Laserfiche WebLink
August 29, 1998 <br />Page 2 <br />The various memos herein attached from Mr. Carl Gerity, Pioneer Engineering, <br />carefully point out the errors in the SDPS program as utilized by OSM. The SDPS <br />excerpts attached confirm and verify the memo's authored by Mr. Gerity. OSM did not <br />calculate the Tatum subsidence using the Influence Function Method. OSM knew that <br />the Profile Function Method does not allow any modification by the user, and further that <br />the Profile Function Method was designed for transverse analysis NOT longitudinal. Our <br />home is longitudinal to the mine. <br />Your statement that "OSM utilized the SDPS model only to demonstrate to" me <br />"that even if the mine had extracted a much higher percentage of coal there still would <br />have been no subsidence in the location of my house", wntradicts the written assurances <br />as expressed by Deputy Director Ed Kay in his January 18, 1995 letter to me wherein he <br />states: " In our oversight capacity of the Colorado program we will, however continue to <br />carefully monitor the DMG's investigation efforts and provide technical assistance to the <br />DMG..." Charles Sandberg's January 19, 1995 letter states that OSM is gathering <br />information from their technical library. Is it your contention that OSM didn't possess <br />nor have access to the SDPS Manual, the Woodard-Clyde report, material from <br />Greystone, or reports about mine flooding, and room and pillar subsidence on the Basin <br />property? The assertion that the only reason the SDPS program was used was to placate <br />me reeks of untruths. You state OSM based its conclusion "on this type of room and <br />pillar mining, which had nothing to do with the SDPS model" is partly true, however, <br />ROOM AND PILLAR MINING DOES CREATE SUBSIDENCE EVEN WITH <br />MINIIvIUM EXTRACTION. If OSM had applied the SDPS program correctly as <br />demonstrated by Pioneer Engineering your conclusion would not have supported Basin. I <br />missed that unexpressed sentiment wherein OSM and DMG agreed to pacify me; the <br />State and the Federal government would pretend to do a thorough investigation; agree not <br />use the cornea calculations when utilizing the SDPS wmputer program; ignore surveys; <br />ignore the fact that the mine flooded; ignore the fans addressed in the Woodard-Clyde <br />report, and would then submit their findings that our home had not been damaged by the <br />mine. DMG and OSM made a mockery of the "Act° in the investigation of our <br />complaint. <br />James Pendleton, DMG states in THE REGULATION OF COAL MINE <br />SUBSIDENCE IN COLORADO. "However, the state-of-the-art of prediction of <br />hydrologic consequences of subsidence does not allow reliable projection of the impacts <br />of subsidence upon the ground water and surface water hydrologic systems of permit and <br />adjacent areas. Future research objectives should include the hydrologic consequences of <br />subsidence, in order to improve the reliability of predictive technology. Review and <br />reinterpretation of past research might provide valuable observations regarding <br />hydrologic consequences of subsidence. Observation concerning the hydrologic <br />.~ <br />