PERMFILE117290

• Permit No: M2005080
• IBM Index Class Name: Permit File
• Doc Date: 4/20/2006
• Doc Name: Comment - mineral rights
• From: Fred Wisely
• To: DMG
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

FROM FRED WISELY
~ aGO _S- o~C~ ~ Tom.
C ~ ' 7~ "l / ~ '7 L~f h L 7 ~i. i J
yir
Wisely, Fred ~
From
Sent:
To:
Wisely, Fred
PHONE N0. 719 579 9392 Rpr. 20 2006 08: 20RM P1
Page 1 of 1
~~"x- ~~ {~~.
_...
~~l ~- ~"~.5-..........._.__.----
Wednesday, April 19, 2006 5:14 PM
Cheryl Linden (cheryl.lindenGrnstate.co.us.)
Cc: Bob White; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Curt Sayer ([e-mail])
Subject: Allen Gravel Mining Application
Dear Cheryl,
I just got off the phone with Kate Pickford. She informed me that you are the State Counsel
reviewing the subject application and that tomorrow morning you will be assessing the legal issues related to the
application. At this hour, our attorney is not available, so I will attempt as best as possible to summarize our
findings from both our research and discussions with our Attorney.
I. Our research, provided to your office this week, shows the title documents wherein both
Mr_ Cargill and Mr. Buyer reserved a total of 100% of the mineral 'rights in the recorded deed of June 27, 1963.
These rights were originally granted as part of the Patent deed recorded on April 18,1674.
2. We have now contacted the male heirs of both Mr. Cargill and Mr. Buyer and they are
researching their records to ascertain whether these mineral rights were passed to them in the transfer of the
estate through wills or other conveyances. If the mineral rights were not conveyed, it is our understanding that
they have every intention of pursuing a quiet title action to obtain them.
3. While we understand that a "notice" was published in the Fairplay Flume requesting
mineral right holders to come forward, this notice, we understand, was for purposes of attempting to notify them of
a zoning change as required by Planning Commission procedures. Our counsel informs us that this publication
does not give the owner of the surface rights any title, or control, or ownership of the subsurface mineral rights.
4. We agree that there are legal arguments as to whether a surface owner has the right to
mine and extract gravel, Often times, courts will rule in favor of the surface owner when it is known and verified
that the gravel does not contain any economically viable antl extractable minerals. In this case, we have notified
your office, in our electronic transmission of the title information, that the gravel in the area purchased by Mr, Allen
has a significant history of gold placer mining activities. In fact, one of the largest gold dredging operations in
Colorado was used to extract gold from the extensive glaciated gravel deposits located a short distance from the
property in question. These gravel deposits wherein gold was eMracted are the same in composition to those
located on the Allen property. The dredging operations were halted when the economic balance of operational
costs was greater than the value of the recovered gold at the then government set price of ~35.OD per ounce. At
nearly 3600.00 per ounce at today's prices, we are quite confident that random sampling of the 59 acre area will
show that viable, economically feasible deposits exist. In our opinion, it would ba a significant mistake for the
State to approve a permit to extract gravel in this area wherein the State has doCUmented evidence that the
applicant does not possess the mineral rights; that the apparent heirs have been located and that there is a high
probability that the gravel contains economically viable gold deposits.
We respectfully request that the application be disapproved or delayed based on the information
provided above. In the interim, the subsurface mineral rights owners can be established and the State Geologist,
can perform and independent assessment of the minerals existing within the subsurface strata and their
estimated value.
4/19/2006