Laserfiche WebLink
IriterOfflCe MEMORANDUM (also a-mail) <br />to: Joe Dudash <br />from: Byron G. Walker <br />subject: Response to Subsidence Review, PR-8, B-Seam Mine Plan, Bowie No. 2 Mine, <br />Permit No. C-96-083, Bowie Resources LTD <br />date: August 8, 2003 <br />This memorandum is in response to your request for assistance in the review of the applicant's <br />response (your memo of July 28, 2003). <br />Item 8. I still think the application is inaccurate in that the magnitudes of settlement predicted for the <br />superimposed mining of the B-Seam under the D-Seam remain unchanged on Map 27 [03-15-02 <br />(pre-B-Seam mining) and Map 27 of 02-04-03 (post-B-Seam mining)]. I believe multi-seam <br />extractions will likely result in more settlement than would single seam extraction. However, the <br />applicant's response is that total settlement is discussed in Exhibit 15, and that is enough (implied). I <br />have looked at the rules again, and in deed a map showing magnitudes of settlement is not required <br />by the rule I cited. <br />Item 9.Although the response is less that what was requested, I suggest we accept the response as <br />adequate. <br />Item 10. The response is adequate. <br />Item II.The response is adequate. <br />Item 12. The response is adequate. <br />Item 13. The response is adequate. <br />Item 14.The response is adequate <br />Item IS. The response is adequate. <br />Item 16. The response is adequate. <br />Item 17. The response is adequate, better than that requested. <br />