My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ENFORCE23423
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Enforcement
>
ENFORCE23423
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 7:32:43 PM
Creation date
11/21/2007 10:25:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1988112
IBM Index Class Name
Enforcement
Doc Date
8/1/1993
Doc Name
THIRD PARTY MONITORS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CONTRACT BATTLE MTN RESOURCES INC SAN LUIS MINE M-88-112
From
DMG
To
MIKE LONG
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
2
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
~;~ ~ ~ III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ~ <br />STATE OF CO~,ORADO <br />DIVISION OF MINERALS AND GEOLOGY <br />Department of Natural Resources ,s~° <br />„s <br />1313 Sherman St., Room 215 ~ <br />Denver, CO 80203 <br />Phone. (703) 8663567 ''eTC ~ <br />FAX: (303) 832-8106 <br />Roy Romer <br />Governor <br />M¢hael B. Long <br />August 1, 1993 Divrsion DlreClo! <br />TO: Mike Long <br />FROM: Harty Posey <br />RE: Third Party Monitor''s failure to comply with conltract; Battle <br />Mountain Resources Inc.; San Luis Mine; M-88-112. <br />Last week, RCG/Hagler-Bailley, who have been contract to conduct <br />third party monitoring at Battle Mountain's San Luis fac'lity, missed <br />a sampling deadline. The Division received no advance otice of the <br />intent to miss the deadline. Anne Maest, who has been c nducting the <br />sampling, offered that she had been very busy as an explanation for the <br />situation. <br />Alana Scott informed me on July 23 of the pending deadlin I was also <br />told that the most recent invoice, a copy of which I had not yet <br />received, had not been itemized, and therefore Bat le Mountain <br />preferred not to pay it. I phoned Dr. Maest's office o July 27 and <br />left a message with the receptionist that the deadline wa looming, and <br />that the invoice needed amendment. <br />In a July 28 conversation, Dr. Maest indicated she would ry to conduct <br />sampling at the site during the week, either going herae f or sending <br />someone in her place. However, in conversation with ana Scott on <br />July 29, I was informed that the sampling could not be cheduled. A <br />FAX of July 28, which owing to travel I did not see un it August 1, <br />explained part of the work but not all of it. <br />Battle Mountain has indicated they will be preparing a l~tter for the <br />Division about the situation. <br />At this point, according to my reading of the contract and the MOU, <br />Battle Mountain is under no obligation to retain RCG/HBI as the third <br />party monitor, provided they notify the Division of the no -compliance. <br />RCG/HBI's invoice is not approvable in its present fo (see letter <br />attached). The only way we can have the sampling co ducted is to <br />prepare a change order to the MOU between BMG and DMG. <br />I am dismayed with RCG/HBI's attendance to this contract:. Dr. Maest <br />has been informed on several occasions that I would not aPP~~ PProve general <br />invoices and that, instead, I needed itemized invoice b. Her last <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.