Laserfiche WebLink
~ • , <br />information was submitted to MLRD, and personally discussed <br />with the inspection team before proceeding. <br />COM, Inc. is not jeopardizing our permit. We learned well <br />from the unfortunate events that were so costly last year. <br />If we have faulted in any way it is perhaps in exercising <br />over-kill in coordinating with the MLRD. Your letter, minus <br />any attempt to get the fact before blowing the whistle, <br />confirms that the decision to "stick close" to the inspection <br />agency was the correct one. <br />We are striving v<~ry hard to work clcsely with the MLRD, <br />keeping them fully informed, and seeking their guidance as we <br />go. The kind of communication tlsat we have received from you <br />makes it very difficult. Our situation continues to rest on <br />the status between the co-permitees. We have discussed <br />before the value of separating the permit to have MiVida <br />named as the miner and COM, Inc. named as the miller, perhaps <br />that is something that we should discuss once again. <br />Rodney, I thought that we had agreed that we would <br />communicate directly and avoid this kind of problem. <br />Sincerely, <br />~'~'~~ <br />Gwen Fraser <br /> <br />cc: MiVida Enterprises <br />Swede Johnson <br />Jim Munn <br />Carl Mount <br />Bill York-Fiern <br />Bob Mason <br />Tim Hartley <br />