APPCOR13018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~, • III IIIIIIIIIIIII III ~=~c L~~~rcxl t~~l~ ~ssocl~,rs 'r.~5 Court rlacz Suez ~G9 October 18, 1992 Harry Ranney Colorado Division of 1313 Sherman Street Denver, CO 80203 Minerals and Geology 2nd Floor ACT 19 399 -~ ~ !' v11PdEF;;L_ ~ ,~~ ~. Re Coal Gulch Mine response to completeness letter of 8/3/92 Dear Harry: Cathy 8egej's recommended on August 3, 1992 to deny completeness for Pennsylvania West's Coal Gulch Mine permit application for hydrologic reasons. Additional research has brought to light evidence that many of the hydrologic concerns are not valid. First, the main item of concern is sulfur in the " oor material due to a sample which shows a pyritic sulfur content of 3.26. ~ini~ was an error^ecusly labeled sample. The Tateria? wa; act:.a':;y the bottom coal of the "A" seam. This occurred because the operator had designated to ACZ (the firm doing the sampling), that the bottom 6 inches of the coa'. seam in one area of the outcrop was cco high in sulfur and would not be mined, therefore. it was assumed at the time to be floor mater~a'. Other evicence has been found which strongly indicate gnat the sulfur in the bottom of the "A" seam is very localized and wil', not present a problem for all of the mining in the proposed permit area. This evidence is discussed below: i) the log for drill hole AM-18, closest to the h'.gh sulfur area, has a wiggle at the bottom of the density log which indicates the high pyritic content of this material. A:i other logs for the permit area and Werth ir. Section 16 do not show any evidence of this pyrite. "c) The Victory #3 Mine, located immediately sout~nwest of the portal area, drains to low point on Coai Gulch where a discharge p=oe was placed in the portal. Discharge frcm this mine, in the "~" seam, has never shown any acid water at all. -he Victory #'