Laserfiche WebLink
1991 . (Exhibit A) . The agreement provided Resources with the <br /> opportunity to sell the mine site since Resources represented <br /> that it was unable to continue the coal mining operation. The <br /> hope was that a buyer would assume the operation in full <br /> compliance with applicable law including submitting an adequate <br /> bond to ensure reclamation of the site. In return, Resources' <br /> permit would not be revoked because of the violations. The Mined <br /> Land Reclamation Board ("Board") adopted the settlement agreement <br /> as an order on May 22 , 1991 . <br /> According to the agreement , in January of 1992 , if Resources <br /> had failed to sell the mine site, Resources was to show to the <br /> Board its ability to proceed with reclamation according to the <br /> schedule set forth in the agreement . In January 1992 , Resources <br /> stated to the Board that a sales contract had not been finalized <br /> and requested a continuance. The Board granted a continuance, <br /> ultimately to August 1992 . However, the Board' s order otherwise <br /> remained in full force and effect . <br /> on- ^onth aftor the 11'1)2 hearing, Resources <br /> filed a petition in bankrupt ,_•) . �--_ uurcec never performed <br /> reclamation in complian,'c, with the settlement agreement. The <br /> deed of trust Resources submitted a bond to ensure reclamation <br /> ,:,as later found to be subst•t^t i a 1 1 i n,idequate to cover the costs <br /> of reclamation. <br /> In April 1994 , the bankruptcy court confirmed a liquidation <br /> plan governing the distribution of Resources' assets. (Exhibit <br /> -3- <br />