Laserfiche WebLink
Clq fZ og'a/ ?L^ <br />Kaldenbach, Tom <br />From: Berry, David <br />Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 6:45 PM <br />To: Frank Erisman <br />Cc: Hernandez, Daniel; Kaldenbach, Tom <br />Subject: RE: Carbon Junction Bond Adjustment <br />Frank - The decision will be issued tomorrow. <br />Thank you. <br />David <br />From: Frank Erisman jmailto:Frank. Erisman@hro.coml <br />Sent: Thu 3/10/20115:52 PM <br />To: Berry, David <br />Cc: 'Chi Chi Ray'; savageandsavage(dearthlink.net <br />Subject: RE: Carbon ]unction Bond Adjustment <br />David, <br />I had hoped your message was the decision. <br />I spoke yesterday to my client and Mike Savage and I sent your email to them. Oakridge has responded quickly. They like <br />me are finding this all quite frustrating. We have been talking with the Division about the reduction of the bond amount <br />because of the fact that the reclamation was complete and I understand that as part of its recent review the division has <br />determined Oakridge should have its bond reduced notwithstanding the request for the release. <br />However, Oakridge has advised me they want the decision asap and wish to wait no longer for it. They do not want to do <br />anything that would impair receiving the decision. They want to get on with their appeal and get in front of the board as <br />soon as they can. <br />Now, on the other hand our frustration regarding this reduction question is based on the fact that we don't understand why <br />the Division can't simple recognize Oakridge has done a good job in the reclamation and the Division has required a bond <br />that is too high. Therefore, a lower bond is acceptable. Period, end of story. Then when your decision comes out the <br />practical effect is that that instead of a retainage of 15% of X the retainage will be 15% of X-Y. It seems to us you could <br />send the decision tomorrow and then next week send a letter that the bond should be lowered. <br />For a company that mined only 70,000 tons of coal this process has become a real Catch 22. The Division in my view <br />should be able to exhibit more flexibility to assist the regulated operators than it seems to be able to do in this matter. <br />That is a long way of saying. Please do nothing to delay the decision any longer. <br />Thanks, <br />Frank <br />Confidentiality Notice - This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain <br />information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to <br />the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read or play this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, <br />printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is Strictly Prohibited. If you have <br />received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original <br />transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you. <br />Federal Tax Advice Disclaimer - We are required by U. S. Treasury Regulations to inform you that, to the extent this message <br />includes any federal tax advice, this message is not intended or written by the sender to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of <br />avoiding federal tax penalties. <br />From: Berry, David jmailto:David. Berry(&State.co.usl <br />Sent: Thursday, March 10, 20113:21 PM