Laserfiche WebLink
irrigation and picking rocks to the extent a rock picker is capable. The reclamation <br />standard will be as approved by DMG with Lessor's consent. <br />Lease page 9 ¶ 8(d). <br />Finally, the Morgans are subject to the following relevant obligation: <br />Lessor agrees to refrain from interfering with, delaying or obstructing Lessee's exercise <br />of any of its Rights hereunder, or similar rights on other lands by any means whatever. <br />Lease page 8 ¶ 7(f). <br />The Morgan Family's Conduct under the Lease with regard to PR -06 <br />WFC's view of the landowner consent and coordination issue is that the above provisions of the Lease <br />give WFC the rights necessary to conduct all mining and reclamation activities on the Morgan Property <br />that are contemplated by PR -06. The Morgan family is, in essence, attempting to withdraw its consent, <br />already given in the Lease, to those activities, having pocketed the overwhelming majority of the <br />economic benefits flowing to them under that Lease. It is not the intent of the requirements of the <br />Colorado regulatory program that deal with landowner consent and coordination to give veto power to a <br />landowner who is engaged in such unreasonable behavior, or to reward a landowner for making <br />exorbitant and unjustified economic demands of an operator. Such an interpretation would go well <br />beyond what is necessary to provide appropriate protection to landowners and instead open the door to <br />opportunism and abuse of the system such as is manifesting itself in the case of the Morgan family. If <br />the Morgan demands — in excess of Ten Million Dollars based upon alleged mishandling of soils on 51.6 <br />acres — do not constitute unreasonable demands, WFC would be hard pressed to say what would. <br />Notwithstanding the above, the Morgan family has undertaken the following actions, which WFC <br />considers individually and cumulatively a direct breach of the Lease ¶ 7(f) set forth above, and <br />inconsistent with the other provisions also quoted above, with regard to PR -06: <br />1. Sending comment letters to DRMS demanding the PR -06 not be approved and the WFC <br />permit be revoked, in addition to other demands, on December 14, 2009, December 26, <br />2009, February 18, 2010, March 9, 2010, June 4, 2010, and July 17, 2010 (all of this <br />correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit 3 ; <br />2. Sending DRMS, OSM, and WFC a 26 -page Notice of Intent to File a Civil Suit dated <br />March 29, 2010 (attached as Exhibit 4 hereto); <br />Filing a Ten -Day Notice of Violation with the Office of Surface Mining on March 23, <br />2010 (attached as Exhibit 5 hereto); <br />4. When that TDN received a negative response from the Denver Field Office on May 5, <br />2010, requesting informal OSM review on May 6, 2010; <br />5. Sending WFC correspondence demanding payment of $1.5 Million dollars as settlement <br />for alleged damage to the Morgan property on August 9, 2010, and threatening to file suit <br />by August 13, 2010 if these demands were not met (attached as Exhibit 6 hereto); and <br />