# Buyer Beware



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> A Montana man who wants to mine gravel on the Badlands ranch where Theodore Roosevelt once ran his cattle is comparing his dispute with the U.S. Forest Service to an Old West stare-down. He says he won't blink.
> 
> "If they want me out of the picture, pay me $2.5 million and I'll go back to Montana and they'll never here from me again," Roger Lothspeich said. "Or I'm going to mine that ranch for decades and decades to come."
> 
> ...


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Pay him or go home. Tree huggers. 

4.8 million of the peoples money flushed like an ugly turd.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Sounds like a money hungry *** to me.

huntin1


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Sounds like it is his land and the forrest service better pay up. Hopefully i will pave out of some of those pits. Nice country there.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

> "These people who think they'll come out there and see the so-called 'cradle of conservation' won't see anything except a bunch of gravel pits," Lothspeich said. "It won't bother me one bit to have big open pit mines at that place."


Someone trying to leverage the system!! Except, are there not reclamation requirements for activities on Forest Service lands? STRICT enforcement and regulation might make him change his tune. And how does that work if he only owns 1/2 the rights. Would he have to gret the OK from the owner of the other 1/2? I also understood that subsurface rights could nor significantly interfer with surface rights. Since the area would be in essence a park that might be a problem. Not to mention the family of "Black Footed Ferrets" I saw there last summer :wink: .


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

KurtR said:


> Sounds like it is his land and the forrest service better pay up. Hopefully i will pave out of some of those pits. Nice country there.


He never owned the land. He bought half of the mineral rights a year ago. He's trying to take advantage of the system, and the government's deep pockets. He cares nothing for the land or it's history, just the $$$ that he thinks he can get from the government.

I would love for him to have to pay for an environmental impact asessment, and then be told that he cannot mine the gravel because it will destroy habitat for some endangered species.

huntin1


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Once the gravel in mined the pit is returned to how it was or even in better shape. This is the same crap that keeps us from drilling in alaska and off the coasts.


----------



## dblkluk (Oct 3, 2002)

Although it seems there may be fault on both sides of this deal..
He's an arrogant money grubbing SOB..who's exploiting the system.

I bet if it comes down to it, his attitude regarding the entire deal will cause him alot of headaches..years of environmental impact studies, court costs, etc. only to find out the cant mine it. :wink:

I know where I wont be buying an atv in the future.. :wink:


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

KurtR said:


> Once the gravel in mined the pit is returned to how it was or even in better shape. This is the same crap that keeps us from drilling in alaska and off the coasts.


There is no way that you can return that land to what time has taken millions of years to create. "Better", to who? I happen to like the badlands the way it is, not the way you can make it with a bulldozer. We're not talking about drilling for oil here, we are talking about mining gravel. Something that can be gotten anywhere. And drilling for oil does not have near the impact on the land that open pit mining does.

Funny, this ranch was up for sale for a long time, this guy showed no interest in it until after the Forest Service bought it without the mineral rights.

huntin1


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

If you can get aggregate any where why are the rights worth so much. And not all aggreagate is of the same quality. like some contains alot of shale some is just to soft to use. Why did the forest service not buy the mineral rights when they bought the ranch that would have been smart. Once all they are done mining in 2 or 3 years you will not even know there was a pit there.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Just another reason why nothing should be separated from the property. Chastise the owner of the mineral rights all you want, but he has a legal claim and by law has more rights to the minerals than the surface owner does.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Somebody should bury this guy in his own pit. What a jacka$$. I would like to see that area stay just as it is.


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

Kurt, reclaimation has come a long way, but not far enough to put this back. If you can pull your mind out of your wallet long enough, you might even understand what's going on. This Lothspeich clown has crawled out from under his rock to take advantage of not only the beauty of the badlands, but YOU AND ME, AMERICAN TAXPAYERS, as well. This A$$bite and his ilk are more examples of what is truly wrong with this country. I hope the money grubbing scumbag chokes on the first dollar he makes on this deal.
Truly,
Burl


----------



## KurtR (May 3, 2008)

Im sorry but there will be not pit in an area like that. Dont know if you have ever seen a crushing operation but getting it in and out of a place like that would be more work than it is worth. Also setting up a asphalt plant and or a concrete plant would be next to imposible. Just the smallest amount of rain and you would be screwed and not going any where. So i dont think you guy have much to worry about they should call this guys bluff because no one is going to deal with those logistical problems to get aggreagate when you can go 50 miles north and get some of the best aggreagate in the state.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

> Once all they are done mining in 2 or 3 years you will not even know there was a pit there


Doubtfull... The only time these things seem to get "reclaimed" is if they are being mined under a government contract. The laws are in place but are rarely enforced. And most gravel mines that I have seen are mined for more than 2-3 years. Most of the pits in my area were here before I was born, will be here after I am dead and have yet to see ANY reclamation.

I agree in calling the guys bluff. It's one thing to have the rights, another to get it out of that area. I'm not sure the exact area involved but with the increased road restrictions in the grasslands area it's possible he may not be able to build or improve any roads to get it out.


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

Funny that people would pick one of two camps on this...

(1) The ranchers who owns the mineral rights

(2) Those who want more conservation from GVT involvement

But no one wants to acknowledge the fart in the room... why the heck didn't someone do the due diligence to research Mineral rights prior to spending millions of dollars... sad thing is that director still has their job!!!

This issue could have been avoided...


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Right on kid, we may as well have bought 4.8 million dollars worth of hammers.

He owns the mineral rights, they "now" want them so pay up or shut up.
Hells bells, with the way they are printing money it would be a 15 minute run to pony up his selling price.

I feel sorry us taxpayers but certainly not for "our" impotent govt.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

> He owns the mineral rights, they "now" want them so pay up or shut up.


As far as I read, this wasn't the case at all. This jacka$$ is saying I own the minerals, so if you don't pay me for them I will dig up your land.

Basically a hostage situation. This jacka$$ is saying do what I tell you or else!!

I think this is one case I wouldn't mind the gov coming in and just squashing this guys claim. [/quote]


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

We all need to remember that mineral rights trump those of the surface owner. Like it or not as Kid pointed out the state and Feds screwed this up royally. I do not agree with the guy and his tactics, but I will say that he has a legitimate claim and it has to be dealt with.

This situation is exactly why no rights should be separated in any manner. The horse is out of the barn on water and mineral rights, but this should be a valuable example of why no other rights should be allowed to be severed.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Holy Crap!!!! I'm agreeing with Ron!!!!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

gst said:


> Holy Crap!!!! I'm agreeing with Ron!!!!!!


I also agree with the two of you.

It's a sad situation, but those who were buying it sure didn't do their homework. It stings me because you can see the plan the guy had, and I don't like that type of less than open behavior. I mean, he purchased the mineral rights when the negotiations were in progress. This was planned, and it worked. Now the government will be held hostage, and the taxpayer pays. Screwing the government is screwing the taxpayer but many people don't see that. I'm not happy with the guy with the mineral rights, or the people in charge of the purchase. One was a sneak and the other not so smart.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

He only owes half of the mineral rights, wouldn't he have to get permission from the owners of the other half before even considering doing this. I don't know how this works.

Yeah the feds dropped the ball, that doesn't make this right. And it doesn't change my opinion that open pit mining should not be allowed in the badlands.

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Yes, I think he would run into problems if he mined. I think he seen the government buying it and now is simply trying to blackmail a couple of million out of the government. Real poor, but he might get by with it. Huntin1, he's a lowlife for sure in my book. We might have to live with it, but we don't have to like it.


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

Burly1 said:


> Kurt, reclaimation has come a long way, but not far enough to put this back. If you can pull your mind out of your wallet long enough, you might even understand what's going on. This Lothspeich clown has crawled out from under his rock to take advantage of not only the beauty of the badlands, but YOU AND ME, AMERICAN TAXPAYERS, as well. This A$$bite and his ilk are more examples of what is truly wrong with this country. I hope the money grubbing scumbag chokes on the first dollar he makes on this deal.
> Truly,
> Burl


Right on, Burly. If this guy pit mines the Elkhorn, I hope he burns in hell...


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

50% or more is a controlling interest.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

So if 2 people each have 50%, who has controling interest? Can one do something without the others consent?

huntin1


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I think so.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Im pretty sure I saw a dodo bird out there last summer. Should be enough to tie him up in red tape for a couple millenia while they conduct their impact assesment. :lol:

This guys a dick. Plain and simple. Probably belongs to posse comitatus or something too, maybe the freemen.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

I can't believe they didn't look into the mineral claims before the purchase. Anyone with half a brain should know better when in western ND. You can hardly get into the county recorder's office in some counties these days because of mineral research being done. I have been to some over the last couple years where you can barely wiggle your way in. He has 1/2 interest in the mineral rights and with that surface *access* rights only. He cannot impact the surface rights of the surface owner while in the process of mining. He cannot cause economical impacts on the surface rights holder without compensation and permission. If he finds that the best access point to minerals for example is under a building or road or some other structure, he cannot just rip it up to make his access. He could be looking at a long and expensive process with getting the permits to mine when dealing with economical and environmental impacts.


----------



## Centerfire (Jan 13, 2006)

It would seem the Forst Service screwed up but they are not without recourse:

They could enforce eminent domain and take the mineral rights through the condemnation process. The law allows this provided the individual is given due process and provided just compensation (the value of the minerals - not the blackmail value).

This may be off the thread and it has been a while since I have been out in the grasslands but I recall a whole lot of new roads for oil exploration - will the oil companies be required to reclaim them when they leave (it sets a precidence)? 
I found it odd to be in the forest service grasslands and see an old dirt trail upgraded to gravel with signs saying were the private and not to be used - is this still the case after all are isn't it public land?


----------



## Skip OK (Jul 16, 2006)

I make my living regulating mining activities on land where the mineral rights are severed from the surface rights. This situation has actually been addressed many times by the Courts.

If one sells mineral rights, the transaction is presumed by the law to have value; a transfer od property rights that provide no value is not considered to be legal. If the Surface owner can prohibit the Mineral Owner from enjoying his land, the reservation of Minerals would have no legal meaning.

For that reason, the Mineral Estate is considered to be the "dominant" estate over the Surface Estate. The mineral owner generally has the right to enter unto the surface and use so much of the surface as may be "resonable" to extract his/her minerals.

That may or may not be subect to the payment of surface damages; at least in theory, it may not. Every case I know of ends up with the surface owner getting some sort of damage payment either in dollars or in kind.

If this particular piece of ground has certain non-intrinsic value; such as historical value due to TR ranching it, then probably the BEST solution would be to properly compensate the Mineral Owner for taking his land. Pleasse understand that this would be CLEARLY a "taking" of his property, and he is one of the "owners" of this land, just as much as the Forest Service.


----------

