Laserfiche WebLink
Response to June 21, 2016 Letter from Tim Cazier <br /> By C. A. Braun—July 26,2016 <br /> Application Deficiencies <br /> Comment 1: Please clarify if you intended to have the project name be identical to the company name <br /> listed in Application Item No. L3. <br /> Response: The name is shown on the permit as was intended. As far as the permitee is concerned, <br /> the name of the project does not mean much and is only included the for the benefit of DRMS. If it works <br /> for you, it will be fine with the applicant if you remove "LLC"from the project name. <br /> Comment 2: Application Item No. L6,page 2—Only the "Private" land ownership box is checked.As <br /> you recall when establishing land ownership for the Mineral Mountain Project(M-2014-045), several <br /> "slivers" of federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management(BLM)exist in the area <br /> described by the two maps included in the application. Please verify the BLM was noticed and correct <br /> Item L6 in the application. <br /> Response: Yes the BLM land in the area was noticed, along with other private lands that are owned <br /> by others. My review of Section I.7 found that I made an entry mistake. In I.7.13 of the application, I <br /> inserted the words "Minerex Claims", assuming the section referred to patented private claims. After <br /> reviewing your comments,this assumption appears to be incorrect, and those words should be deleted <br /> from the application. In contrast,the statement in Section I.7.E of the application clearly states "Not <br /> applicable-Private Land Only". It is not the intention to of the applicant to perform any surface <br /> disturbing work on unpatented claims nor does he have any current intentions of staking any new claims. <br /> Comment 3: In order to be consistent with Comment I above,please either complete Item 7.A. or <br /> describe how you will avoid prospecting on federal lands in the NOI area and show that these areas are <br /> excluded on the NOI maps. <br /> Response: Based on my review, the total combined area of those scattered BLM wedges represent a <br /> little more than one percent of the area depicted on the map, thus does not represent any significant area. <br /> Next, these small areas showed no mineral potential to the persons doing the early prospecting so as to <br /> warrant effort to bring them to patent. Now in 2016 there is no evidence that any new gold has grown on <br /> these parcels,thus,they are still not interesting to the small prospector. With no gold,there is no reason <br /> to prospect,and the prospector would avoid them naturally for just that reason. They can also be avoided <br /> by the prospector keeping good track of where his property is and where he is on it. A note has been <br /> added to the Location Map stating that"Prospecting will only occur on properties on which the <br /> prospector has ownership rights." <br /> Comment 4: Please provide a list on Minerex claims on which prospecting is planned. <br /> Response: I assume that you are actually requesting a list of Minerex properties. A list of their <br /> properties is included. Note that the inadvertent misuse of this information could seriously impact the <br /> prospector, so DRMS is to treat this list as confidential information. <br />