Dear HCN,
I was
disappointed to read your newspaper’s article of Sept. 25 titled
“Backyard Boom” by Rebecca Clarren and the associated sidebar
article titled “The playing field has to be leveled.” What concerns
me the most is that there does not appear to have been an attempt
to verify sources or obtain the other side of the story. I trust
you would agree that a responsible newspaper would investigate and
consider all sides of a story before publishing it. Your readers
should also be aware of the following facts:
Mr.
Micale bought his ranch property 20 years ago. He bought the
property without the mineral rights and subject to existing
material leases and eight existing gas wells. Mr. Micale was given
the opportunity to purchase most of those gas wells on his property
in 1997, but he turned down this opportunity. Our company acquired
the wells and leases in June 1998.
Strachan
Exploration, Inc., spent the next 16 months in 1998 and 1999
discussing new mineral development with Mr. Micale. The well site
mentioned in your article was moved there at the last minute at Mr.
Micale’s request from another location that Mr. Micale had
previously agreed with in August 1998. The fact is our company
spent 16 months reviewing and visiting potential sites to be
drilled, proposing surface damage agreements and accommodating him
up to the last minute.
His claim that we treated
him “like a piece of garbage” is not true. To claim we drilled our
well “without consulting him” is an absolute fabrication. We are,
as owners of the mineral estate, obligated to engage with and
negotiate with the surface owners regarding our operations. If
negotiations fail or stall, we may bond for surface damages with
the State of Colorado. This is, in fact, what we ended up
doing.
Mr. Micale filed his development plans
with no provisions or accommodations for future mineral
development. The Mesa County Planning Department never contacted us
as required by Colorado Revised Statutes 30-28-133(10), nor has
Mesa County Land Conservancy ever contacted
us.
This lack of communication from the surface
planning side is moot at this point, as Mr. Micale’s housing
development will not expand past the first phase of 50 home sites.
But several questions beg for an answer: If this land meant so much
to Mr. Micale’s family, why did he plat 300 homes on his ranch? If
he only had enough water rights to provide 150 single-family homes
(Mesa County District Court Case #92CW271), how could Mesa County
approve 300 homes? Why didn’t Mr. Micale create the conservation
easement while he was ranching rather than while he was
subdividing? Perhaps his record of selling only one lot in three
years influenced his decision to obtain $14 million in tax breaks
through a conservation easement rather than attempting to profit
from selling more home sites.
We have done more
than our fair share of negotiating with Mr. Micale over gas well
drilling and surface accommodation. Negotiations, however, are a
two-way street. Mr. Micale refused to negotiate in a timely manner
on our first well in accordance to the rules and regulations that
govern mineral development in Colorado. That well is behind us now.
Since then we have completed four surface agreements with Mr.
Micale covering four proposed wells.
We will
continue to negotiate with Mr. Micale as it is our responsibility
to protect the mineral estate as much as it is Mr. Micale’s
responsibility to protect his surface estate.
Stephen M. Strachan
Englewood,
Colorado
The writer is president of Strachan Exploration, Inc.
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline The other side of the story.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
