope", yet on page 5-6, in the paragraph that <br />starts with "Mining will begin"...the applicant starts talking about "the <br />dip-slope area of the north pit (our emphasis). Please decide upon one <br />name, either the west pit or the north pit, and revise the application <br />accordingly. Continuing, the applicant apparently refers to the same <br />mine feature as both a "low wall" and a "rock footwall" on page 5-4 (last <br />paragraph). This feature should be given one name, and made consistent <br />throughout the application. <br />