Laserfiche WebLink
FP.GM FRED WISELY <br />Wisely, Fred <br />PHOhlE N0. <br />719 579 9392 <br />Rpr. 28 2006 BB:2aRM P1 <br />~\ Page 1 of ]. <br />.~ Cove--d Ov~`~" ~~1~ `~~- <br />From, Wisely, Fred G ! "r YT l ~'' "` r ~ ~~ <br />Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 5:14 PM <br />To: Cheryl Linden (Cheryl.linden@state.co,us.) <br />Cc: Bob White; krolf@wildblue.net; Dbfishin55@aol.com; Gurt Sayer (curtsayer(i~gwest.corn) <br />Subject; A-en Gravel Mining Applicakion <br />Dear Gheryl, <br />I just got off the phone with Kate Pickford. She informed me that you are the State Ceunsel <br />reviewing the subject application and that torrrorrow morning you will be assessing the legal issues related to the <br />application. At this hdur, dur attorney is not available, so 1 will attempt as best ss possible to summarize our <br />findings from both our research and discussions with our Attorney. <br />I. Our research, provided to your office this week, shows the title documents wherein both <br />Mr. Cargill and Mr. Buyer reserved a total of 100% of the mineral rights in the recorded deed of June 27, 1963. <br />These rights were originally granted as part of the Patent deed recorded on April 18,1874. <br />2. We have now contacted the male heirs of hoth Mr. Cargill and Mr. Buyer and they are <br />researching their records to ascertain whatfier these mineral rights were passed to them in the transfer of the <br />estate through wills or other, conveyances. If the mineral rights were not conveyed, it is our understanding that <br />they have every intention of pursuing a quiet title action to obtain them. <br />3. While we understand that a "notice"-was published in the Fairplay Flume requesting <br />mineral right holders to come forward, this notice, we understand, was for purposes of attempting to notify them of <br />a zoning change as required by Planning Commission procedures. Our counsel informs us that this publication <br />does not give the owner of the surface rights any title, or control, or ownership of the subsurface mineral rights. <br />4. We agree that there are legal arguments as to whether a surface owner has the right to <br />mine and extract gravel. Often times, courts will rule in favor of the surface owner when it is known and verified <br />that the gravel does not contain any economically viable and extractable minerals. In this case, we have notified <br />your office, in our electronic transmission of the title information, that the gravel in the area purchased by Mr. Allen <br />has a significant history of gold placer mining activities. !n tact, one of the largest gold dredging operations in <br />Colorado was used to extract gold from the extensive glaciated gravel deposits located a short distance from the <br />property in question. These gravel deposits wherein gold was extracted are the same in composition to those <br />located on the Allen property. The dredging operations were halted when the economic balance of operational <br />costs was greater than the value of the recovered gold at the then government sat price of $35.00 per ounce. At <br />nearly $600.00, per ounce at today's prices, we are quite confident that random sampling of the 59 acre area will <br />show that viable, economically feasible deposits exist. In our opinion, it would ba a significant mistake for the <br />State to approve a permit to extract gravel in this area wherein the State has documented evidence that the <br />applicant does not possess the mineral rights; that the apparent hairs have been located and that there is a high <br />probability that the gravel contains economically viable gold deposits. <br />We respactfuf(y request that the application be disapproved or delayed based on the information <br />provided above. In the interim, the subsudace mineral rights owners can be established and the State Geologist, <br />can perform and independent assessment of the minerals existing within the subsurface strata and their <br />estimated value. <br />4/19/2006 <br />