My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE32038
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE32038
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:43:16 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 1:12:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981038
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
12/28/2000
Doc Name
NOV CV-2000-013 BOWIE 1 MINE PN C-81-038 NOV CV-2000-014 BOWIE 2 MINE PN C-96-083 NOV CV-2000-015 NO
Violation No.
CV2000013
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.
/
5
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
' _' ..~4r^,H 1`c,: _.: = 3S .'-.5256 E._~ci;i RESCe.!ECL3 LTD ~::GE 9v <br />Mr. David A. Berry <br />December 28, 2000 <br />Page 3 <br />a. Frontier's "de-authorization" will c7eate no harm duringtheabatement oeriod <br />The basis for the NO Vs is that Frontier is no longer listed by the United States Departmern of <br />the Treasury as an "authorized" surety company. However, Frontier is not in bankruptcy or <br />receivership and, to the best of our knowledge, has not failed to honor any reclamation obligation <br />anywhere in the country. Therefore, while the "de-authorization" of Frontier by the Treasuty <br />Department may (or may not) constitute a technical violation of Colorado's bonding requirements, <br />there is no evidence that Frontier has failed or will fail to honor any obligation to the Staze of <br />Colorado. While this fact might (or might not) be insufficient as a defense to the underlying NOV, it <br />is certainly a significam fad to consider in determining the appropriate abatement petiod. <br />b. There will be no reclamation failure during the abatement~eriod. <br />For the dispute between Frontier and the Treasury Departmea2 to cause form to Colorado <br />during the abatement period, all of the following would have to ocau within the next 60 days' (1) <br />Bowie would have to fail to meet a reclamation obligation, (2) Bowie would have to fail to correct <br />the problem, and (3) Frontier would have to fail to perform on the bond. That improbable chain of <br />events simply will not occur within the next 60 days. Bowie has not failed to meet reclamation <br />obligations to date. <br />Bowie is a healthy mine operator. <br />As we have discussed with you and others previously, Bowie is a healthy and viable mn.e <br />operator. All of. the production from the Bowie No. 2 mine for the next four years has already been <br />sold. Our production costs aze ]ow. Our profit margins are heahhy. We recently installed a new <br />downhill conveyor for $6,000,000, and we are currently bidding a 510,000,000 rail loading facility. <br />Our internal comparisons with other operators in Colorado show that we are extremely competitive <br />with regard to cost-per-ton, earnings and cash flow. <br />We aze also an extremely safe operator, as demonstrated by our receipt of the 2000 Heahh <br />and Safety Award from the Colorado Mining Association and the Colorado Division ofMmerals and <br />Geology. Moreover, we have an excellent compliance history with the Division. Bowie has ab <br />$800,000 work order in place for reclamation at the Bowie No. 1 Mine, where reclamation of the <br />west portal is scheduled for completion by March 1, 200], and reclamation ofthe east portal should <br />be completed by the end of 2002. <br />In short, we are a proStable, safe and responsible coal mine operator, and we are here to stay. <br />Whatever the technical problems with the Frontier bonds, a 60-day extension ofthe abatement period <br />will not harm the State of Colorado. <br />D031]672.1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.