My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
REP24702
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Report
>
REP24702
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 11:56:34 PM
Creation date
11/27/2007 4:03:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981044
IBM Index Class Name
Report
Doc Date
10/24/1986
Doc Name
ANNUAL INFLOW REPORT FOR MINE 5
From
MLRD
To
EMPIRE ENERGY CORP
Permit Index Doc Type
MINE INFLOW REPORTS
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.
Page 1 of 1
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
<br />III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII <br />DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES <br />Davitl H. Getches, Executive Director <br />MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISIOIN <br />DAVID C. SHELTO N, Director <br />Richard D. Lamm <br />Governor <br />October 24, 1986 <br />Mr. Larry Damrau <br />Empire Energy Corporation <br />P.O. Box 68 <br />Craig, Colorado 81626 <br />Re: Annual Inflow Report for Mine No. 5 <br />Dear Mr. Damrau: <br />I have reviewed the 1985-86 mine inflow report. Comparing tFie data with that <br />of past years raises a question as to the origin of the difference between the <br />sum of the total inflow measured during the most recent annual survey and the <br />"apparent" average of metered inflow for the year. <br />Because large parts of the mine cannot be directly inspected„ it has not been <br />difficult in past years to accept the total flow of individual sources <br />identified during an annual study being less than the average of metered <br />inflow for the year. That the total of individual sources identified during <br />the most recent study is greeter than the average metered ini'low for the year <br />is much harder to understand, even though the difference is only six percent. <br />The recent inflow study not only found a larger total inflow from individual <br />sources than was recorded during the 1985 inspection, but the average <br />discharge recorded from the mine was also higher, substantia'Ily higher, during <br />the 1985-86 year than for 1984-85. Considering this, when the metered inflow <br />during 1985-86 is significantly less, ie. twenty-four percent +, than recorded <br />during the 1984-85 year, the accuracy of the metering becomes suspect. The <br />Division, as a result, would appreciate Empire's assessing this possibility <br />and replying accordingly, <br />As for Empire's request that stipulation 3 of the permit issued <br />October 19, 1983 be reinstated so that annual inflow studies would be <br />conducted only if mine discharge exceeded predicted mine inflow by twenty <br />percent, this is being studied in company with the current permit application <br />made by Empire for Mine No. 6. Assurance that the mine inflow metering is <br />accurate would, of course, be helpful in our considering this request. <br />Sincerely, <br />JCt,v~tF.a ~ ~et,~~~ <br />James C. Stevens <br />Reclamation Specialist <br />JCS/iml <br />4731 F <br />423 Centennial Building, 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel. (303) 866-3567 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.