My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-05-18_INSPECTION - M1990143
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Inspection
>
Minerals
>
M1990143
>
2010-05-18_INSPECTION - M1990143
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:12:08 PM
Creation date
5/19/2010 7:30:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1990143
IBM Index Class Name
INSPECTION
Doc Date
5/18/2010
Doc Name
Insp Rpt
From
DRMS
To
DFC Ceramics
Inspection Date
4/26/2010
Email Name
BMK
AJW
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.
/
8
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
(Page 2) <br />MINE ID # OR PROSPECTING ID #: M-1990-1A3 <br />INSPECTION DATE: d121,.? 10 INSPECTORS INITIALS: R_ <br />OBSERVATIONS <br />The Division conducted a monitoring inspection of the site as part of sites to be <br />inspected during the fiscal years 2010-2011 4/26/10 plus to see if either Robinson Brick, <br />which has an adjacent 112 clay permit (M-1991-003), or Silome Stone or Hlcium can take <br />over the permit from Thermal Ceramics, which no longer is interested in mining the <br />site.beacuse it is located within the Fort Carson bombing range, the site can only be <br />operated during November through the end of January. <br />Present during the inspection were, Mr. Michael McTaggart & Dr Angela Belantoni, <br />representing the operator, and at the request of the operator, Mr. Jayson McGraw from <br />Robinson Brick, Mr. Rad and Matt Muller from Silolme Stone, and Mr. Joe Lmanna, and Mr. <br />Mike Trolley, from Holcium. The site is 110 clay mine located approximately 16 miles <br />North West of Pueblo Colorado, with in the Fort Carson bombing range area. Prior <br />approvals from the Fort Carson Ranger Station and vehicle tags allowing access to the <br />sites were secured prior to driving to the site. <br />The site was last inspected on 12/9/1999, with no problems cited. However, the 1992 and <br />1995 inspections had requested the operator to post an additional warranty in the amount <br />of $10,000.00 (without any recorded actual warranty calculations) which the operator <br />never did submit the requested additional warranty. <br />The purpose of this inspection in addition to the monitoring was to see if one of the <br />above listed operators will take over the permit and assume all liabilities in accordance <br />with the Rules and Regulations. <br />The site has not been mined since the last inspection and no change had taken place. <br />The entire permit area was walked and inspected. Due to the clay being wet, had to park <br />the acre at the road and walked to the property. <br />Mining high walls with broken sand stone slabs were noted extending east to waste. A <br />small amount of stockpiled clay was noted along the East side of the permit area. Permit <br />sign was properly posted. Both Robinson brick and Holcium operators collected samples of <br />the clay to see if it meets their needs. As stated above Robison clay as noted owns a 112 <br />adjacent to the Thermal Ceramics site. The mineral rights are owned by the State of <br />Colorado. Even though the permit is for 9.8 acres, they operator owns a mineral lease <br />with the State covering approximately 240 acres. <br />Permit boundary markers were properly posted. <br />Since the window of mining is between the months of November through January, the <br />Division will allow the operator to see if one of the parties present during the <br />inspection will take over the permit. If any of the parties are unable to take over the <br />permit, the operator will either have to start the reclamation of the site or post the <br />additional $10,000.00 warranty as stated in the 1992 inspection report no later than <br />11/1/2010. If the reclamation process does not commence or the succession of operation or <br />the additional requested warranty is not posted by November 1, 2010, the Division will <br />send a reason to believe a Violation Exists letter, for not posting the required <br />warranty.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.