ENFORCE20261 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes, June 24-25, 199 15. FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING GOLD HILL VENTURES LTD. P. 0. Box 1523 Longmont, CO 80501 & COLINA ORO MOLINO, INC. P. 0. Box 80905 Seattle, WA 98108 DRAFT ~ Subject To Board Approval 2 3 PARTNERSHIP File No. M-83-141 All persons wishing to give testimony were sworn. Sec. 12, T1N, R12W, 6th P.M., Boulder County, 7.638 acres; 110(2) underground mines and mill. Consideration of 2 requests for reconsideration of a Board Order and NOV M-92-021 (continued from the May 1992 Board Meeting). Staff explained that this was a request that the Board reconsider the issuance of 2 NOVS. Staff presented EXHIBITS A and B, the operators' petitions for reconsideration. In regard to Gold Hill Ventures, Staff said this operator was requesting that the Board consider assessing the total civil penalty to COM, Inc. Staff said Gold Hill Ventures does not feel that they are responsible for the problems on-site associated with the operation of the mill. Mr. Mark Steen, with Gold Hill Ventures, Stated that there are 2 issues involved in this matter. He said the original permit was issued to Gold Hill Mining Company on September 7, 1983. Mr. Steen said that when the mill facility and other mines were added to the permit, the permit was amended and transferred from the Gold Hill Mining company to Gold Hill Ventures Limited Partnership on September 26, 1985. He explained that the "Limited Partnership" assumed the financial and performance warranties and posted the bond. Mr. Steen said that on October 18, 1991, Gold Nill Ventures, a colorado mining partnership, and Colina Oro Molina became the approved operators of the permit. He said that at that time, Gold Hili Ventures Limited Partnership was relieved of all responsibilities concerning the permit. Mr. Steen said there is a legal difference between a limited partnership and a Colorado mining partnership. Therefore, he said he feels that the original notice of violation and civil penalty should have been issued to Gold Hill Ventures, a Colorado mining partnership, as a co-operator with COM, Inc., rather than Gold Hill Ventures Limited Partnership. Mr. Steen stated that the other issue was that none of the activities that took place on the site, resulting in the assessment of violations and a civil penalty, were under the control of Gold Hill Ventures Limited Partnership ("Gold Hill Ventures"). He said they were not involved in operating the mill or importing ore from other properties. Mr. Steen said he feels that Gold Hi11 Ventures was an unwilling party to the activity that occurred at the site. He asked that the Board reconsider the civil penalty.