Laserfiche WebLink
4/2/2014 State.co.us Executive Branch Mail - Fwd: New Elk- Lorencito Canyon Mine Permit No. C- 1996-084 <br />terminate the permit and return the liability bond to NECC, NECC must demonstrate that the <br />site meets or exceeds the success criteria laid out in the original reclamation plan. <br />hope this clarifies our concerns and allows support of your ongoing efforts. <br />Best regards. <br />From: "Simmons - DNR, Leigh" <leig h.si mmons state.co.us> <br />To: mgpminerals@comcast.net <br />Cc: "Sandy Brown - DNR" <sandy.brown state.co.us >, "Alysha Hernandez - DNR" <br /><alysha.hernandez@state.co.us> <br />Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 9:28:55 AM <br />Subject: Re: New Elk - Lorencito Canyon Mine Permit No. C- 1996 -084 <br />Mr Meggison, <br />In the interest of prompt resolution I propose that we continue our communication by email. I <br />will ensure, nevertheless, that the messages are archived and become part of the record of <br />documentation for the Lorencito Canyon mine. <br />On February 24, 2006, the Division (at the time, the Division of Minerals and Geology) <br />received a request from New Elk Coal Company (NECC) to transfer the Lorencito Canyon <br />mine permit (C- 1996 -084) from Lorencito Coal Company (LCC) to NECC. The transfer <br />request stated that NECC intended to conduct surface coal mining operations. <br />On December 3, 2007, the Division received a letter from yourself, on behalf of MGP Mineral <br />Enterprises (MGP), referencing a telephone conversation you had had with Kent Gorham. <br />Your letter and the attached documents explained clearly that neither LCC nor NECC had the <br />right to mine coal owned by MGP within the Lorencito Canyon mine permit boundary. <br />(According to my information, MGP owns 53.5% of the coal within the permit boundary) <br />On January 28, 2008, the Division received a withdrawal of the transfer request from <br />NECC. <br />On May 9, 2008, the Division received a second transfer request from NECC. <br />On July 9, 2008, the proposed decision to approve the transfer became final. <br />That action simply transferred ownership of the permit from LCC to NECC - it did not make <br />any changes to the substance of the permit, or to what the permittee was entitled to do. <br />(Much earlier, in 2003, at the end of the first permit term, the decision to approve the permit <br />renewal was made with the stipulation that the permit was for reclamation only) <br />At the end of the second permit term in 2008, the permit was renewed again, with the same <br />stipulation. <br />The decision I proposed on March 21, 2014, was to approve the renewal of the <br />permit for a third time, but still with the stipulation that it is for reclamation only. <br />https: / /mai l.g oog le.conVmai 1 /u /0 / ?ui =2 &i k=e29129fcb5 &view - pt &search =i nbox&th =1451 d98fcl9cbd10 &si ml =1451 d98fcl9cbdl0 3/5 <br />