Laserfiche WebLink
filled and plugged. Regarding disturbances to wildlife, Colorado Parks and Wildlife <br /> directed Applicant to work only from May through December to avoid impacts to <br /> elk. The Division presented testimony discussing the definition of"prospecting" and <br /> other terms and their applicability to the NOI. The Division stated that the <br /> activities proposed by the NOI were consistent with typical hard rock prospecting <br /> programs. The Division stated that it approved the Application because it <br /> determined that the NOI complied with the applicable rules and statutes. <br /> 13. Objector presented testimony regarding the NOI. Objector, through <br /> counsel, pointed to statements made by Applicant in stock-related filings and press <br /> statements to support Objector's position that Applicant had already established <br /> that uranium existed in "commercial quantities" at the site. Objector argued that <br /> the proposed activities under the NOI were "development," which is a mining <br /> activity rather than "prospecting," because the existence of uranium in commercial <br /> quantities had been established through the work of past prospectors in the area. <br /> Objector pointed to language from the Black Range 2015 Order which stated that <br /> the prospector under that NOI had moved beyond prospecting to development <br /> activities by further defining the ore body. Objector argued that the Black Range <br /> 2015 Order should control here because it demonstrated that the ore body at the <br /> site had previously been explored enough for the Applicant to already know that <br /> uranium existed at the site in commercial quantities. <br /> 14. Applicant presented testimony regarding the issues raised by Objector <br /> and the proposed activities under the NOI. Applicant stated that it had not made a <br /> determination that uranium existed in commercial quantities at the site and that it <br /> did not have access to underlying data developed by previous prospectors' activities <br /> in the area. Applicant argued that the NOI's activities are all investigations of the <br /> mineral deposit and are thus "prospecting." Applicant also argued that similar <br /> activities have been considered prospecting at numerous sites around Colorado, <br /> including at ore bodies that have been mined and explored for up to 140 years. <br /> Applicant, regardless of what activities occurred in the past, still needs to acquire <br /> its own data and come to its own conclusion regarding whether proceeding beyond <br /> prospecting is commercially feasible. Regarding the Black Range 2015 Order, <br /> Applicant presented testimony that it is not the same company as Black Range <br /> Minerals; that it had made no determination that there are commercially feasible <br /> quantities of ore at the site; and that, unlike the proposal at issue in the Black <br /> Range 2015 Order, Applicant will be taking simple core samples rather than testing <br /> new mining techniques. <br /> CONCLUSIONS OF LAW <br /> 15. The Board has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the Colorado <br /> Mined Land Reclamation Act, Article 32 of Title 34, C.R.S. (2023) ("Act"). <br /> Tallahassee Resources, LLC <br /> P-2023-015 3 <br />