And now:Ish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1999 14:33:25 -0800 >From: Tom Schlosser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Organization: Morisset Schlosser Ayer & Jozwiak, 801 2nd Ave., Ste. 1115, Seattle, WA 98104, 206 386 5200, (206 386 7322 fax) >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Court To Hear Southern Ute-Amoco Dispute >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Comment: Nevada Indian Environmental Coalition > > Here's an article from last summer with more info on this important case. The case can be found at: >http://laws.findlaw.com/10th/941579v2.html > >Utes celebrate natural-gas decision >By Electa Draper >Denver Post Staff Writer > >July 22 - DURANGO - A federal appeals court ruling that the Southern Ute tribe owns >hundreds of millions of dollars worth of natural gas extracted from coal could spark a >modern day range war with non-Indians who thought they owned the minerals, several >landowners predicted Tuesday. > >Southern Ute tribal attorneys and associates were awash in celebratory toasts into >the early hours of Tuesday morning while many La Plata County landowners, whose >fortunes of the last decade could be stripped from them, were "drowning in tears,'' as >Durango-area mineral owner Bill Thurston put it. > >The appellate court's 6-3 decision Monday that the tribe owns the coal gas reversed a >lower court decision in 1994 that sided with defendant Amoco Production Co., several >other gas companies and 2,000 to 3,000 other mineral interest owners. Many fear the >reversal could spark hostilities between the wealthy Southwest Colorado tribe and >some of its neighbors. And worried mineral owners far from the reservation said they >are just waking up to the fact that the case has implications that could rock their >lives. > >Southern Ute tribal attorney Tom Shipps said the tribe is aware that the court's ruling, >if it stands, could impose a hardship on some mineral owners. "That's something >we're sympathetic to,'' Shipps said, "but, ultimately, we do not feel it's the tribe's >fault.'' He said that gas developers such as Amoco who pursued extraction of coal >gas before the tribal ownership issues were fully resolved are largely responsible for >false expectations among mineral owners. Amoco officials said Tuesday they were >very disappointed in the appellate court's decision and were considering an appeal to >the U.S. Supreme Court. The company also claims other defenses that, officials say, >would stop the tribe from recovering the wealth that coal-bed gas has produced since >the mid-1980s. > >For one thing, Amoco attorneys say, coal-bed gas production had been well under >way for several years before the tribe filed its suit claiming ownership of the gas in >December 1991. > >The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled Monday that the natural gas >trapped within coal beds underlying 200,000 acres of the 700,000-acre Southern Ute >Reservation had been reserved to the U.S. government by Congress in its Coal Land >Acts of 1909 and 1910. The federal government conveyed its interest in the coal to the >tribe in 1938; the tribe claims it owns everything in the coal, including the natural gas >locked within it. > >Amoco claims that Congress reserved only the solid-rock coal and not the gases. >Amoco officials say the natural gas belonged to the farmers and others who settled >on parts of the reservation after the federal government opened it up to homesteading >at the turn of the century. Now, Amoco argues, those settlers' descendants and other >successors own the non-coal minerals, including all natural gas, whatever its origin. > >In addition to the parties directly involved in the case, Amoco officials claim, the ruling >might also affect owners of more than 20 million acres of land in several Western >states - everywhere Congress reserved coal for the federal government but not the >land or other minerals such as natural gas. "It's a can of worms,'' said Bayfield-area >landowner Don Gosney, one of the largest mineral owners in the county. "The ripple >effect will be beyond belief. The lawyers for the next 100 years should love it.'' > >A three-judge appellate panel led by Chief Judge Stephanie Seymour had first sided >with the tribe in July 1997. Amoco asked for and was granted a rehearing of the case >before the full bench of the 10th Circuit in mid- March. The court rendered its latest >decision Monday. The appellate court said that Congress' intent regarding coalbed >gas was not plainly expressed in the 1909 and 1910 acts that reserved the coal for >the federal government. In such cases, the court said, the established rule is that any >uncertainty must be resolved in favor of the federal government or its successors. >"The direct legislative history of the coal land acts indicates that Congress intended a >reservation of coal that encompassed both the present and future economic value of >the coal,'' the court wrote, even though at the time the explosive gas found in the coal >was known as a hazard to coal miners and not a resource. > >Amoco still optimistic Amoco spokeswoman Margaret Laney in Denver said that >Amoco is optimistic "it will ultimately prevail'' in the case. "We're not giving up,'' Laney >said. "We've seen many a case go back and forth. This one won't be resolved for a >very long time.'' Meanwhile, Amoco said, it must continue to suspend royalty >payments to these mineral owners until a final, unappealable decision is reached in >the case on who should receive the money. By that time, it might be too late for >some, Gosney said. "It's doing a lot of damage now to local farmers and ranchers >who were depending on this income to survive in the farming and ranching business,'' >Gosney said of the suspension of royalties. "Their notes are coming due and the >suspended royalties aren't helping them.'' Worried landowners in other parts of the >state where a federal coal reservation was made are now hearing from the Bureau of >Land Management and other federal agencies that there is a cloud on their titles to >natural gas, if it is extracted from reserved coal. Ron Leef, who owns 800 acres in >Weston, 18 miles west of Trinidad, said he is flabbergasted by the potential >ramifications of the case that he had just discussed with a BLM official. > >"We've been paying taxes on this land for 90 years,'' Leef said of private landowners. >"I've got 10 years of my life invested in it. I've got my kid's college education and my >retirement hanging on these few (gas) wells. I don't see how the federal government >can come in and just sweep this away from us based on a court case about >something on an Indian reservation. "This is the biggest land grab I've seen in the >United States in my life, and I'm (in my 50s). No wonder people are blowing up >buildings around the United States. You can't just steal from people. You can't just >have $300,000 taken from you in one day.'' > >Ish wrote: > >> Court To Hear Indian-Amoco Dispute >> >> .c The Associated Press >> >> By RICHARD CARELLI >> >> WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court agreed Friday to referee a big-stakes >> dispute between Amoco and an Indian tribe in Colorado over ownership of >> methane gas contained in the coal located under the tribe's reservation. >> >> The justices said they will decide whether a pair of 90-year-old federal laws >> that gave the government ownership of the coal applied as well to methane gas >> found with it. A decision is expected by late June. >> >> For most of this century, such gas was viewed only as a dangerous element of >> coal mining, but relatively recent technological developments has made coal >> bed methane commercially valuable. >> >> The Southern Ute Tribe, which undisputably owns the coal under its >> reservation, contends it also owns the methane gas. But Amoco Production Co., >> a subsidiary of Amoco Corp. that has purchased the right to drill for natural >> gas on the reservation, claims the methane is a natural gas it is entitled to >> take. >> >> A federal trial judge ruled for Amoco. But last July, the entire 10th U.S. >> Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision in a 6-3 vote and ruled for >> the tribe. >> >> In the appeal acted on Friday, lawyers for Amoco said the July ruling had >> upset ``settled expectations of property rights in natural gas worth billions >> of dollars.'' >> >> Amoco's lawyers argued the appeals court ``fundamentally misinterpreted'' two >> laws, the 1909 and 1910 Coal Land Acts that reserved federal ownership of coal >> while allowing the land surface to be bought by homesteaders. >> >> Lawyers for the tribe and the Clinton administration had urged the justices to >> reject Amoco's appeal. >> >> ``Congress has taken action in response to the court of appeals' decision, and >> it now appears that the decision will directly and immediately affect only the >> parties to this particular litigation,'' Justice Department lawyers told the >> court. >> >> But that assertion did not deter others in offering the justices their >> unsolicited advice. >> >> Those who filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting Amoco's appeal included >> the National Association of Royalty Owners, Independent Petroleum Association >> of America and five Western states -- Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Utah >> and Wyoming. >> >> The case is Amoco Production Co. vs. Southern Ute Indian Tribe, 98-830. >> > > > ><<<< To remove your name from this list send a message to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" with the message "unsubscribe triballaw" >>>> > &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit) Unenh onhwa' Awayaton http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/ &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
