Chapter 12 - § 12.6 • ACCESS TO MINERAL INTERESTS

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 12.6 • ACCESS TO MINERAL INTERESTS

In Coquina Oil Corp. v. Harry Korlis Ranch,¹⁶⁰ the Colorado Supreme Court held that a federal oil and gas lessee could not assert a right of private condemnation for access to an oil and gas leasehold.

In Maralex Resources, Inc. v. Chamberlain & Powell,¹⁶¹ the court of appeals held that an oil and gas lessee had standing to bring a claim for a prescriptive easement across adjacent property to provide access to the leasehold. The court justified this deviation from the common law which, ordinarily, would not allow such an action, because of the unique nature of an oil and gas lease, mainly the fact that such a lease is meant to allow exploitation of the landlord's property. Oil and gas leases have been found by other courts to give the lessee a property interest in the land in question. The court also distinguished Coquina Oil by stating that the Coquina Oil holding was based on a concern to narrowly construe the private condemnation statute, a consideration not present here. However, the court then went on to uphold the trial court's determination that use of the road had been permissive, defeating the prescriptive easement claim.

Similar to Coquina Oil, the court of appeal ruled in Precious Offerings Mineral Exchange, Inc. v. McLain¹⁶² that the owner of an unpatented mining claim could not condemn a private access road.

In Chase v. Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission,¹⁶³ the court held that mineral estate holders have an implied easement burdening the surface estate and empowering mineral owners to make reasonable use of the surface estate to access the minerals.

--------

Notes:

^[160] Coquina Oil Corp. v. Harry Korlis Ranch, 643...