My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR11746
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR11746
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:32:04 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:23:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1996083
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
7/6/1996
Doc Name
BOWIE 2 MINE ADEQUACY RESPONSE 1 GEOTECHNICAL SUBSIDENCE ADEQUACY COMMENTS PN C-96-083
From
DMG
To
DAVE BERRY
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Memo to Dave Berry <br />Bowie No. 2 Geotechnical Adequacy Responses <br />page 8 <br />modified predictive techniques. It has been my pleasure to know Dr Abel <br />and to participate in reviewing his subsidence predictions and analyses on <br />numerous occasions. Dr. Abel's techniques, which have been employed by <br />previous permitted operators within Colorado, are acceptable to the <br />Division. I must confess, however, that I have not become so versed with <br />these techniques that I can always recognize their application without the <br />benefit of the applicant's noting that they are being applied. Nor do I <br />believe they have necessarily achieved the status of "conventional <br />wisdom" implied by the tone of BRL's response. <br />BRL now informs the Division that the graph included within Exhibit 15 is <br />not the SEH figure, as earlier indicated, but is indeed a version modified <br />to reflect Dr. Abel's modified predictive technique. With the benefit of <br />this revelation, I concur that the predictions included in the application <br />are consistent with this methodology, which has proven to be generally <br />applicable and conservative in predicting subsidence within Colorado coal <br />fields. <br />Paragraph 2 <br />BRL's adamant opinion concerning the non-similarity of panel #36 in the <br />Bowie No. 2 Mine and the 1st West and 2nd West Panels of the Orchard <br />Valley (now Bowie No. 1) Mine is noted. <br />Paragraphs 3 and 4 <br />Once again, having been appraised of the actual modified predictive <br />techniques being used within the original preparation of Exhibit 15, I <br />concur with Dr. Abel's methodology, and are acceptable to the Division. <br />The projections which I offered in my earlier adequacy comments were <br />based on "worst case" projections, assuming totally effective recovery. <br />While I can understand BRL's reluctance to condone such a conservative <br />approach, it is normally the Division's mandated point of view. <br />Paragraph 5 <br />Subsidence monitoring, as outlined on amended page 2.05 - 92 -, applied <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.