Laserfiche WebLink
= C.--1~1~ (-b2Z <br />Stark, Jim <br />From: Stark, Jim <br />Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 2:38 PM <br />To: 'Jim Kiger' <br />Subject: RE: NOV #CV-2006-001 ^~ <br />c <br />That was my thought as well... <br />-----Original Message----- <br />From: Jim Kiger [mailto:]im.Kiger@oxbow.com] <br />Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 2:37 PM <br />To: Stark, ]im <br />Subject: Re: NOV #CV-2006-001 <br />Midterm is fine with me as I'm sure we can do whatever bond housekeeping is necessary all atone time. <br />--- Original Message ---- <br />From: Stark Jim <br />To: 'Jim Kiger' <br />Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 2:16 PM <br />Subject: RE: NOV #CV-2006-001 <br />Yes, you will have adequate bond to cover the increase. The reason there was no liability increase for TR-51 was <br />because of an oversight by the Division. My thought is that the Division can either pick that up now, with MR-76 <br />(which we received yesterday) or wait until the midterm review, due 11 April 2006. Either way, the increase in <br />liability for the two relative shallow boreholes will not be very much. <br />-----Original Message----- <br />From: ]im Kiger [mailto:Jim.Kiger@oxbow.com] <br />Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 2:13 PM <br />To: Stark, ]im <br />Cc: Brown, Sandy <br />Subject: NOV #CV-2006-001 <br />Greetings <br />The Division should have received Oxbow's MR-76 application by now, which we believe satisfies the subject NOV <br />Abatement steps #1 and #2. <br />Abatement Step #3 calls for submittal of the appropriate bond for the subject borehole. (Please note the borehole is <br />not a GVB) <br />Currently, the Division holds more bond than that required by the calculated liability to the tune of a $125,203.22 <br />contingency. While Oxbow's June 6, 2005 TR-51 application letter requested that the Division prepare a bond <br />estimate, the September 16, 2005, TR-51 approval did not include a change in liability. As such, I assumed there <br />was no additional liability related to these boreholes. <br />I assume, further, that the calculated liability to satisfy Abatement step #3 will also be $0.0. If not, please advise as <br />Oxbow is prepared to apply such additional appropriate bond liability against our contingency. I also believe that, <br />given our current contingency, we have therefore satisfied the requirement of Abatement Step # 3. <br />Thank you for your assistance in this matter. <br />2/7/2006 <br />