My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE44320
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
500000
>
PERMFILE44320
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:46:45 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 11:53:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2004067
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
5/24/2005
Doc Name
Comments- Uranium Mineralization
From
I.L. Turner
To
DMG
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.
/
4
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
From: <br />Doc. ~ <br />RECEIVED <br />Division of Minerals and Geology <br />Department of Natural Resources MAY 2 4 2005 <br />1313 Sherman St. Rm. 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 pivision ~f Mine[els and Geology <br />Attn: T.A, Schreiner <br />Certified Mail-Return <br />Receipt Reauested <br />May 20, 2005 <br />RE: MMRR Quarry, M-2004-067 <br />Response by Banks and Gesso, LLC to DMG Adequacy Review (March 23, <br />2005) <br />The Banks and Gesso, LLC submittal was reviewed recently by the writer at the <br />Gilpin County Courthouse. Copies of the complete response and <br />accompanying maps were then obtained. The following <br />observations/comments are made concerning only parts of this material: <br />Pages 6-11 Uranium Mineralization. <br />1) P.6, para. 6: "We reviewed the DMG record for another rock quarry <br />located in a relatively similar position on the fringe of this belt of uranium <br />mineralization and found no evidence of technical review, operations <br />standards, reclamation standards, or enforcement activity stemming from a <br />concern that uranium would be released from that site." (emphasis mine) <br />Does this lack of investigatory activity some ten years ago imply that no <br />problem might exist8 <br />2) P. 7, para. 2: I am pleased to note that Banks and Gesso have chosen <br />Option 2 -one of three options proposed by the DMG in their Jan. 21, 2005 <br />Adequacy Review Commentary. <br />3) P. 7, para. 5: Drill Cuttings - ..."operator will obtain drill cuttings from at least <br />one representative sample point" (emphasis added). Given the discrete <br />nature of known radioactive mineral occurrences in the general area (see <br />below), it would be very unlikely that a representative sample of the volume <br />of rock about to be shot at end of shift could be represented by one or two <br />holes. <br />A reading of the literature* describing the various occurrences in the three- <br />county area of the proposed quarry provides descriptions of mineralization in <br />veins, dikes, shear zones - as generally cross-cutting, planar, discontinuous, <br />tabular. As "six foot thick vugs in pegmatites". As veins cutting schists, <br />mineralization in pods and lenses, iron-stained shear zones, and in faults and <br />breccias. Again-one or two or three holes would not constitute an <br />adequate test. <br />*Radioactive Mineral Occurrences of Colorado, Bulletin 40. Nelson-Moore, <br />Collins and Hornbaker, Colorado Geological Survey, 1978, 1058 p. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.