Laserfiche WebLink
Page 1 oft <br />Mount, Carl <br />From: James VAN eLLA [gold@fwi.com] <br />Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 9:20 AM <br />To: carl.mount@state.co.us <br />Subject: Fw: <br />Permit#: (~1-l~Ra•D~ Confidental?: <br />Class: ,7 - Type-Seq.: <br />From: ---VG To: <br />Doc. Name: J~OU ~ ~. <br />Doc. Date (if no date stamp): - <br />Carl, <br />I am resending this message to you since we got it back stating that you were out of the <br />office for a few days. Not sure if you recieved it or not. This is a Top Proriety situation for <br />us whether we can continue mining this property without the guarantee that we will not be <br />held responsable for the surface damage done in the past by other mining companies. <br />----- Original Message ----- <br />From: Jim VanElla <br />To: cad.mountCilstate.co.us ; Gold ar7fwi.com <br />Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 8:39 AM <br />Carl, <br />I am trying to fill out the Conversion Application permit for Gold Basin Mine. As I read <br />through it I came upon the Responsibilities as a Permittee and the first requirement is that it <br />is our obligation to reclaim the site not limited to the amount of the financial warranty. That <br />we would assume legal liability for all reasonable expenses which the Board or the Office <br />may incur to reclaim the affected lands associated with our mining operation in the event our <br />permit is revoked and financial warranty is forfeited. <br />As you know from being on the site last September, 2004 there has been much disturbition <br />beginning back as far as 1928. The distrubitance should be noted on some type of legal <br />disclosure that there is approximately an 8 acre pit 30 feet deep to bed rock and <br />approximately 300 feet wide._Also_ continui~ approximately_ 15_acres of disturbance <br />running down to the property line. This is approximately 600 feet wide. We don't feel we <br />should be held responsible for that reclaimation. We would need some written document <br />from your division stating that this predistribution is well known and documented. We are <br />repeating ourselves but we want this made very clear. <br />If you recall, the division even after many years of not billing us yearly for assement on the <br />Emma Load property, the division went after our financial warranty and a large monetary <br />fine. This was not right and you know it. We feel this could happen again. <br />In 1992 we had apre-operation inspection by Wm. York-fern stating in his report the <br />property be documerted that the proposed distrubance can be distinguisaged. <br />We need something this time to keep that from happening again. <br />As soon as we receive something from your office we will continue on the conversion <br />3/1/2005 <br />