Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Jim Tatum -2- December 17, 1993 <br />Your third statement concerns your windmill well. You state that this well was not listed on the <br />swcture inventory filed by the operator prior to construction of the airshaft. <br />- Technical Revision No. 15, which dealt with the NW-1 exhaust airshaft, was <br />submitted to the Division on October 2, 1990 and approved on November 27, 1990. <br />As the Division had pointed out in its letter of November 4, 1993, Windmill <br />No. 10, which appears to be your well, is listed in the permit application as faz <br />back as 1984. A copy of Table 2, results of Windmill Survey, is enclosed. This <br />table is in Exhibit 10, Appendix 5, of the permit application. <br />Your fourth statement implies that the Division is stalling and has no intent to uphold the law and <br />regulations of the State of Colorado. <br />The Division can assure you that our total effort is toward upholding the law and <br />regulations of Colorado. We can also assure you that we believe we have, to the <br />best of our Imowledge, answered all of your questions accurately and factually. <br />Your fifth statement is that no lease was made between you and IIN Energy for the airshaft <br />project, and that the airshaft project dewatered your windmill well. <br />The submittal of Technical Revision No. 15, which dealt with the NW-1 exhaust <br />fan site, includes a statement that Wyoming Fuel has a right of entry based upon a <br />coal sublease from North Central Pnergy Company. A copy of this statement is <br />enclosed. <br />This same revision makes no mention, however, of the potential for the dewatering <br />of the windmill well, in that, in 1984, the well was described as not functioning. <br />In the Division's preliminary adequacy letter for the Golden Eagle Mine's Permit <br />Renewal No. 2 dated November 5, 1993 and included with this letter, an update of <br />the water user's survey was requested. With this update, the Division can pursue <br />this matter further. In addition, please see our response to your seventh statement. <br />Your sixth statement contends that We windmill well was left off of the original permit. Please <br />see our response to statement number three. <br />Your seventh statement says that you have no information on the historic water level of the well, <br />nor do you have a map showing its exact location. You further state that the well used to provide <br />stock water but went dry after the airshaft was drilled. <br />- As we have previously stated in our letter of November 4, 1993, the operator, in <br />1984, described the windmill well as not functioning. Please provide evidence that <br />demonstrates the well was operational immediately before the airshaft was con- <br />structed. Such evidence may help us in determining the validity of the operator's <br />