ENFORCE32109

• Permit No: C1981015
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 8/21/1990
• Doc Name: DECISION
• Violation No.: CV1990030
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

commenced. No authorization to mine has been obtained for any of the three federal
leases and, except for exploration drilling, no mine development or production has ever
occurred on these leases. Permitting and commencement of mine development consisted
of a State of Colorado exploration permit limited to 150 acres of fee land adjacent to
lease C-0127833. As previously noted, production from the Fruits No. 1 mine ceased in
1979. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) thine permit
applications originally submitted by Dorchester Coal Company in 1983 and 1984 for the
three leases never were pursued to completion and were formally withdrawn by
American Shield Coal Company by letter dated June 29, 1988. According to the
Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division, Hoyl and Wilde have not submitted a
SMCRA mine permit application_ At present, the only valid permt is a reclamation
permit held by the previous lessee, American Shield. No information is presented by the
applicants to show that a loss of federal coal would occur in the absence of a suspension,
or that the sealed portal is the only possible location by which the three leases aught be
developed. Bureau of Land Management mining engineers have concluded that the
sealed portal site is only one of many possible locations by which the leases might be
developed. Development of the leases through alternate portal locations is in line with
mar*.,;T*+g extraction of the coal resource and the impacts are mitigable in terms of
*n;*+;*n;Tng damage to other resources.
The applicants have not received authorization to mine nor have they applied for a mine
permit. Except for exploration drilling, no operations have ever occurred on the federal
leases. Mine development, which was restricted to an exploration permit on adjacent fee
land, ceased in 1979. We have determined that federal coal will not be lost in the
absence of a suspension. Accordingly, section 39 suspensions for these leases are denied.
Force Majeure Suspension. Hoyl and Wilde also applied for force majeure suspensions
of these leases. Suspensions in accordance with section 7(b) of the MLA as a result of
strikes, the elements, or casualties not attn`butable to the lessee are refetzed to as force
majeure suspensions. Force majeure is defined as an unexpected or uncontrollable event
that may excuse a parry from contractual obligations. The existence of the spontaneous
combustion problem in the mine entries adjacent to lease C-0127833 has been known
since 1982. The report of the examination conducted by Geological Survey District
Mining Office personnel on March 19, 1983, notes that thermocouples and chemical
grouting had already been installed in the mine in an attempt to monitor and control the
problem. The May 27, 1983, MSHA report notes that the spontaneous combustion had
progressed across the mine from the No. 3 to the No. 2 entry and would likely appear in
the No. 1 entry by the end of 1983. MSHA recommended flooding the entries as the
most practicable method of extinguishing or isolating the Zone of heating. MSHA also
recommended a course of action to define the extent of the burning to determine if the
burn could be isolated and stopped or if the entries should be sealed and abandoned and
mining begun at a new location. As previously noted, operations in the Fruits No. 1
ceased in 1979. 'Thus the June 1983 fire did not interrupt operations nor was it