ENFORCE35270 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

There does not appeaz from useage any clear reason to support a specific definition to distinguish Gold Hill Ventures Limited Partner- ship and Gold Hill Ventures. This fact of definitional application to Gold Hill Ventures Limited Paztnership is supported by the permit succession as approved by MLRB on October 18, 1991 designating Gold Hill Ventures and COM, Inc. as successor permittee. 4~1~~ ar While the permit in its stated form as of July 1985 addressed `~ itself to milling of ores from properties owned by Gold Hill Ventures i,,o Limited Partnership, this redesignation in 1991 substituted Gold Hill ~'r~ -k ° Ventures/COM, Inc. as permittee within the context of the permit and ~~`~ ~= a hcation materials which were inco orated b reference b MLRB ~,,,r r~,Jr ~ ~cUon October 18, 1991. ~ y y ~' ~:~ •' ° If it had been the intent milling of ores should be restricted to t~~y'`s ~o mining properties owned by the nominal predecessor permittee, Gold Hill Ventures Limited Partnership,-them=such should and would have ~`A~ been-apart of the letter October 21, 1 This letter, however, made no such distinction an c eazly the successor operator of ~ the "Cash Mine" (original permit designation) is Gold Hill (Ventures) ~o ~ - k and COM, Inc. r~ M~ ~~ ~ It is assumed here the use of the term Gold Hill as distinguished from Gold Hill Mining Co. and reference to the successor in the application dated June 7, 1991 intends Gold Hill Ventures. It might be argued the permit permits milling of ores only from those mining properties specifically identified within the body of application materials. If, however, this were the intent, the permit, as it applies to mill, would and should have declazed the mill may operate only to mill ores mined from the designated properties. This, however, is not the contention. The contention remains the violation is the processing of ores coming from other than Gold Hill Venture's properties as stated under the Nature and Duration of Violation or as differently stated under the Staff Recommendation, Violation: "Properties owned by Gold Hill Ventures Limited Partnership." If one were to conclude milling is permitted from Gold Hill ~~~,,- vq `Ventures or Gold Hill Ventures Limited Partnership properties, then ~' . ~ ~a there is no limitation with respect to the geographic location of the ~~"~~~,,rrr C~Y•_s Iclaims from which the ore is obtained to be processed. p~~ ~,~s9~ ~,~a J ~~~ . ~~,,~ ~ 8 ,~