Laserfiche WebLink
replaced the Canon Coal bonds, but the value and the area covered <br />by the bonds is greater. Incidently, this bond was officially <br />accepted by the Division some time after receipt, by Chips Barry on <br />6/16/80. <br />The 1976 GEC/Corley lease requires GEC to pay any claims or liens <br />for material or labor related to Harry Weckerling's operations, has <br />GEC pay Corley $40,592.53, for royalties owed by Weckerlinq to <br />Corley, and Corley agrees to drop Civil Action No. 11918, in the <br />Fremont County District Court entitled "Corley Coal Company, <br />Plaintiff, vs. Harry Weckerlinq, dba Canon Coal Co. and dba Canon <br />Coal Sales, Inc., Defendant." Weckerlinq appears to have died at <br />this point, as there is a reference to canceling the 1973 lease <br />between "Corley and Canon Coal, Charlotte Weckerlinq, and the <br />Executor of the Estate of Harry Weckerlinq". <br />The 1976 GEC/Corley lease indicates that GEC has inspected the <br />leased premises prior to the execution of the lease and accepts <br />them in the condition in which they are in, except that Corley will <br />reclaim Corley disturbance prior to May 1, 1973. There is no other <br />reference to reclamation in the lease. <br />I reviewed the Development <br />(Amendment/Conversion) issued <br />conversion of Canon Coal to GEC <br />paragraph referenced by Corley <br />1993, namely that "GEC Minerals <br />all previously held permits to <br />since July 1, 1969," as well <br />specifically includes coverage <br />reclaimed by GEC and its predec <br />I can't tell if this is boilero <br />and Extraction Mining Per <br />8/26/77 for permit 77-48, <br />Minerals. I was able to find <br />in the letter we received March <br />desires to consolidate and cony <br />include all lands previously mi <br />as "a new comprehensive bond wh <br />of lands previously mined but <br />essor under previous permit bond <br />late or not. <br />mit <br />a <br />the <br />9, <br />ert <br />ned <br />ich <br />not <br />s". <br />There is no evidence in the files that the Radiant amendment was <br />ever approved. <br />cc. Debbie Mulloy <br />