My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP02978
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
WSP02978
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:48:00 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 11:28:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8447
Description
South Platte River Project
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Date
8/1/1969
Author
Chase & Wampler
Title
Basic Data Report of South Platte River Project for CWCB
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
181
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />were also leased. Here, although there is something of a <br />trend from a higher to a lower royalty rate, going from <br />north to south, or from near to market to far from market, <br />the correlation is not very good, and it is not as directly <br />related to value as is a direct purchase. Also, royalty <br />rates are more affected by elapsed time than are acreage <br />prices. This is because at any given point in time there <br />is more or less a "going" royalty rate which gravel operators <br />are willing to pay, and over the years this rate has gradually <br />crept higher. The reason operators are more willing to pay <br />royalties than higher prices per acre, as time goes on, is <br />that the royalty does not represent a direct capital outlay <br />and is paid out of sales. Gravel operators much prefer to <br />lease land and put their money in equipment rather than <br />purchase real estate. Originally, at least for purposes of <br />this study, in the early 1950's and before, royalty rates might <br />be said to have been from about $0.05 to $0.07 per ton, sand <br />and gravel alike. Along about the mid-50's the general going <br />rate was about $0.10 per ton, and sometimes was $0.10 per ton <br />for gravel and $0.05 per ton for sand. Many lease contracts <br />had escalating clauses which were tied in to excess sales <br />over a certain base amount. At the present time, most lease <br />contracts which had a base for gravel of $0.10 and a base <br />for sand at about $0.05 have now escalated to $0.12 to $0.125 <br />and $0.06 to $0.07 per ton respectively. Consequently, newer <br />lease negotiations tend to begin somewhere around the $0.12 <br />per ton figure. In exceptionally good areas close to market, <br />the royalty rate may be $0.15 per ton. In one instance to <br />our knowledge, Lease No. L13, an operator was obliged to pay <br />royalties from $0.17 to $0.19 per ton due to a pressing need <br />for gravel reserves within that area. At the present time <br />within the area of general study, the base royalty rate <br />could be considered to be about $0.12 per ton on gravel. <br /> <br />As with royalty rates, yearly minimum payment figures <br />are also not as closely connected to acreage value as might <br />be expected. First of all, the highest rates tend to be in <br />connection with lease renewals, which are obviously made on <br />a known quality and quantity of reserve. Secondly, most <br />yearly payments were deducted from tonnage figures and were <br />cumulative. In other words, .several years advance payments <br />could be made before an operator began mining; however, once <br /> <br />-18G- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.