ENFORCE22049 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Seriousness [ agree with the proposed penalty. Fault The proposed penalty states that the operator was apparently aware of the need to submit ownership and control information as a result of discussions pertaining to a recent succession of operators. Mr. Waldron felt this statement referred to the fact that Bruin Mining Company was originally intended to be the operator of the mine. Information required by Rule 2.03.3 and 2.03.4 would have been submitted with the application for the permit transfer. However, the discussions with Bruin Mining Company were discontinued and Bowie Resources Ltd. was identified as the operator of the mine in the Succession of Operator, Transfer of Permit application. Mr. O'Connor said Bowie Resources Ltd. was not attempting to ignore the Rules, they did not feel the ownership and control information was necessary given the agreement they signed with M.A.G. Mining Inc.. He stated that the intended terms of agreement with Bruin Mining Company were significantly different than the workforce agreement Bowie Resources Ltd. signed with M.A.G. Mining Company. Under the agreement signed with M.A.G. Mining Inc., Bowie Resources Ltd. was responsible for the mine plan, the number of people and the quantity of coal. [n his opinion this constitutes control because Bowie Resources Ltd. retained ultimate authority. Mr. O'Connor felt that a difference in opinion does not constitute such a high level of negligence. As conference officer, I am not convinced, one way or the other, that the workforce agreement constitutes or does not constitute control as defined in Rule 1.04(83a). Clearly, there is a difference of opinion between the Division and Bowie Resources Ltd.. However, Bowie has decided not to contest the fact of violation essentially ageeing that they failed to provide the requred information. Furthermore, a review of the correspondence provided to me prior to the conference shows that Bruin Mining was also going to conduct contract mining (January 17, 1995 letter). It is unclear to me why the arrangement with M.A.G. Mining is different. I will uphold the proposed penalty. Good Faith I believe Bowie took extraordinary efforts to achieve compliance. Upon learning of the compliance problems with the officers of M.A.G., they immediately evaluated the history of compliance with the individuals involved. It became appazent to Bowie that the issues could not be resolved prior to the March 31, 1995 abatement deadline. Therefore, a revision was submitted proposing to add M.A.G. Mining,Inc. as the operator. Through a series of stock and corporate transactions, the previous officers of M.A.G. Mining Inc. were replaced by Larry Addington, who became the sole shareholder. The individuals with the poor compliance history were no longer a part of M.A.G. Mining Inc.. The stock purchase agreement was executed on March 20, 1995, the same day a TR was submitted. I conclude that this represents an extraordinary effort and rapid compliance. I propose a $500.00 reduction for good faith.