APPCOR12151

• Permit No: C1981044
• IBM Index Class Name: Application Correspondence
• Doc Date: 8/21/1981
• From: MLR
• To: EMPIRE ENERGY CORP
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

S inl ~ p~ CUi Ui+nrr0 4u nnui, 1 ~M ` III III IIIIII IIII III
• ~ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ~ o ,~i
D. Monte Pascoe, Execmrve Dneclm L ggg
/~~ ,~ A91NI~;U LANU I{I~;I;LA1~1A'I'ION
~,,y~ ~ 423 Centennial Building, 7373 Sherman Street
""-°'~~-- Denver, Colorado 80203 Tel. [phone]
.-~°~'" .
David C. Shelton
Director
- - AugTtst 21 , 1981
Mr. Richard Dlills
Empire Energy Corporation
6900 South Yosemite, Suite 160
Englewood, Colorado 80112
Dear Dlr. D1ills:
On June 26, 1981, representatives of Umpire Energy Cor~TOration and the Colorado
Mined Land Reclamation Division met to discuss the alluvia] val]ey floor issue,
specifically the areal extent of the grandfathering exemption and the signifi-
cance of Rule 2.08.5(1)(4) to the issue. T17i.s letter will address the topics
brought up at that meeting.
Rule 2.05.5(1)(4) (section 34-33-109(7)(c)) pertains to the successive renewals
of pern7it issued pursuant to 34-33-101 et seq. that include areas meeting the
grandfather criteria oC 34-33-114(2)(e)~I). Since previous D11.R permits were
issued for the life-of-the-mine and pc7mits issued under 34-33-101 et seq. are
for 5-year permit terms, .it is conceivable that areas eligible for gi-aTT~cfatheri.ng
may not be within the first 5-year permit tern7. Scct.ion 34-33-109(7)(c) allows
eligible lands to be grandCathered in successive permit reneT.~als which would
require dividing the grandCathered areas into S-year pcnnit terms, the Division
prefers to identify all eligible exempted areas at this time.
lYith respect to the life-of.-mine boundary, Empire suggested the Division accept
the lease boundary as the geographic extent of the area the company had demonstrated
financial commitment to mine. TITe Division does not feel that approach i.s consis-
tent with the application of tl7e exemption clause in the Act and Regulations. In
the case of Eagle No. 9 mine comlTlex for example, it would be inconsistent to
consider the entire lease boLU7da7y since .inCorn7ation in the exemption request
submittal indicates that only the northern half of Empire's lease holdings as
of August 3, 1977, were plamred to be developed by the No. 9 mine complex.
Since only a part of the lease holdings were plmu7ed to be mined or even mineable
by that complex, a demonstration of fit><ancial or reg771atory corrunitment or the
remaining portion of the lease holdings could not be oracle. Tl7crefo7•e, the remainder
of the lease holdings could not be considered to delineate the geographic
extent of excrrgrtion,
Regarding areal extent, it seems that the only remaining issue is with the
Eagle No. 9 complex. Since the exemption For the Eagle No. 9 complex is based
on a life-of-mine permit No. 76-7, it seems reasonable to assLtme that EngTirc's
commitment to mine prior to r\ugntst 3, 1977 was the entire extractable extent
of "P" scam which Empire controlled. This is delineated as Exhibit 'T1" of
the exemption request submission. Since Exhibit 'T1" is dated prior to August 3,
1977, the Division will accept this exhibit as delineating the areal extent for