My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1993-01-14_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1981017
>
1993-01-14_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2021 12:30:17 PM
Creation date
5/1/2012 9:46:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1981017
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
1/14/1993
Doc Name
Representative of the 3 major credit camps
From
Holden & Jessop, P.C.
To
Winston & Strawn, Fairfield & Woods, P.C. & Assist, Attorney Gen.
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Tags
DRMS Re-OCR
Description:
Signifies Re-OCR Process Performed
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Stephen W. Seifert <br /> January 13, 1993 <br /> Page 5 <br /> MLRD on December 2 . Various ideas were discussed related to the <br /> implementation of the reclamation plan. We are waiting to hear <br /> from Waldron as to the acceptability of these ideas. A letter <br /> from Diane Delaney to me dated December 8 is enclosed, which <br /> describes the issues under discussion in greater detail. <br /> The Division's response should permit some further <br /> refinement of the cost of reclamation as estimated above. For <br /> example, what is the standard for acceptable revegetation? The <br /> current plan allocates $459, 000 for revegetation; the actual cost <br /> could be considerably more or considerably less, depending on the <br /> details. Similarly, $675, 000 is allocated in the current plan <br /> for backfilling haul roads. The specific manner in which <br /> backfilling is to be performed will tell us whether this estimate <br /> is excessive or inadequate. We hope to have better numbers on <br /> some of these items soon. <br /> The only property pledged to secure reclamation of the <br /> mine is Resources ' rockdust plant. It is clear that the plant <br /> has a value which is much less than the probable cost of <br /> reclamation. Resources believes that the existing pledge to the <br /> MLRD should be augmented with a senior lien on the mine site and <br /> unit train loadout site, subject to some maximum dollar cap. <br /> This recognizes the realities of the situation. Sanwa could <br /> foreclose on its equipment and real property outside the mine <br /> permit area without reference to the reclamation problem. The <br /> only property burdened by reclamation costs is the mine site and <br /> the unit train loadout site. <br /> Without getting into the argument about whether any <br /> portion of the reclamation costs could be surcharged against <br /> Sanwa or otherwise come in front of Sanwa's lien on the mine <br /> site, I think it is unlikely, as a practical matter, that Sanwa <br /> will foreclose on the mine site so long as reclamation of the <br /> site is unresolved. Secured lenders generally do not like to be <br /> in the chain of title of environmentally burdened properties. <br /> Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that any purchaser of the <br /> mine site will assume that it has to do the reclamation work <br /> itself, and therefore will deduct the cost of reclamation from <br /> the price it is willing to pay for the property. One way or the <br /> other, the cost of reclamation is likely to be borne by the mine <br /> site property. <br /> A related point concerns real estate taxes, which are <br /> the true senior lien on the mine site property. The property has <br /> ' gone to tax sale for 1990 and 1991 taxes owed to Pitkin County, <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.