Laserfiche WebLink
Sorenson, Allen <br />From: Crosby, Erica <br />Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 10:56 AM <br />To: Sorenson, Allen <br />Cc: Mount, Carl <br />Subject: Henderson Bond; stuff I need your help on <br />Hi Allen, <br />After looking over the "clarification" issues submitted by Climax regarding the Henderson Mine & Mill bond estimate.....1 <br />once again need your expertise and help. <br />(Page 4 & 5) Chemical Disposal at the Mill- Henderson has changed the quantity of material stored on site. In <br />particular, Hydrochloric Acid has been reduced from 100,000 gal. to 36,000 gal. and Sytex from 120 Tons to 10 Tons. <br />I obtained my info. from their EPP dated 8-10-95. Do they need to change the EPP to reflect this new quantity? <br />(Page 4 & 5) 1 talked to AI (you know, the guy who use to work in Minerals) regarding the issue of no cost associated <br />with disposal of used oil, etc... We both agreed that there would need to at least be a sampling cost, and maybe a <br />percentage that would need to be removed. What do you think? <br />(Page 6) Wood Chips/Sewage Sludge; Henderson states that they did not specifically commit to the use of wood <br />chips and sewage sludge in the original permit. I disagree. They commit to using 30 tons of sewage sludge and 20 <br />tons of wood waste per acre (page 9-10 of orig. app). If it was not available, then they would use an appropriate <br />quantity of straw bolstered with inorganic fertilizer. They have all but said that this material is available on <br />demand....so I think that we should keep it in the estimate. <br />(Page 7) They don't understand the logic of doubling the cost of the Exhaust Collar and sealing of the vent shaft (Task <br />2a). As I recall, you told me to double the cost due to the remote location and hand work. Do you still think the cost <br />should be doubled? <br />(Page 7) I guess we double bonded for the PC2 drivehouse. I used the dimensions that they provided, and you used <br />something different in AM-3. (superstructure; 899,640 cu.ft. vs. 254,140 cu.ft. & concrete 14,280 sq.ft. vs. 3,177 sq.ft.) <br />Your dimensions are lower. Should we keep my estimate or yours? <br />(Page 7) Fertilizer Issue; we have yet to hear back from Carl....... <br />(Page 8) Haul Stockpiles of Surge Material from the Mill to the Tailings Pond. They state that the material is a <br />valuable resource and the task should be deleted. I have visions of the Gold Hill Mill tailings pile sitting there not in <br />use..... Your thoughts?? <br />(Page 8-9 and Exhibit E) Place of Geogrid on tailings pond. EEE did a comparison of geogrids apparently on the <br />Robinson Lake. Take a look and tell me what you think. <br />(Page 9) Henderson wants to delete all tasks associated with the Seepwater Canal and Pumphouse Area (Task 20 <br />series). Do you agree? <br />(Page 11) Haul Ore Spilled from Conveyor to Tailing Pond- Calculations were based on 1,000 cy spilled along the <br />entire length of the system in AM-3. They want to reduce this amount to 50 cy based on what is actually spilled. Do <br />you agree? <br />(Page 12) Mill Water Treatment Facility Construction; They want to change the cost from 5M to 4M...with not much <br />info. provided to justify the cost. Take a look at their argument, and let me know if you agree or not. <br />(Page 13) Revegetation Failure Rate; we used 50% they want it reduced to 10% (I think someone at sometime told <br />me to use 50%). Should we pass this to Gregg or Carl? <br />(Page 14) Indirect Cost. They don't like our 2% surcharge for engineering work and or contract bid preparation (even <br />after we reduced it from 5%!!). I say we keep it. <br />Sorry, this was mare for you to look at than I anticipated. Just give me your general thoughts...nothing fancy unless you <br />feel the urge. I would like to get out a letter by November 8, 2002 to keep the ball rolling. You should have a copy of their <br />packet...but I will get it imaged here ASAP. <br />Thanks. -Erica <br />