2005-09-21_REVISION - M1977493 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Sorenson, Allen From: Stephen M. Brown [steve.brown @state.co.us] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006 9:38 AM To: Allen Sorenson Subject: RE: Climax AM -05 recommendation Sounds good. I like your analysis. »> "Sorenson, Allen" <allen.sorenson @ state.co.us> 1/7/2006 2:43 PM »> Oops, thanks for catching that. Here's a version with the "life of mine" language included. As I see it, if this "life of mine" issue is subject to questioning by the Board, DMG's position would be that after the 25 -years is up, depending on the situation at that time, the Climax Mine will have either reopened, which would mean that the amendment AM -05 will have served it's purpose admirably, the Climax Mine will not have been reopened because slow downs in the molybdenum market will have resulted in Henderson's life of mine being longer than is currently anticipated, in which case Climax could file another amendment asking the Board to further extend the life of mine, or for whatever reason it will appear that Climax will not be mined out under any reasonable timeframe, in which case the Board could seek to terminate the life of mine under section 34- 32- 103(6)(a)(IV), C.R.S. 1/10/2006 Page 1 of 2 ifY) 7 7 4 Original Message From: Stephen M. Brown [ mailto:steve.brown @state.co.us] Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 6:29 PM To: Allen Sorenson Subject: RE: Climax AM -05 recommendation Well, o.k., I guess (just kidding) but I thought you were going to change "25 year permit term" to "25 years remaining in the life of the mine" or something to that effect. I'm still not sure I agree about the concurrent mining statement, but if Climax wants it in, I guess it's o.k. by me. Climax will have to live with /explain it in 5 years if it isn't conducting reclamation activities at that time. »> "Sorenson, Allen" <allen.sorenson @state.co.us> 1/6/2006 5:59 PM »> Very much like the previous version, but I did incorporate your edits (and some from Bruce). Your edits were incorporated as follows: Page 2, Banta quote: you had the edit that "the law" be replaced by "it" (since "it" is what Banta actually said). However, Climax wants "the law" in parenthesis, which is an acceptable quotation modification for clarity, and I don't se a problem with granting their request. Page 2, Banta quote: I incoprated your edit to change "it's" to "as" Page 2, Banta quote: I incorporated your edit to enclose the phrase "operations are to be conducted concurrently with mining operations" in quotation marks Page 2, Banta quote: I incorporated your edit to add the word "concurrent" to the sentence "If we thought that was not a good basis on which to be exempt from concurrent reclamation, they wouldn't get the permit." Page 3, first paragraph: I decided to leave the phrase "so long as reclamation is being concurrently conducted" in the document because it goes to the record that the legislature voted down a proposal to use the language "upon substantia /termination of the mining operation" (this