Laserfiche WebLink
M-2016-030,Response to Adequacy Letter <br /> 8 November 2016 <br /> Page 3 of 10 <br /> The M-2016-030 application does not result in any obstruction of access to the oil and gas resources <br /> beneath the surface estate. Oil and gas production is consistent with both phased mining and <br /> concurrent reclamation, as proposed, and post-mining industrial use, as proposed. <br /> - The DRMS is not a planning commission or board of county commissioners, and the present <br /> application does not create a new subdivision of land parcels. Statutes applicable to the subdivision <br /> process are not within the jurisdiction of the DRMS and are not at issue under a Reclamation Permit. <br /> The Applicant has given and continues to give due regard to mineral estate rights and has made no <br /> representation otherwise, nor does the objection cite any such instance. Giving the mineral estate <br /> owner/lessee a de facto veto power, the power to postpone action on a Reclamation Permit until it <br /> deems an agreement between private owners satisfactory, creates economic imbalance and <br /> manifestly fails to give due regard to the rights of the Applicant in this case. <br /> - The Applicant understands that Anadarko has successfully worked with many other private entities to <br /> resolve issues related to surface use. The Applicant welcomes good faith negotiations to arrive at a <br /> similar resolution in the current case, and we believe such negotiations are underway. The DRMS has <br /> no role in these negotiations under the reclamation statutes or any other context. <br /> The Objector directly implies that the DRMS is reviewing a "surface development plan that forecloses the <br /> rights of mineral and leasehold owners." This is a false assumption, underlying the entirety of the Objector's <br /> stated bases for seeking DRMS intervention on its behalf. As explained in detail above, Brannan intends to <br /> honor subsurface rights to minerals and is proposing a plan consistent with future mineral exploration and <br /> production. <br /> In sum, the Applicant disputes the merit of the referenced objection. The Objector asserts that agreements <br /> on surface use must be established before the DRMS or MLRB may approve the Reclamation Permit. With no <br /> limit placed on the Objector's timing or discretion to reach an agreement, this amounts to unfettered <br /> delegation to a private entity of the state's permitting authority. Denial or conditional approval of the M- <br /> 2016-030 application in deference to this objector would be groundless under C.R.S. § 34-32.5-115(4) and <br /> other applicable law. <br /> 5. Please update Exhibit C-1, C-2, and F maps to show the name of the Applicant pursuant to Rule <br /> 6.2.1(2)(a). <br /> Exhibits C-1, C-2 and F have been revised to include the Applicant/Operator's name. These revised exhibits <br /> are attached for the Division's records. <br /> 6. In the notes section of the Exhibit C-1 map, the Applicant states adjacent property owners are noted <br /> on the map, with owner make noted in the text on their property. All of the property owners noted in <br /> the Exhibit C-1 table are not labeled on the map. Please update Exhibit C-1 map to show the owner's <br /> name, type of structures, and location of all significant, valuable, and permanent man-made <br /> structures contained on the area of affected land and within two hundred (200)feet of the affected <br /> land pursuant to Rule 6.4.3(g). <br /> Exhibit C-1 is updated to reflect more accurately the landowners and valuable, permanent and man-made <br /> structures within 200 feet of Valley's Edge Resource. This includes newly incorporates all such owners and <br /> structure owners within 200 feet of the proposed access road. <br />