Laserfiche WebLink
.~ <br />~.: <br /> <br />Mr. David Shelton, Director <br />February 24, 1981 <br />Page Seven <br /> <br />(3) "Substantial Harm to the Competitive Position" <br />Test. In Fremont County, Colorado, DCC's mining operations <br />are in a highly competitive coal development area. DCC's <br />Dorchester No. 1 mine is contiguous to both GEC, Minerals, <br />Inc.'s surface mining operation, and to 1larrison western's <br />Newlin Creek underground mining operation. There is active <br />pursuit by all three companies to hold down the costs of <br />operations, including the costs of permitting and environmental <br />compliance, as well as increasing production efficiencies. <br />In addition, DCC is in and presumably will remain in active <br />marketing competition with these neighboring mining operators. <br />Specifically, these companies, in whole or in part, compete <br />for sales to Lone Star Industries (cement plant) in Texas; <br />Southern Colorado Power Division of Central Telephone & <br />Utilities Corp. (power plant) in Canon City; Colorado State <br />Hospital in Pueblo; and Martin Marietta (cement plant) in <br />Lyons. Future competition may be directed at Great Western <br />Sugar Co. and the Federal Center in Denver. <br />The cost to DCC for obtaining the hydrology study <br />in question is estimated to be $50,000 for drilling costs <br />and $12,300 for the analysis and write-up of the hydrology <br />report. Such costs, estimated at a total of $62,300, can be <br />critical in securing or maintaining a position in coal sales <br />given the tight competitive market described above. The <br />cost of these drilling operations and hydrology studies are <br />recognized by Colorado coal operations as representing the <br />highest single component cost in permit applications. To <br />make such hydrology reports readily available to one's <br />competitors would be contrary to all equitable considerations <br />and contrary to the legal standards found in §24-72-104(3)(a)(IV) <br />of the Colorado Open Records Acts. <br />Dorchester feels that the foregoing analysis of <br />legal authorities and factual assertions of significant <br />harm to DCC's competitive position provides ample support <br />for its claim of confidentiality. <br />It may be appropriate to re-emphasize that there <br />appears to be no legal authority for CMLR to dispute an <br />operator's claim of confidentiality once exercised by the <br />operator. In addition, under current Board Rule 2.07.5, it <br />is noted that "information contained in permit applications shall <br />be open, upon written request, for public inspection...." <br />(Emphasis added) It should be clear that this process, if <br />at all authorized by law, of making a determination as to <br />the appropriate classification and treatment of data as <br />confidential, be ins with a written request for public <br />