Laserfiche WebLink
Memo to File 2 October 27, 2005 <br />Backing Documents for Cost Estimate Permit No. M-1977-342 <br />2.1. The first step in the analysis of Henderson's proposed method for soft tailing stabilization was <br />to determine if geotextile would perform as well as the more expensive geogrid that was used in <br />the DMG's initial estimate. Enclosed with this memo is a page from the literature of Mirafi <br />geotextile manufacturer showing that the manufacturer recommends the geotextile for soft site <br />closure. Also enclosed with this memo are pages from a DMG inspection report of the Climax <br />Mine (Permit No. M-1977-493) where a soft tailing closure test plot was developed using both <br />geotextile and geogrid, with both products performing equally well in stabilizing the substrate <br />prior to the application of covering fill. <br />2.2. DMG next completed a check of the labor cost inputs to the Henderson estimate for deploying <br />the geotextile. A labor cost worksheet is enclosed with this memo showing that Henderson's <br />labor cost inputs of $20 per hour are sufficient. <br />2.3. Determination of the net job hours for geotextile deployment input to the DMG's final estimate <br />of this cost is shown in a job hour calculation sheet enclosed with this memo. <br />Enclosed with this memo are prints outs of emails dated October 28 and 29, 2002 documenting the <br />process for DMG determination of cost estimating assumptions for soil amendments, chemicals <br />disposal, exhaust shaft closure, ore stockpile relocation, soft tailing stabilization, water treatment <br />plant construction, vegetation failure rate, and indirect costs. <br />enclosure(s) <br />cc: Carl Mount, DMG (via email and w/o enclosures) <br />Harry Posey, DMG (via email and w/o enclosures) <br />Bruce Humphries, DMG (via email and w/o enclosures) <br />c:\Documents and Settings\ACS\My DocumentsU-Ienderson estimate backing does memo.dce <br />