Laserfiche WebLink
0,1-03-07 02:24PM FROtI-DMIG GRAND 1UNCTION FIELD OFFICE <br />. swan <br />Gfofsef Sewlaas Company <br />Catony Sttalo Oit Project <br />R0. Fsoz 2567 <br />Houston, Tpcis 77252.2567 <br />970 241 1516 T-2T7 P.002/005 F-215 <br />~~ Sys GG'.~ c___-- <br /> <br />-~ o~~~ ~ l tN uJ ~2 ~1 ~- -~, n-~ SSS tab ~k~~`6r <br />-}e ~Jj brt-l- Y1P.v~ r~c2~,~-e c( ;vi p~?',;~r} E'7~ <br />December I4, 2006 E~onMe~a~l y `~ <br />Colorado Ilivisioa ofReclamatian, Mining 8i: Safety / R~CEf~~® <br />Grand Junction Office <br />I01 South 3`d Street, Suite 301 DEC 15 2006 <br />Grand ,Junction, Colorado 81501 <br />GRAND JUNCTION FlElO OFFICE <br />At[entloa $~VC Sh DMSION OF <br />~Y FtECIAlfAl10N MINING 8 SAFETY <br />Re: Colony Shale Ot7 Project -Garfield County, Colorado <br />_~_ MLRB Permit Number M-8-04'7 ~'( -~c~p~ vc~~ i,/~ <br />Ladies and Gentlemen: /p~~~ueJ'~- ~ ~ ~~ rzeG[ G/,~e <br />/(Z~.S ~ a-~.~ e. ~.o ~6 ie,~r ~'~,, o ~ 7 19~1P r~QSP- <br />This latter sets forth the response of Exxon Mobil C r`r <br />orporation to item numb 2 in the <br />Inspection Report for the Caloay Shale Oil Project dated September 6, 2006~ittspect%on <br />date was July 19, 2006 vc~erein the DRMS requested that ExtonMobil "submit notice of <br />their decision to either reactivate or reclaim the site." <br />ExxanMobil does not believe the site is in "a maintenance mode" as desesibed in the <br />DBMS Inspection Report. We continue to engage in developatent of the permitted Iands. <br />I;xxonMobil, however, proposes that it work with the DRIVIS to clarify that there are now <br />some areas ctttreatly included in the NII.R.B Permit at the Colony site that should be <br />removed £rom the Permit because either (1 j reclamation is complete, or (Z) the areas <br />should be accorded a change in use so that they are ao longer part of the permitted area. <br />Although we outline these areas ut this letter, ExxottMobil proposes that a meeting be <br />scheduled with DBMS in January 2007 to discuss this further and determine the proper <br />procedtual mechanism for a teclutical revision to reduce the affected Iaads subject to the <br />Permit. Iatportantly, &xxoaMabil will not request any change to its cut7eat 6naacial <br />warranty to assure reclamation of the Colony Project site. <br />Backgtuund <br />T'he MLRB permit for the Colony Shale Oil Project was issued October 23, 1980, with <br />subsequent amendments in 1981, 1982, and 1984. There have also been seven technical <br />revisions, the last being in 1992. The Project area is in Csartield County at the north end <br />of Pat~hute Creek, 12 aides north of the Town of Parachute. The total permitted <br />acreagt is 6,778 acres. Of this amount, 1,127 acres was listed as disturbed in the 1982 <br />Interim Site Plan ("1982 ISP'~. In 2000, the total affected area was reported as 1,131 <br />acres. This last number inetudes, in all probability, some acreage associated with <br />pipeline coastructian separate from the Cotony Shale Oil Project. <br />An Eu7[anMobff Suhsidlary <br />