My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REV96424
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Revision
>
REV96424
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/25/2016 3:21:07 AM
Creation date
11/21/2007 11:59:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981013
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
7/2/2003
Doc Name
Response to objection
From
DMG
To
Ann & Jim Tatum
Type & Sequence
TR55
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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
~ Z ~ ~ <br />July 2, 2003 <br />Page 2 of 2 <br />Tatums <br />rulings were based upon a lack of evidence that the well in question was viable or that there was a water right <br />associated with the well. The manner in which the vent shaft was sealed is a valid issue as discussed below, <br />but the manner of vent shaft closure does not impact the previous rulings regarding the alleged well damage. <br />The January 16, 2003 letter also references a possible second well. To investigate this issue, we conducted a <br />review of the State Engineers records during June 2003. We aze not able to locate any permitted or registered <br />wells that coincide with your reference to a second well. It also appears that there has not been any change to <br />the permitting status of the originally investigated well. <br />Vent Shaft Closure <br />The use of a concrete cap is an allowable method of surface closure for the vent shafr. However, we are <br />evaluating the manner in which the vent shafr borehole has been sealed. Our recent letter to Basin Resources <br />is enclosed. Basin Resources is required to properly revegetate the surface disturbance azea adjacent to the <br />vent shaft azea in accordance with the pemritted revegetation plan. <br />Reclamation Bond/Civil Action and Jud ent <br />We aze aware_of the December 19~ 2002 ruli~ of the District Court,_Las Animas County ~Ol CV 25). The <br />June 25, 2003 letter seems to make a connection between the civil case and the reclamation bond held by <br />DMG. The reclamation bond held by DMG for the Golden Eagle Mine (Permit No.C-81-013) is posted and <br />maintained pursuant to the bonding requirements of C.R.S. 34-33-113. We do not believe that there is a <br />connection between the monetary judgment received in the above-referenced civil action, and the remaining <br />bond held by DMG for the Golden Eagle Mine . <br />Possible Westmoreland Pemrits <br />During our conversation on July 1, 2003, Ms. Tatum asked if Westmoreland is associated with any permits in <br />Colorado. We are not aware of any Westmoreland affiliations other than those associated with the Golden <br />Eagle Mine Permit No. C-81-013 and exploration notice CX-92-213. Basin Resources remains as the <br />permittee with both of these permits. <br />Please let us know if you need any additional information <br />;rvisor <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.