My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PERMFILE47013
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Permit File
>
500000
>
PERMFILE47013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 10:49:05 PM
Creation date
11/20/2007 1:00:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2006073
IBM Index Class Name
Permit File
Doc Date
4/4/2007
Doc Name
Adequacy Response 2
From
Banks and Gesso, LLC
To
DRMS
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.
/
44
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
:: Banks and Gesso, LLC <br />April 3, 2007 <br />David A. Bird <br />Colorado Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety <br />1313 Sherman Street, Room 215 <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />720 Kipling St.,Suite117 <br />Lakewood, Colorado 80215 <br />(303) 274-4277 <br />Fax (303) 274-8329 <br />www. banksandgesso. com <br />Re: Sundance Resource, Regular 112 Application, File No. M-2006-073, <br />Response to Adequacy Review 02 <br />Dear Mr. Bird: <br />On behalf of Lafarge West, Inc., Banks and Gesso, LLC, is pleased to submit this <br />response to the second adequacy review for the 112 permit application. Thank <br />you for your adequacy comments in the letter of March 1, 2007. In anticipation of <br />additional review in advance of the decision date, as previously extended, the <br />following narrative and attached exhibits are provided in the interest of <br />demonstrating full compliance with the requirements of the Construction <br />Materials Act and the Rules and Regulations that pertain to operations subject to <br />a Reclamation Permit. <br />At this stage, the applicant has fully addressed a variety of comments from the <br />first adequacy review and presently responds to certain detailed questions that <br />remain. Revised maps and two expert studies are included, as referenced under <br />relevant comments below. <br />Responses are provided in the order presented in the DRMS March 1 letter, for <br />ease of reference: <br />Rule 6.4.3 -Exhibit C <br />The Division notes a discrepancy on Exhibit C-1, between the legend and a <br />General Note, concerning the status of an oil and gas well location on the subject <br />property. The language prompting the Division's concern, based on the <br />adequacy comment, is that the General Note states that the well is "believed" to <br />be abandoned, as opposed to verified as abandoned. <br />Banks and Gesso, LLC, researched proper abandonment of this well. The <br />information listed on Exhibit C-1 concerning oil and gas structures on the <br />property was originally derived from COGCC database information, so the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.