Laserfiche WebLink
SCOTT SMITH <br />,,, <br />1 %' <br />ID :9707283100 <br />• <br />SEP 04'00 <br />III IIIIIIIIIIIII III <br />s99 <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY 8/29/(10 <br />1313 SHERMAN ST. RM 215 <br />DENVER, COLO. 80203 ®~1tl <br />~~ <br /> <br />A'I'TN:MIKELONG tt11 , 7 ~~r'^~ <br />tl <br />tr~t~iLb'~° ~~~~ ~-®li~~ <br />RE: PATHFINDER P17' M94-I 13 L-r~~~ -/may ~~3 <br />' <br /> ~B~ <br />C~o /~ ~ ; <br />t°r- f~ f <br />Dc2r Sir, <br />14:33 No .004 P.09 <br />~~~~ <br />SEP p B ~~, <br />DN181~ ol~~e 1~ 6 G~ ~ <br />Thank you for your thoughtful response to my 7!27!1)0 letter re: enforcement et al. <br />Most of your comments were very constructive for me in building an understanding of <br />recent events and will he helpful to me as 3 prepare the long awaited TR. ]have also <br />received your proposed version of my E-mail note to you. As 1 compare those documents <br />to Mr. Shuey's [Host recent letters ,inspection repotts and his impromptu ,unnoticed and, <br />admitted group trespass site walk of 8118!00 S still have just a few questions. <br />1) The DMG's 1999 opinion clearly states that because the PSCo hlowout, mudflow, <br />and environmental carnage was within the pit boundary it was Southway's ,and <br />subsequently Pathfinder's problem. When 1 demonstrated Ihat it was not within the <br />boundary, this non-mining event (the 8/21/00 DMG opinion indicates) you infer that <br />somehow it may he a Pathfinder issue in that somehow someday it may effect areas <br />within the pit boundary even though for now Pathfinder can and has demonstrated <br />that such is not the case? <br />I.S) I definitely undet'stand the permitting implications of changes in 'affected area'. My <br />question to you was where did Mr. Shuey derive his 7124/00 conclusion that the missing <br />pit boundary marker was now an affected area marker-even though he stated that none <br />were present as per his inspection? (i.e. "where did that rnncept come from'?") <br />2) Mr. Shuey has indicated Ihat he and Mr. Dilly will be on site tomon'ow-that is a <br />welcome event 1 can tell you. 1 hope to discuss (at length) the concept of 'affected area' as <br />it relates to available topsoil reserves, and outline my proposed rcpfaccment soil audit. ] <br />believe that as a result of the TR #I snafu Mc Shuey failed to allow for the considerable <br />reserves in that area as available (without the requirement of ;an amendment) to meet the <br />