My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1992-06-26_REVISION - M1988112
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1988112
>
1992-06-26_REVISION - M1988112
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/19/2021 6:57:51 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:17:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1988112
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
6/26/1992
Doc Name
SAN LUIS PN M-88-112 BMR RESPONSE TO DIVISION ADEQUACY REVIEW PROPOSED TR8
From
MLRD
To
BATTLE MOUNTAIN GOLD CO
Type & Sequence
TR8
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
Page 1 of 1
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
III IIIIIIIIIIIII III ~ <br />STAT'EOF COLORADO <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION <br />Department o~ Natural Resources <br />13t3 Sherman St .Room 2t5 <br />Denver. CO 80203 <br />303 866-3567 <br />Fax: 303 8328706 <br />pF'CO~ pp <br />~~~q'o <br />a <br />~ re 76 <br />Ray Romer. <br />Gwemor <br />June 26, 1942 Michael B. LOnp. <br />DIV~SIOn Direttor <br />Mr. Andre J. Douchane <br />Battle Mountain Gold Co. <br />5670 Greenwood Plaza Blvd., Suite 106 <br />Englewood, CO 80111 <br />RE: San Luis (Permit M-88-112) BMR Response to Division Adequacy R@view <br />Proposed Technical Revision 8. <br />The Division is in receipt of Battle Mountain Resources' response rdferenced <br />above. In regard to the response to Comment 1, the Division, as well a5 <br />Battle Mountain Resources, will have to be satisfied that the well network is <br />adequate in order to forego additional well locations and additional testing. <br />The operator should commit to receiving Division concurrence in regard to <br />the adequacy of the monitoring network before terminating the program. <br />In regard to the response to Comment 2, the Division agrees that it may be <br />premature, to some extent, to criticize the proposed locations. The <br />suggestion was made in the hope that better initial location of wells M-12 and <br />M-13 might improve the operator's chance of not having to drill any additional <br />wells. Since Battle Mountain Resources prefers its proposed locations and to <br />accept the greater risks that M-12 and M-13 may not prove to he in optimum <br />locations for contaminant leak monitoring, the Division will accept the <br />proposed locations. <br />In regard to Comment 3, the Division finds the response acceptable. <br />If you have any questions, please call. <br />Sincerely, <br />James C. Stevens <br />Senior Reclamation Specialist <br />JCS/scg <br />cc: Costilla County Conservancy <br />Helen Sigmund <br />People's Alternative Energy <br />Nora Jacquez <br />David Hyatt <br />Roger Flynn <br />Jane I. Kircher <br />Dist. Scott Mefford <br />Gary Dodson <br />Services Walter Wise <br />Dean Massey <br />James Pendleton <br />Larry Oehler <br />3820E <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.