ColoradoProspector   CP Club Membership Info.

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Gold Rush Next Season, Hoffman crew tears up Colorado (Literally)
Crusty
post Jan 2 2017, 07:43 AM
Post #1


Master Mucker!
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,312
Joined: 6-June 13
From: Falcon, CO
Member No.: 82,915



GOLD RUSH Todd Hoffman’s Colorado gold mine facing thousands in fines



















--------------------
Find Colorado Prospector on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/170314493176558

CP Lifetime Member

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
swizz
post Jan 2 2017, 08:40 AM
Post #2


Moderator
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 4,436
Joined: 25-August 09
From: way on up thar
Member No.: 6,983



They did horrible in OR and I can't imagine that Fairplay yielded the 3-5 thousand ounces per season that they need to keep it profitable. IMHO - they should to go back to the frickin Klondike or AK for the size of their operation and equipment. I doubt we'll see anything in the next season about this 2.5 acre violation. Fairplay.... that tells me they're really running out of ideas on where to mine, especially with that size of operation.
Tony & Parker have the right plans, every year without fail. happy088.gif


--------------------

/l
,[____],
l---L-OlllllllO-
()_) ()_)--o-)_)
BLACK SANDS MATTER!
Very Happy CP Lifetime Member
CP CORE TEAM

Referral Code CE213
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Crusty
post Jan 2 2017, 08:42 AM
Post #3


Master Mucker!
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,312
Joined: 6-June 13
From: Falcon, CO
Member No.: 82,915



QUOTE (swizz @ Jan 2 2017, 08:40 AM) *
They did horrible in OR and I can't imagine that Fairplay yielded the 3-5 thousand ounces per season that they need to keep it profitable. IMHO - they should to go back to the frickin Klondike or AK for the size of their operation and equipment. I doubt we'll see anything in the next season about this 2.5 acre violation. Fairplay.... that tells me they're really running out of ideas on where to mine, especially with that size of operation.
Tony & Parker have the right plans, every year without fail. happy088.gif


No doubt... stick with what works!


--------------------
Find Colorado Prospector on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/170314493176558

CP Lifetime Member

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
johnnybravo300
post Jan 3 2017, 09:09 AM
Post #4


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 464
Joined: 13-June 15
From: North Saguache county between Gunnison and Monarch Pass
Member No.: 120,659



I think I watched the first episode where they were trying to get their equipment to Alaska but they had a flat tire before they got on the boat and no one could fix it.
A mining crew is going to Alaska to mine with all that machinery in the backcountry and no one knows how to patch a flat tire? Serious??
I knew then that it was all bs. Just a bunch of drama. That was all the preview I needed of those retards haha. No wonder they have so many problems all the time.


--------------------
Level 2 member -12/25/16
Referral code JL697
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gene Kooper
post Oct 20 2017, 04:06 PM
Post #5


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 87
Joined: 24-May 15
Member No.: 120,476



I guess this thread is as good as any. A story on a lawsuit filed against the the Board of County Commissioners of Park County reported in the October 18, 2017 Summit Daily newspaper.

Discovery Channel’s ‘Gold Rush,’ ‘mining for ratings,’ faces lawsuit from Park County neighbors

I don't see the neighbors as having much luck in their lawsuit against the Commissioners. While the residential neighbors may be correct that without the Discovery Channel's money, the Hoffmans are incapable of turning a profit, "TV ratings" will not earn them a victory in court. The aside that the U.S. Forest Service is against the rezoning of the land because

QUOTE
The U.S. Forest Service also weighed in against the rezoning, saying in a letter that the show had "increased dramatically" the number of people living on National Forest land and mining without proper permits.


is a gneiss touch!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ASTROBLEME
post Oct 29 2017, 05:14 PM
Post #6


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 480
Joined: 16-October 08
From: Central Colorado
Member No.: 6,813



There are numerous occurrences of precious and base metal deposits near Fairplay, Colorado. Coal, uranium, oil, gas, industrial minerals and several geothermal resources are also located in Park County. Government planners and concerned citizens need to work with resource developers to assure proper access to and preservation of mineral rights. Surface occupiers seldom control the mineral wealth held in the lands below their interests as the minerals most likely have been severed from the surface estate many years ago. It is my understanding that the land use zoning at the Hoffman's mine site was illegally changed decades ago and the land in question should have never been removed from mining to promote residential developments.

If those parties now complaining actually owned the minerals where they built homes upon, then there wouldn't be any problem. The mineral developers pay A LOT of severance taxes derived from the production of their operations and the jobs they bring in benefit that community that was historically founded upon "treating miners fairly".

From my perspective, the folks involved with the Gold Rush series have done a fair job of revealing to the general public some of the hardships endured in trying to develop a valuable gold mine. I'll give credit to the Hoffman's for their persistence. I wish them well in their future endeavors in the Park County area.

ASTROBLEME


--------------------
Annual Dues Paying Member Since 2008

Tonko Mining Company

"Some day this crater is going to be a greatly talked about place, and if the above credit is due, as is certainly the case, I would like to have it generally known for the sake of the children." Daniel Moreau Barringer 2/1/1912 in a letter about the Barringer Meteorite Crater, Arizona USA
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ASTROBLEME
post Nov 12 2017, 05:17 PM
Post #7


Rock Bar!
****

Group: Members
Posts: 480
Joined: 16-October 08
From: Central Colorado
Member No.: 6,813



Attention Park County Mining Claim Owners and Operators:

Here's current information you need to be aware of. "Mining Zone District" begins on page 32.

https://www.parkco.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/264

ASTROBLEME


--------------------
Annual Dues Paying Member Since 2008

Tonko Mining Company

"Some day this crater is going to be a greatly talked about place, and if the above credit is due, as is certainly the case, I would like to have it generally known for the sake of the children." Daniel Moreau Barringer 2/1/1912 in a letter about the Barringer Meteorite Crater, Arizona USA
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CP
post Nov 16 2017, 02:14 PM
Post #8


Master Mucker!
*****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4,136
Joined: 7-October 03
From: Colorado
Member No.: 3



Thanks for the update on that Johnny. happy088.gif Very interesting and good point you've made about the illegal re-zoning now coming to light because the complaining home owners in the area (who aren't the owners of the minerals under their homes) don't like the fact they choose to live in a mineral extraction area. slaphead.gif
You're correct, it is a good thing the Gold Rush crew persisted on that part and hopefully they can succeed properly in the future too. happy112.gif It sure will be interesting to see how the home owners will react too as things proceed in the future. Sounds like they are getting a bit of learning curve lately as "home owners" about mineral ownership. smiley-cool14.gif


--------------------
CP-Owner/Administrator
www.ColoradoProspector.com

IF YOU USE IT, THE GROUND PRODUCED IT!
MINERS MAKE "IT" HAPPEN!!


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gene Kooper
post Nov 22 2017, 10:51 PM
Post #9


Shovel Buster!
***

Group: Members
Posts: 87
Joined: 24-May 15
Member No.: 120,476



QUOTE (ASTROBLEME @ Oct 29 2017, 05:14 PM) *
Surface occupiers seldom control the mineral wealth held in the lands below their interests as the minerals most likely have been severed from the surface estate many years ago. It is my understanding that the land use zoning at the Hoffman's mine site was illegally changed decades ago and the land in question should have never been removed from mining to promote residential developments.

If those parties now complaining actually owned the minerals where they built homes upon, then there wouldn't be any problem. The mineral developers pay A LOT of severance taxes derived from the production of their operations and the jobs they bring in benefit that community that was historically founded upon "treating miners fairly".

From my perspective, the folks involved with the Gold Rush series have done a fair job of revealing to the general public some of the hardships endured in trying to develop a valuable gold mine. I'll give credit to the Hoffman's for their persistence. I wish them well in their future endeavors in the Park County area.

ASTROBLEME

Do you have any evidence to support your general statement that land owners (surface occupiers) do not generally own both the surface and mineral estate (at least with respect to Park County)? As a land surveyor who restricts my practice to mineral surveys, I rarely run across that case. When I do, it is usually a situation where a Forest Service land exchange has occurred where the private land owner retained the mineral estate. I have seen a few examples on the BLM Master Title Plats where the surface was reconveyed to the U.S. but not the minerals. I can see it being more common for residential subdivisions where the subdivider keeps the mineral estate, esp. in areas with oil and gas plays like Weld County. In this case, the property is owned by High Speed Aggregate, Inc. and was originally patented as placer claims.

Also, do you have a source or hard evidence that the zoning was illegally changed several decades ago? I agree that there is a long history of zoning clashes between mining interests and those wanting to develop old mining properties for residential use in Park County. One of my past clients owned several hundred mining claims and fought the good fight with the county over that very issue. He very much wanted to preserve the mining history of Park County and served on a county board dealing with these issues. His efforts were mostly in vain from what he told me. BTW...the property is only leased to the Hoffmans.

The current clash has nothing to do with whether the residents own both the surface and mineral estates. Their land is not being mined. The property owned by High Speed Aggregate, Inc. is near the residential lots. The residents are outraged at the noise and the fact that "their" county commissioners ignored the Planning Dept. recommendation to reject the rezoning application.

From the research that I have done, I found that High Speed Aggregate, Inc. applied for the rezoning request on April 30, 2017. That is at complete odds with the Gold Rush show that indicates the Hoffman crew had no idea that the new area was not zoned for mining, until Mr. Dodge got the county's cease and desist order. It looks to this jaundiced eye that the show's producers wanted to manufacture some drama by showing the Hoffman's shock at being forced to halt their mining operations by the county. And, unless Mr. Dodge is an officer of High Speed Aggregate, Inc. or approved to act as their representative, I have large doubts about him being the only (or even main) speaker at the County Commissioners meeting in August. I say this because HSA requested to postpone the rezoning request from the June 2017 Planning Commission meeting because they had determined it was prudent to engage legal counsel.

QUOTE (ASTROBLEME @ Nov 12 2017, 05:17 PM) *
Attention Park County Mining Claim Owners and Operators:

Here's current information you need to be aware of. "Mining Zone District" begins on page 32.

https://www.parkco.us/DocumentCenter/Home/View/264

ASTROBLEME

This is only applicable to private property owners who may have an interest in mining their property. It does not apply to the owners/operators of unpatented mining claims.

QUOTE (CP @ Nov 16 2017, 02:14 PM) *
Thanks for the update on that Johnny. happy088.gif Very interesting and good point you've made about the illegal re-zoning now coming to light because the complaining home owners in the area (who aren't the owners of the minerals under their homes) don't like the fact they choose to live in a mineral extraction area. slaphead.gif
You're correct, it is a good thing the Gold Rush crew persisted on that part and hopefully they can succeed properly in the future too. happy112.gif It sure will be interesting to see how the home owners will react too as things proceed in the future. Sounds like they are getting a bit of learning curve lately as "home owners" about mineral ownership. smiley-cool14.gif

CP,

I'll ask you also, what proof do you have to make the bold assertion that the zoning was illegal? It is all well and fine to show some contempt for what one regards as over-reaching county land use regulations. I found documentation that the land in question was treed, zoned as residential for at least 45 years and that the previous land owners never sought to change the zoning. That is until High Speed Aggregate, Inc, completed the purchase of the property in September 2016. This last winter HSA was working furiously to amend their mining permit because the Hoffman crew (I regard them generally as morons, but I digress) expanded the mining operations in 2016 outside of the mining permit area (i.e. they cut down trees, moved dirt around, etc.). HSA was on the hook for some hefty fines by the Colorado Mine Reclamation Board. IIRC, it was in the neighborhood of $35,000 in fines. I would presume that during the time that the permit was being revised it was found that the 24-acre property was zoned residential rather than mining.

Before anyone gets their hackles up, I have worked as a land surveyor in Park County since 1995. In the course of my work, I had to become familiar with the county rulz and regs. From the other thread where CP and Denise described their county issues, I posted several statutes that were enacted in the early 1970s that passed control of land use issues from state government to local government (i.e. counties). The below quote that states the zoning had been residential since 1974, is contemporaneous with counties gaining local control over land use. If some are hell-bent on insisting that the zoning back then was done illegally, I would really appreciate concrete evidence, not just some "understanding" or buying an oldtimer's notion that it was illegal. If anyone posting on this forum had purchased a house near the current mining operation when things were quiet and then found yourself living next door to a large, noisy mining operation, would you be happy? I don't give the nearby land owners much hope of getting the rezoning overturned. As elected officials, the Park County Commissioners are protected from being sued solely because a plaintiff doesn't like the decision that they made. IMO the best they can hope for is that additional restrictions will be imposed by the county (e.g. noise abatement).

QUOTE
The subject property is located just west of the Town of Fairplay, between Platte River Drive and the Middle Fork of the South Platte River. A Vicinity Map is included as Attachment 2. It consists of three metes-and-bounds lots of 20, 19.5, and 2 acres. The applicant wishes to rezone the lots for mining and mining-related uses.

Northern portions of the subject property have been mined historically. The property is currently being mined under a Division of Reclamation, Mining, and Safety permit issued in 1991. Over the past several decades (i.e., since 1960), the mined area remained fairly consistent, but between 2014 and 2016 it expanded by roughly 2 acres.

The history of the zoning of the property is clear and simple. The original zoning map of 1974 shows the area north of the N1/2N1/2 quarter quarter line as Mining, and south of the line as Residential. That division was consistent in the 1998 zoning map, and remains consistent today. To reiterate, the zoning of the subject parcels has never changed since the first Park County Zoning Map. Based on historical information, the disturbed area, which consists of tailings from the river dredging, has extended into the Residential zone district since 1975.

snip, snip

The proposed expansion of the Mining operations is compatible with neighboring mining activities. However, the proximity of Residentially-zoned properties has already resulted in complaints regarding noise and other environmental impacts. The proposed expansion of the operation would result in mining activity within 100 yards of residences on nearby lots, and no buffer or setback is proposed in the application. The mining plan states that material processing would occur from sunrise to sunset or from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., whichever is longer. There is no stated schedule limitation on other types of activities could occur within the processing area. Impacts to neighboring residences could be reduced through appropriate conditions.

If folks are interested and believe it would benefit the discussion, I'd be happy to provide links to the statements in the last quote along with additional information.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th November 2017 - 12:49 AM