My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-04-07_REVISION - C1981019
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1981019
>
2010-04-07_REVISION - C1981019
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:03:33 PM
Creation date
4/9/2010 8:34:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981019
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
4/7/2010
Doc Name
Review (Email)
From
Mike Boulay
To
Jim Stark
Type & Sequence
PR3
Email Name
MPB
JRS
SB1
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
Stark, Jim <br />From: Boulay, Mike <br />Sent: 07 April, 2010 13:01 <br />To: Stark, Jim <br />Cc: Brown, Sandy <br />Subject: RE: Colowyo PR-03 Completeness <br />Well after reviewing this I have a lot of thoughts. But in a nutshell, I think one that may still be a completeness <br />issue (depending on how you want to handle it) is the Question 8 regarding chemical analysis. Our rules (see <br />page 80) specifically require analyses of the coal seam, including but not limited to ...."sulfur, pyrite, and <br />marcasite." They only provided sulfur. Pyrite and marcasite are the major acid producers when exposed to <br />oxygen and water. You are a chemist and probably know more about that than I. We have treated this <br />differently with other mines. We don't always have perfect analyses to go with. The problem with waiting <br />until adequacy review is that then they are constrained by time and may not have the time or borehole <br />available to get the required analyses. <br />Below is a brief comment on each of the questions <br />6) 1 was simply trying to improve their presentation. Lets handle this at adequacy. <br />7) They have submitted good lithology info. I'm not so much interested in the geophysical logs but more the <br />lithology and well completion info. The well completion info is really lacking. But I think this should be <br />handled at adequacy because obviously they have the info it's just a matter of getting it out of them. <br />8) See comment above. I recommend requesting pyrite and marcasite in addition to sulfur and say at this <br />point the information is incomplete. <br />9) 1 agree it's complete <br />24) Well. This is a deep subject. It's very slanted in their favor and I don't agree with portions of it. Look at <br />the first borehole log you sent me and you readily see that they hit plenty of groundwater. But you know they <br />did it and put it together and I say lets deal with it at adequacy review. <br />If you want an example completeness question for 8) It could go like this..... <br />Item 8) The application appears to be incomplete with regard to specific chemical analyses of the coal seam <br />required by Rule 2.04.6(2)(b)(i)(E). If available please submit analysis of pyrite and marcasite content. Update <br />the Collom coal seam chemical analysis table that was provided accordingly. <br />Let me know if you have any questions. <br />From: Stark, Jim <br />Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 8:56 AM <br />To: Boulay, Mike
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.