Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Jim Stover <br />August 9, 1996 -New App./Bowie 2 <br />Page 17 <br />2.05.6(6) -Subsidence Survev. Subsidence Monitorine and Subsidence Control Plan <br />87) BRL's response and the amended wording of pages 2.05 - 91 -and 2.05 - 92 are <br />acceptable. <br />88) BRL's response and the amended wording of page 2.05 - 89 are acceptable. <br />89) BRL's response and the amended wording of pages 2.05 - 89 -through <br />2.05 - 93 are acceptable. <br />EXHIBIT IS -SUBSIDENCE PREDICTION <br />90) The Division is in receipt of the copy of T. Brooks 1983 USGS report. <br />1.2 MINING SCHEDULE AND RATE OF SUBSIDENCE <br />Paragraph 1 <br />The new Section 1.8 added to Exhibit 15 acceptably addresses the Division's. concern <br />regarding the possible subsidence implications of faults within the mine plan area. <br />Paragraph 2 <br />BRL concurs with the Division's observation that it will be important to establish the <br />effectiveness of pillar recovery in retreat early in the operation of the Bowie No. 2 mine. <br />B12L, however, failed to respond to the Division's suggestion that if recovery proves to be <br />less than projected, it may be necessary to place high resolution monuments above early <br />panels to determine the actual character of ground subsidence manifested. The Division <br />continues to believe this is necessary. Please respond. <br />1.3 SUBSIDENCE MAGNITUDE AND PROFII.E <br />Paragraph 1 <br />With the benefit of BRL's response, we concur that the predictions included in the <br />application are consistent with this methodology, which has proven to be generally <br />applicable and conservative in predicting subsidence within Colorado coal fields. <br />Paragraph 2 <br />BRL's opinion concerning the non-similarity of panel fi36 in the Bowie No. 2 Mine and the <br />