As a former resident of Battlement Mesa, as well as a director and delegate on the Service Association, I have copies of important Surface Agreement between Exxon and the Battlement Mesa Partners, dated 1990 , signed by partner, David Gitlitz.

I also have accompanying exhibits that “give specific legal descriptions of the proposed 14 drill sites,” and also legal descriptions where they cannot drill within the PUD.

This agreement is for 50 years. In it, “Exxon agrees on behalf of itself, it’s successors and assigns” with respect to the drill sites, etc. A map is included for the 14 wells agreed upon, winter drilling only. It states “these covenants run with the land” and cannot be “transferred separately therefrom.”

I am not a lawyer, but this seems pretty cut and dried to me. The new drilling company is a successor to this agreement and the other one that I have in my possession from Barrett, which states that it “shall be in strict compliance with the Exxon Agreement and with the provisions of the Exhibits which hereto and made a part hereof.” On what premise do they arrive at their legal ability to go beyond these 50-year agreements?

If I were still a resident, I would be trying to resurrect the Homeowners Association. Then maybe, they could have a voice, for the Service Association is also represented by the partners (who have the majority votes) When I was on the board, they would exercise their votes when it suited their interests.

However, it is the fiduciary duty of the association, as outlined in the declaration, to consider the general welfare of its members and to uphold the various articles about no noxious fumes, traffic, water quality, etc.

It seems it is still a Battle to live in Battlement!

Adair White
Grand Junction

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 2nd, 2009 at 4:03 pm and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.