REV14270

• Permit No: C1981038
• IBM Index Class Name: Revision
• Doc Date: 7/14/2004
• Doc Name: Succession of Operators ‎(E-mail)‎
• From: Jim Stover
• To: DMG
• Type & Sequence: SO4
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

Dudash, Joe
From: Jim Stover [[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 9:34 AM
To: Dudash, Joe
Subject: Re: Bowie Succession of Operators
Joe
Bowie owns the two 90 acre parcels. The basis for this statement is the
information shown on Map 9-6. The two parcels are 12 & 17 on Map 9-6.
Parcels 12 and 17 are explained in the text in paragraphs 7 & 23 on pages 16
& 18.
The basis for the McKee Pavlisick combination is paragraph 2 on page 20.
Jim Stover
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dudash, Joe" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 11:15 AM
Subject: Bowie Succession of Operators
> I called you Tuesday morning but Kurt said you were at the Bowie mine. So
I
> thought I would just e-mail this to you.
> 1. In your submittal dated July 6, 2004 for the SO-4 for Bowie No. 1, Map
> 9-5 was revised to show mineral ownership. There are three small areas
that
> are designated as "fee coal". One of the areas is annotated with the
number
> "3", indicating ownership by Pavlisick and McKee. The other two areas do
not
> have any annotation. Should all three areas be annotated with the number
,. 3..
> ? If so, I can just write it in myself.
> 2. I am not sure if the mineral ownership map has to show the individual
> private ownership boundaries for Pavlisick and McKee, rather than grouping
> the two names together. I know the currently approved map does not show
the
> individual private ownership boundaries. Do you happen to have the
> individual ownership boundary information on hand ?
> 3. We have the new bonds in for Bowie No. 2, although I haven't seen them
> yet. It looks like the only issue left is the transfer of federal leases
for
> both mines (Jim Burnell is handling the exploration NOI transfers). Do you
> happen to know the timing on when that issue will be resolved?
1