HomeMy WebLinkAbout20020067.tiff •
CASE t40.1' ' '' :xis to ACN!*
NAME i ' f 1 NkN Ira"
REQUEST "'""' "•'-
APUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING THIS
PROPERTY WILL BE HELD AT 1555 NORM
1TANIE,GREELEY, COLORADO 40531,
Otls 20 AT 1 ii�A•
FOR MORE INFORMATION CALL THE
MElOnAUNTY DEPT.OF PLANNINGS AT(910)3534100 EXT.3510.
1.v) •I 1
EXHIBIT
9
,.
PATINA
_.--.._..— OIL Fr GAS CORPOf A I ion
1625 Broadway, Sidle 2000
Denver, Colorado 80202
December 17, 2001 303) s89-3600
(303) 389-3680 rac
We'.iIcomity Department ofPlanning Services
stun: Lauren light, Planner
1:1):7) North 1"711.) Ave. VIA FAX (970-304-6198)
C;tcc'" CO 8063
Pc: Marning Fresh Farms.. Inc
881363
Sit_ `thee;ilis Development Platt
Township ; North Range 66 Wem 601 P.M.
Wail Couol1. Culurado
1 ia;a \k.
to the proposed Site Specific Development Plan, please be advised that Patina Oil & Gas
C'oi is ii bin ( `I iiina'') i the owner of certain oil and gas leasehold rights under the application lands and
01' i ales hiree lilt and gas wells on the lands. Patina is very concerned about the impact the development will
ii110 u i ability to develop, produce, operate and maintain oil mid gas hells on the lands. Patina has
n Od 110 confirmation from the applicant th tt Patina's real property rights to use a reasonable portion of the
s ,r1-',.cc,of The lands for oil and gas development are being preserved.
t)' Lau:ut of im c timiship of a portion oithe oil and gas leasehold estate underlying the lands, Patina has the
rigid to acce9ii tie otho oil and gas under the lands. Patina is strongly opposed to any surface development that
\\mild I I ti il;air I' idi t s aceess to its existing wells,pipelines and production facilities.
i I' n1 t objects and is opposed to any county sanctioned use of the surface that would preclude
Tani i tic it Ina+ Menu-, operating and Inaintaioing oil and gas wells on the lands. Until this matter is resolved
I, cI e Ic;ir tanll the ,ylplicanf, Patina is lint waiving its rights as a leasehold owner. the Site Specific
1J;a ' rn„ci,t I'1-L1 total take into account Patina's existing wellsites, pipelines, access roads and production
Inici iias.
flirt i.tlr e�'[ Ih t Ibeau coumlelit; he entered into the record for the application and that Patina continue to
he p ided with othan ie notice of all tutus public hearines affecting the application. If you have any
pleas c unlact Dave Padgett at 301-389-3600_
l'A") I ss k Oil_ ,r, t ; CDR PORAT[ON// , /
r_l.1a.I,1 tt .
Vice I'revident
c. Dave I'ad eat
EXHIBIT
t
2002-0067
WELBORN St I_LIVAN ;N1i: is Sc1j( R l.Ly N
ItV6cC.,-at = afar.
ht. Lin L-
December 14, 2001
Via Telefax and Overnight Mail "
Ms. Lauren Light . •`
Department of Planning Services
1555 N. I r Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631 `
Re: Morning Fresh Farms, Inc.
Township 3 North, Range 66 West
Section 15: N2; SW4; N2SE4
Weld County, Colorado
Dear Lauren:
Ibis law firm represents RMIE Land Corp.(""RMF Land'), formerly known as Union Pacific
.and Resources Corporation. and R ME Petroleum Company("RMF Petroleum-).formerly known
as Union Pacific Resources Company, with respect to a special use permit application
("Application'') that has been filed with Weld County ("County' ) by Morning Fresh Farms. Inc.
("Applicant') for the property referenced above ("Property").
RME Land and RAT II Petroleum together own all of the minerals that underlie the Property.
Enclosed is a letter to the members of the Planning Commission and the Hoard of County
Commissioners of Weld County entitled "Notice of Mineral Interests Owned by RME Land Corp.
and RME Petroleum Company and Objection'' which I ask that you provide to the Planning
Commission and the Hoard to be included in the record of the proceedings to be held on the
Application.
As you are aware,the Colorado General Assembly recently passed I louse Hill 01-1088 which
was enacted into law as Article 65.5, "Notification of Surface Development," in Title 24 and which
became effective on July I . The law requires that developers give notice to mineral interest owners
of hearings on applications for developments and certify to the local jurisdiction that the notice was
EXHIBIT
--
December 14. 2001
Page 2
given. Local governments are to require the certification as a condition for the approval of the
application.
Notices of hearings should be provided to the RMl entities as follows:
Mr. Tom Marranzino
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
P. O. Box 1330
I louston_ "texas 77251-1330
I)an Casper
P.O. Box 265
Frank town, CO 80116
Thank YOU Ior your consideration and attention to this matter.
Best regards,
Molly Sommerville
MI.S/jkj
Enclosures
cc: I)an Casper
Tom Marrantino
Don Ballard
Marla Jones, ltsq.
Chris Greneaux/Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain
David Siple/Patina Oil & Gas Corporation
Shirley Kovar/l]nited States Exploration. inc.
'<H MI c.1..nmih.Lncilind L]:ItItISa igiii I'I pd
WELBORN St I.IRAN ;A1t.( :K 8 I out t N
I)eeemher 14, 2001
7�hrr kr..
Members of the Planning Commission
and the Board of County Commissioners
of Weld County
1555 N. 17°i Avenue
Greeley. Colorado 80631
NOTICE OF MINERAL INTERESTS OWNED BY RME LAND CORP.
AND RME PETROLEUM COMPANY AND OBJECTION ,
Re: Morning Fresh Farms, Inc.
Township 3 North, Range 66 West
Section 15: N2; SW4; N2SE4
Weld County, Colorado
Ladies and (ientlenien:
This law firm represents RMF,Land Corp. t'RMff Land"). formerly known as Union Pacific
Land Resources Corporation. and RMI', Petroleum Company l"RMI'. Petroleum.). formerly known
as Union Pacific Resources Company, with respect to the application that has been filed with Weld
County by Morning Fresh Farms,Inc.("Applicant-) for approval oN special use permit for property
("Application's) located in portions of Section 15. Township 3 North, Range 66 West ("Property").
RMI? Land and RMI: Petroleum together own all of the minerals that underlie the Property.
RMF Land and RMF Petroleum wish to give notice to Weld County ("County') of the
mineral interests they own under the Property and to make the County aware that any subsequent
approval by the County of a special use permit application for a livestock confinement operation.
including an egg farm and residences, may interfere with the continued development of the oil and
gas under the Property and make the development ofthe coal resources impossible or difficult. RMI:
,and and RMF Petroleum object to the approval by the County of the Application unless and until
an agreement on surface use is reached between the RMI: entities and the Applicant.
the following are comments in support of this Notice and Objection:
Members of the Planning Commission and
the Board of County Commissioners
December 14. 2001
Page 2
1. Hie Mineral Resources Owned by RME [,and Corp.
RMI'I .and owns all of the minerals except for the oil and gas that underlies the Property.
Please also find enclosed the pertinent portions of the Weld County Coal Resources Map prepared
by the Weld County Planning Commission(July 1. 1975)and the Coal Resources and Development
Map of Colorado prepared by the Colorado Geological Survey. Both maps identify the coal
resources that underlie the Property.
2. the Oil and Gas Resources Owned by RMII Petroleum Company.
RME Petroleum owns all of the oil and gas that underlies the Property. [WE Petroleum
believes that Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain Corporation ("KM ), Patina Oil &. Gas Corporation
("Patina-) and lJnited States Exploration. Inc. (1 AP-) have been assigned oil and gas leasehold
interests in the Property. It appears that Patina may operate 4 wells on the Property and that KM
operates 13 wells on the Property.
3. There is Clear Statutory Authority and Direction for the County to Take Into Account the
Rights of Mineral Interest Owners in Its Consideration of Subdivision Applications.
The Stale of Colorado recognizes the important rights of mineral owners and lessees in
C.R.S. § 30-28-133( 10) which requires that notices of hearings of subdivision plat applications be
given to mineral owners and lessees in counties. More important, subsection (10) states and
acknowledges that both the mineral estate and the surface estate are interests in land and that the two
interests are "separate and distinct." the subsection specifically directs county planning
commissions to recognize that the owners of subsurface mineral interests and their lessees have "the
same rights and privileges as surlatce owners."
Further,the Colorado General Assembly recently passed I louse Bill 01-1088 in Article 65.5.
Title 24. "Notification of Surface Development-. which requires that applicants for development
approvals give notice to mineral estate owners of hearings to be held before local jurisdictions for
applications for development and further requires that the developer certify that he has given the
required notice to mineral estate owners as a condition to the approval of the application by the local
jurisdiction.
Members of the Planning Commission and
the Board of County Commissioners
December 14, 2001
Page 3
4. Government Action Which Allows Surface Development in a Manner Which Precludes
Mineral Development May Impair the Vested Property and Contractual Rights of the Mineral
Interest Owner.
Colorado case law continues to provide that the mineral owner owns the dominant estate and
has the right of reasonable access to and use of the surface estate to extract minerals.' Actions by
a government entity which may have the effect of reversing this basic tenet of Colorado property law
and thereby deprive the mineral interest owner of its vested property and contractual rights may be
violative of federal and state constitutional provisions.
l Inion Pac i tic Railroad Company,("Railroad-)gave a deed to Western Land Company dated
August 25. 1908 and recorded in the Weld County Clerk and Recorder's office on October 20. 1908
in Book 233, at Page 169 in which it reserved all ofthe minerals. The Railroad granted the minerals
to I Pacific Land Resources Corporation (predecessor to RM11 Land) by quitclaim deed dated
April 1, 1971 recorded on April 14. 1971 in Book 644. Reception No. 1565712. Applicant had
record notice at the time it acquired its interests in the Property that the minerals were severed from
the surface estate and that it received less than the entire interest in the Property.
3. An Action by the County to Approve the Application May Amount to a Regulatory
"Faking within the Meaning(tithe State and United States Constitutions for which the
County Could Be Required to Pay the RME Entities Fair Compensation.
Action by the County to approve an application for surface development may constitute a
regulatory taking, especially where the operator is deprived of all economically viable use of land
or his investment-hacked expectations to develop his property
The United States(''laims Court and the Federal Circuit Courts have awarded compensation
or affirmed decisions to award compensation to energy and mining companies based upon claims
by the companies that their mineral properties had been taken by the government without just
'See Frankfort Oil Company v_ Abrams 413 0.2d 190(Colo. 1966)_ Note also, Gerrity Oil &Gas
Corporation v. Magness. 946 122d 913 (Colo. 1977).which discusses in a footnote on page 927 the principle that the
owners of both estates must exercise their rights in a manner consistent with one another
-See, for example, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council 505 U.S. 10O3. 112 Set. 2886, 120 I„bid. 2d
798 (.1992).
Members of the Planning Commission and
the I3oard of County Commissioners
December 14. 2001
Page 4
compensation because of government regulations which disallowed the development by the
companies of their mineral rights.'
�. The RME I ntitics I lave Filtered into Mans Agreements with Developers With
Respect to the Disposition of the Minerals at the Time that the Developer Proposes
to Develop the Surface Iistate. and the Public Interest is Served by the Parties
Entering into Such an Agreement.
RMIi Land and RME Petroleum ("RME entities') have extensive mineral interests
throughout Colorado where the surface estate and the mineral estate have been severed. The RMI;
entities have worked with many parties who wish to develop the surface estate in order to assure the
compatible development of the surface and the minerals or to effect some other disposition of the
minerals. The RMI: entities wish to work with the Applicant in the same manner that they have
worked with other developers. The RMF,entities obiect to the Application. however. until such time
as they reach an agreement with the Applicant and request that the County make any approval of the
Application conditioned upon an agreement between the Applicant and the RME entities.
Very Iruly yours,
WELBORN SI ILLIVAN MI?CK & I (X)I.I{1'. P.C.
By:
Molly Sommerville
MI.Sijhj
Enclosures
cc: Dan Casper
Marla Jones. Esq.
Don Ballard
Tom Marranzino
Chris Greneaux/Kerr-McGee Rocky Mountain
David Siple/Patina Oil & Gas Company
See Ior example Whitney Benefits. Inc. v. t Inited States, 18 ('LCt. 394(1989), corrected. 20(2LCt. 324
119911). atl'd., 926 F.2d 1169 (FedCir.), cert. denied I I2 S444 406 (1991); United Nuclear Corporation v. United
States_ 17 (714:1. 768_ ;ad.. 912 1424 1.132 (19904
l' yt�S t Mamie l cesid lrii s:.W_Id r 1111111, tr IJfI A�¢,
4 Pe i N WELD COUNTY COAL RESOURCES
GENERAL COAL RESOURCES
• e STRIPPABLE COAL RESOURCES
1 N
•
•
MINES (active and abandoned ).
•
T
4
LEI INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM COLORADO DIVISION Of MINES, UNITED STATES
BUREAU OF MINES, AND COLORADO LAND USE COMMISSION. 1975
I
T
• 3
I N
ref �
I T
I N
2.
I N
al'O a ■.
PI t .1 t ,I ,
N • W ��_ C
•‘,„„e• V,f _ _ _ p� B0fMfYI(V
•
i tea !' t�rOMelt l..w r j
ref
��.�� 1 •l[elaMT
'•
eL LIT T'
1 • 4 GrruNy C.
3 "
a I
\—
:it ;t. Ke7' In
--___----. kNtlin
K. �_/� - -- - •Nil r•
/ — —
F
/ _ = -z
re Y
• II I ROW : _.�_
Platt
aaryrt0 ,
Wc
J ___________, _________ =-"ri_
..=
— T110*P CT Val
—
_
M—_ ••anon
e
1
•
M'onenperg•..1 . � . ES V/ j _ noel! carry ? ?. . . . ...• . ..1 . ens . . •ee . .
S 10 IS 20 Statute MW
JULY 1, 1975
PREPARED BY WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
..;.77'
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
�y
kt
Map Series 9
wothl Et
EXPLANATION
, 41
LIGNITE WITH LESS THAN 150 FT. (46 M. ) OF OVERBURDEN t - '
�� LIGNITE WITH 150 FT. (46 M. ) TO 1 ,000 FT (305 M. ) OF OVERBURDEN
I f
SUBBITUMINOUS OR BITUMINOUS COAL WITH LESS THAN 150 FT. (46 M. )
OF OVERBURDEN
SUBBITUMINOUS OR BITUMINOUS COAL WITH 150 FT. (46 M. ) TO 3,000 FT. ' y �t, E_
(91O M.)OF OVERBURDEN L t,-
BITUMINOUS COAL WITH MORE THAN 3,000 FT. (910 M. ) OF OVERBURDEN
i
v t I. ' ANTHRACITE AND SEMIANTHRACITE '
A6 �I
1
\, AREA OF PAST OR PRESENT COKING-COAL PRODUCTION �'
DENVER REGION COAL-BEARING REGION t
42.47 ESTIMATED ORIGINAL IN-PLACE RESOURCES TO 6,000 FT. (1820 M. ) , :.:741 :
IN MILLIONS OF TONS
42.36 ESTIMATED REMAINING IN-PLACE RESOURCES TO 6,000 FT. (1820 M. ) , -
IN MILLIONS OF TONS, AS OF 1/1/77
legSOMERSET MINES AND PRELIMINARY 1977 PRODUCTION IN MILLION TONS
0.es (FOR MINES THAT PRODUCED
0._5 MILLION TONS IN 1977) —r ,ec:; : i
.a - I
■CD UNDERGROUND MINE (LICENSED AS OF DECEMBER 31 , 1977)
ABANDONED UNDERGROUND MINE +-r ,
'ilsue—
/ � ,
o i
1
et
i a-
� -1 .:s )
� ! Y
: . .. ' . a 114,, „.„.,.. ,..„„,
& ti
at 'c,;(1 f i .. ' 11•;11 - 1' - E, t
i � M N -0
F 1-- ` 1:1 _ — ..tin".fir
-T I 1 1 r v
�13 (� JJ. i ----- 31—'11/4—..„:._,' ,
r
— N .
i
, f �s r,z IL g‘
_
3 �J _� 3 I � J �3
L a
F E !Ill-
, ,
. ). _ _ 1 _ ( - V.S..
Hello