My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2019-03-18_REVISION - M2010036
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Minerals
>
M2010036
>
2019-03-18_REVISION - M2010036
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/27/2024 1:08:25 PM
Creation date
3/18/2019 4:00:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2010036
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
3/18/2019
Doc Name
Adequacy Review Response
From
Randy Schafer
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
AM1
Email Name
ERR
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.
/
30
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
law indicates that unless sand and gravel are specifically cited in the reservation,they are not <br /> deemed part of the mineral interest but part of the surface ownership. I am attaching two <br /> references. One is taken from Kinnie v. Keith (Colorado 128 P.3d 297 (2005)). The second is an <br /> article entitled Now Is It a Mineral? The Supreme Court Takes Another Look at Sand and <br /> Gravel. It cites a number of cases but makes a determination on sand and gravel in its <br /> conclusion. <br /> Based on these determinations, sand and gravel are part of the surface ownership since they <br /> were not specifically cited in your reservation. <br /> Sincerely, on behalf of Mr. Rick Ensminger, <br /> J <br /> Randy Schafer <br /> Consultant <br /> cc: Rick Ensminger <br /> Attachments: Excerpts from Kinnie v. Keith <br /> Conclusion from Now Is It a Mineral?The Supreme Court Takes Another Look at <br /> Sand and Gravel <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.