2008-09-17_REVISION - M1980244 (28)

Home Browse Search

• H. ODIN Mining International sent a letter stating that they own a portion of a claim in the proposed AM-09 mining area. They disagree with CC & V's claim to mine the joint claims under the Colorado common law which states, "a co-tenant in mining may mine and extract, mill and dispose of the ore subject only to the duty to account to the non working co-tenant for his or her proportionate share of the profits produced by the mining activities". This appears to be a civil matter outside the jurisdictional authority of the Division. CC&V has provided the legal right to access and mine the areas covered under permit # M-1980-244. Please provide a copy to ODIN Mining International. Another timely letter was also sent addressing similar issues, by Mr. William Cloister. Does CC&V has the right to mine this claim Please explain and also provide Mr. Collister your right to access and mine all claims covered under permit # M-1980-244. Are there any claims in the current permit area that are not indicated in the mining plan maps that are not owned by CC&V other than those indicated ? Please explain. Response. CC&V has the right to enter and mine the claim area jointly owned by CC&V and Odin Mining International (Odin) as we are co-tenants of the property and mineral estate. Colorado law specifically allows a co-tenant to mine and then compensate the other owners for their portion of the mineral estate. Odin has been so informed lnj CC&V as it mentioned in the comment letter to DRMS. This claim is shown as white or "CC&V right to enter and mine" on the property control map. As for Mr. Cloister, we do not interpret the letter as raising "similar issues" as Odin but rather as a general query for which CC&V has contacted and discussed Amendment No. 9 with Mr. Cloister. Mr. • Cloister does not own any mining claims within the area proposed to be mined by CC&V under Amendment No. 9. There are no claims shown within the permit area that CC&V does not own, lease, or have other authority to enter and mine. I. Our engineering staff believes, in order for the rock slopes described in the AM-09 document to be stable, specialized blasting to create final pit walls would be required if DRMS were to reclaim the mine pits under bond forfeiture. Please provide a cost estimate to consider the point in the mine plan where the greatest surface area of mine slope would require reclamation blasting, which is not necessarily at the point of full mine out of the pits. If CC&V wants DRMS to consider reclamation blasting completed concurrently with the mine pits reaching the pit limits, then plans for concurrent reclamation blasting that will be enforceable under the terms of the permit must be provided. In order to avoid the confusion between the Matheson Engineering report and the narrative in the application, the following recommendation will be enforceable by DRMS. Response. All proposed post-mining slopes in the MLE Project Application will be unconditionally stable as mined (MLE Project Application, Appendix 5). With a few small exceptions, all mine slopes developed in the mining district have been stable, with slope angles up to 60 degrees, and slope heights up to 1,500 feet (to date). Those few slope areas which have been unstable have failed immediately upon mining, and the slopes in the vicinity have stabilized • as a result. Because the slopes proposed within the MLE Project Application are being developed in rock that is dewatered and depressurized by the regional ground crater table intercepted by the Carlton Tunnel and because the slopes are essentially free of low-strength clayey material, there will be no later time when the stability will be less than at the time of 11