My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR12480
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
2000
>
APPCOR12480
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:32:54 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:31:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1992079
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Date
11/19/1992
Doc Name
FAX COVER
From
GLASS TECHNOLOGY
To
HARRY RANEY
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
GLASS ~~CHNDLU~Y. INC. T~ 091-303-247-9375 hJo~ 19 92 11 14 Mo.002 P.03 <br />-: '\ <br />I N T S R O F F I C S M S M O R A N D U M <br />TO: Jay Harrington <br />CC: Bob Brooks <br />Date: 29-Jun-1992 O±:U3pm GMT <br />From: Kane Graves <br />GRAVES <br />Dept: COUNTX ATTORNI~;Y'S OFFICE <br />Tel No: 259-4000 X214 <br />HARRINGTON <br />( BROOKS ) <br />Subject: Arnese McGriffin Coal Co. Transfer <br />Aa I understand the situation, please correct ma if I ~,~~ wrong, <br />the determination was that since the ownership remained tl,e same <br />in the past, and Arnese-MCGriffin was still the princip],~, peat <br />planners felt that there was no need to transfer the per,~~:lt since <br />Arnese simply contracted with another party to conduct i.l,c, mining <br />on its behalf, while still maintaining ownership. As I c„icieratand <br />your memo of 6/29 the present request (by the former "Lc::see") is <br />that the permit actually be transferred to Pennsylvania tc,al as <br />they are in some unspecified "informal corporate partnerr:l,;.p" <br />according to the former "lessee". The specific question ~::: <br />"Can this permit be transferred if the original princip].c~~: are <br />still involved to some extent7" <br />The answer is no, at least without more information. The t~ormit <br />itself says - "This permit is valid for use only by the >~t~1~licants <br />and may not be transferred." The reason that this was ha„clled <br />informally last time was apparently that no transfer was „eceseary <br />in that Arnese simply contracted out the mining rather i.l,:,,, do it <br />themselves and continued to retain ownership. If the siti,,,t:ion is <br />the same, the seams reasoning could apply. If not, then 1 would <br />not apply, even if it would be "easier". <br />It is my recommendation that you request from the parties: t:he <br />exact nature of this "informal corporate partnership", wit.l~ <br />supporting documentation, in order to further entertain t.l,oir <br />request. In point of fact, it may be wise to ask pointeci:iy <br />whether Arnese will still be the sole principle owner, a,,,1 if not, <br />what is the exact status. <br /> <br />BOB, DO YOU DISAGREE OR HAVE ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? A3 2 HAV1~;240T <br />HEARD OF ANY OWNER-SPECIFIC LAND USE AUTHORIZATION BEFORt~:, 2 WOULD <br />HAVE TO RESEARCH ITS VALIDITY IF THIS CANNOT BE RESOLVED. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.