Laserfiche WebLink
ii-iiiiii~~~iiui~~ <br />999 <br />STATF. OF COLOIZr~~O <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Deoariment of Nawral Resources <br />1315 Sherman 8l .Room 21> <br />Denver. Colorado 80'_03 <br />Phone 13031 8611-3557 <br />FA\:(303)832-8105 <br />January 24, 2001 <br />DIVISION OF <br />MINERALS <br />GEOLOGY <br />RECLAMATION <br />MINIIJG•S AFET7 <br /> dJl Owens <br />Jerry Koblitz c°"e`°°` <br /> <br />Greystone Development Consultants, Inc. Greg E Walther <br />ExecuUVeD;reclor <br />5231 South Quebec Street m~th~el a Lo"g <br />Englewood, CO 80111 Dw,~,on D,rennr <br />RE: Lorencito Permit Extension Request, Lorencito Canyon Mine, #C-96-084 <br />Dear Mr. Koblitz: <br />The Division of Minerals and Geology (DMG) has reviewed responses dated November <br />29, 2000 concerning our initial questions regarding a possible permit extension for the <br />Lorencito Canyon mining permit. As you are aware, Rule 2.01.5(2)(a) requires the <br />permit be terminated if surface coal mining and reclamation operations have not <br />commenced within three years of the date of issuance of the permit (November 7, 1997 <br />in this case). However, Rule 2.01.5(2)(b) allows for reasonable extension of this period <br />based on a written statement showing that this extension is necessary. <br />We have reviewed each response to our questions dated November 16, 2000. At this <br />time we await responses to three remaining issues. Text in italics is our original <br />question. <br />Railroad agreements <br />The railroad line located in the Purgatoire Valley is a key component of any coal mining <br />in the area. We understand that the railroad was sold to a Utah entity known as A & K <br />Railroad. Please provide details concerning any ownership, right-of--way agreements, <br />and lease arrangements related to coal transport from the proposed Lorencito Canyon <br />Mine and New Elk processing site. <br />The response to this question indicated the railroad agreements would be submitted by <br />December 15, 2000. At this time, the Division has not reviewed any agreements, nor <br />have any been submitted. This question remains outstanding. <br />