My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2005-05-05_REVISION - M1992045
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M1992045
>
2005-05-05_REVISION - M1992045
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/15/2021 2:43:14 PM
Creation date
11/22/2007 12:59:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1992045
IBM Index Class Name
Revision
Doc Date
5/5/2005
Doc Name
Complaint letter and allegation of bribery
From
Deanna Van Ella
To
DMG
Type & Sequence
AM1
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.
/
6
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
Deanna Van Ella <br />180 Lane 200 Bass Lake <br />Angola, Indiana 46703 ~~~~teP~'_' ;, <br />April 30, 2005 <br />Division of Mineral and Geology of Colorado <br />1313 Sherman Street Room 215 <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Brace IInmphries <br />Mr. Humphries, <br />MAY 0 5 2005 <br />Division of h1inerals & Gooloyy <br />Could yon enlighten me? I would like to pass the information on I would like to know <br />why in 1992 when we requested information on getting a 110 Mining permit we were <br />told it was less than 3 acres and the cost was $875.00 for that petecular permit We <br />have straggeled 12 years trying to stay within a 2.8 acres effected area. We have <br />suffered monetary by moving tailings time and time again trying to kcep the tailings <br />within the bonnderies. I have investigated other mine operations and I have discovered <br />that many mine permits were issued before ours, such as M 1977-293 which is a 110 <br />permit. They had recieved a 9 acre effective area for $875.00. Again, M-1993053 a 110 <br />permit which was shortly aster our permit, was issued, recieveing a 9 sere permit and <br />again their cost was $875.00. Another example is M-1981-062 again they were issued a 9 <br />acre ll0 permit again at a cast of $875.00. The list goes on and on! <br />We were told we could have only less than 3 acres on a 110 permit for $875.00. Either <br />on purpose or possible a mistake with Mineral and Geology Dept. We feel the mistake <br />should be made right by the Department and you owe us the proper amount of acreage <br />for that permit which we did not recieve! <br />Were we discreminated against or just plain swindled? Mr. IIumphries, how world you <br />fcel? <br />Operating M-1992-045, the project site on the top of a 12,200 foot mountain with a great <br />amount of slope needing two (2) tailings ponds for setteling, one (1) fresh water pond <br />and a creek running through the effected area, along with roads with a permit that <br />allows 70,000 tons annually.....What the Hell were you people thinking? Mr. lIumpries, <br />how would you feel? <br />My husband and I came to your agency for help and understanding coming from the <br />Midwest, we never dreamed your agency couldn't be trasted! We are trusting people, we <br />believe that when someone tells ua how it is, it is the truth! We worked at that time <br />with Mr. Wm. York-fern, Michael Long and a Debra Mulloy. We had no idea there <br />was special terms for special people or more than one rule for the same program. <br />We should have realised iu 1998 when Mr. James Dilley came up to inspect the project <br />site that your agency was not a Lilly white orginaziation He asked if we were getting <br />any color, Jim showed him a nice sellection of nuggets! The first thing from his mouth <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.