Gleeson Together ← Back to home
Surface Use Agreement · Cochise County

The Two Drafts, Side by Side

A plain-language comparison of the mining company's initial offer and the protections owners are proposing in response. This is what a negotiation looks like — both are starting points.

When a company holds mining claims on the federal minerals beneath privately owned surface, it generally needs the surface owner's cooperation to work efficiently — and the terms of that access are negotiated. Below, Diamondback Copper's initial Surface Use Agreement form (dated November 2025) is set beside the protections owners are asking for in a counter-proposal.

New here? Start with What leverage do we actually have? for the honest picture of what a united community can and can’t do. New to royalties? See how royalties work.

Every entry on the left reflects Diamondback's own draft language. The dollar figures on the owners' side are intentionally left open — the point here is the level of protection, not the price. Nothing on this page is legal advice; any agreement should be reviewed by an independent Arizona mining/natural-resources attorney.

Diamondback — initial offer (Nov 2025) Recommended counter-proposal
Diamondback — Initial Offer
Recommended Counter-Proposal
In fairness — where the drafts agree. Both versions have Diamondback defend and indemnify the owner for claims arising from its operations, and both require compliance with environmental laws. Diamondback's form also states a desire to "work cooperatively" and to coordinate access routes with owners. The differences below are about how much of that cooperation is written down and enforceable versus left to good intentions.