There was a national furor over the oil leases in the Teapot Dome lands by Interior and it turned out that the Secretary of Interior, Albert Fall, had taken bribes. The oil shale land disposals from 1920 through 1988 were sanctioned by Interior officials. They entailed Federal resource disposals and enrichment of successful claimants on a scale which makes the Teapot Dome amounts look tiny. The 1986 "settlement" which was made by Interior and Justice without carrying the government's case to the appellate Courts appears highly questionable. The county does not know how these disposals happened, on what authority they were based, why they happened, and who was really responsible? Given the huge oil shale disposals still pending, the Congress has a duty to investigate the validity of past and pending oil shale land disposals in view of the documented statements in official, professionally-prepared Interior briefs that applicable laws had been widely disregarded. There is also widespread public and editorial skepticism about the oil shale land disposals at $2.50 an acre -and even at $2,000 an acre. To enact new bills which perpetuate the disposal process under one guise or another is utterly unsound public policy. Before it allows any further disposal of oil shale the Congress should therefore thoroughly investigate the oil shale situation and determine in what ways laws might have been disregarded or violated, and how much in public oil shale lands and resources might have been lost as a result. The Congress should also diagnose what caused the breakdown in public policy and public management which the Interior briefs have described. Attachments: Denver Post clippings, 7/16/88 and 12/13/88 Rocky Mountain News clipping, 7/17/87 Interior staff memo of 6/16/80 urging Petition for Rehearing in Andrus v. Shell. 8/10/89 (303) 494-4871 Oil shale claims deal near accord Post Wire Services RIFLE (1) shale claimants angry at 60 years of government stalling and two Colorado Democrats bent on protecting public ac cess to the Piceance Basin reached an agreement of sorts on oil shale claims Thursday. They agreed to form a commit tee, under the auspices of the Asso ciated Governments of Northwest ('olorado, to attempt to seek a compromise that could be introduced in Congress. Rep. Ben Night horse Campbell, D-Colo., and Sen. Tim Wirth, D. Colo., have introduced bills to convert the disputed oil shale claims, most of them dating back to World War 1. into leases. Campbell's bill passed the House last year, while Sen. Bill Arm strong. R-Colo, concerned over the property rights of the shale claimants, has Wirth's bill bottled up in the Senate. Wirth and Campbell want to pre. vent another round of patenting by the Interior Department under which 82,000 acres of oil shale lands were deeded to claimholders in 1986 for a filing fee of $2.50 per асте Claim sold to Shell One of the largest claimholders to patent claims was the Tell Ertl estate, which then turned around and sold 17,000 acres, acquired for $2.50 per acre, to Shell Oil Co. for $37 million. That brought cries of speculation, a federal lands fire sale and the Campbell-Wirth legislation. Joe Fox, attorney for the Ertl estate, said Thursday the estate still holds some property and has used the Shell sale as capital to invest in research in hopes of using oil shale to strengthen asphalt. That project is ongoing in Rifle. and instead of "paying attorneys to fight the government, we're now paying people in Rifle to work out there." Fox said. Campbell, Wirth and Armstrong were represented by aides Dan McAuliffe, Audrey Berry and Christine Kadlub, respectively. They agreed with Rio Blanco Commissioner Peggy Rector, who chaired the meeting, to take part in a committee to seek a compromise. Claimholders, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, National Wild hfe Federation and Colorado De partment of Natural Resources are likely to have representatives named to the panel More than Saudi Arabia At issue is the eventual disposition of an estimated 270,000 acres of oil shale lands in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah. They all are part of the Green River Formation, which is said to contain more oil than Saudi Arabia. Under the 1872 Mining Law, prospectors can stake claims to minerals, do five years of amersment work, defined as spending $100 per year, and then file for a patent on their claim. In 1920, Congress passed the Minerals Leasing Act, which shifted a number of minerals, including coal, oil and oil shale, into a leasing category, not claims. The claims at issue were staked before 1920. Tuesday, December 13, 1988 THE DENVER POST Interior Dept. revives shale land ‘giveaway' By Gary Schmitz Denver Post Washington Bureau WASHINGTON Barely a month before leaving office, the Reagan administration has resurrected a controversial program that gives oil shale lands in Colorado and Utah to energy companies and land speculators for just $2.50 ал асте. Congress imposed a moratorium on such transactions in 1987 after the Interior Department turned over 82,000 acres of federal shale lands in Colorado. Environmental groups and House and Senate Democrats assailed the massive property transfer as a "giveaway" of publicly owned resources. But with the moratorium expired and repeated congressional attempts to adopt a permanent prohibition having failed, Interior's Bureau of Land Management says it will begin processing an addition al 250,000 acres of claims scattered across the high plateaus and rug. ged canyons of western Colorado and eastern Utah. "Congress has adjourned with out enacting oil shale legislation, (and) the department feels compelled to carry out its duties," James Cason, assistant interior secretary for land and minerals management, wrote leaders on Capitol Hill. Interior Department officials, defending their policy before several congressional inquiries, insisted the land transfers were supported by the 1872 Mining Law and a lengthy history of court rulings. Ignacio Democratic Rep. Ben Nighthorse Campbell, whose district includes most of the shale lands at issue, questioned the Interior decision. "This is typical coming from this administration," Campbell said. OIL SHALE PLAN JAFFECTS 250,000 acres. COST: $2.50 per acre. THERE ARE 1,575 mining claims for oil shale; applications have been filed to take ownership of 334 of those claims. "Why do they have to push the deadline... the second the moratorium runs out. What's their hurry?" Campbell vowed to reintroduce his legislation that would severely restrict future shale land transfers. In the meantime, he said he will "continue to put pressure on the department" to scrutinize claims carefully. Federal law allows those who stake out mining claims to take title to surface lands, provided several tests are met, for a nominal filing fee of $2.50 per acre. That legal process, known as "patenting a claim," holds firm for minerals like gold and silver. But Please see SHALE on 9-A اخر Page 16 Rocky Mountain News ŠPAL Friday, July 17, 1987 State/Region Oil shale move may cost U.S. $210 billion WASHINGTON-A decision by the Interior Department The study, conducted by the investigations staff of the "The department has abrogated its trust responsibility by The study estimates there are 77 billion barrels of shale the lands and leased them to oil companies while charging a An Interior Department spokesman declined to comment, During the oil crises of the 1970s when prices skyrocketed, Despite the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars, Much of the country's prime oil shale land is federally U.S. District Court Judge Sherman Finesilver based his The claimholders are mostly large oil companies who The Interior Department's decision to settle the case by Since settling the case, the department turned over own- As a result of the decision, the cost of producing shale oil The study also determined that "no economic analysis was The study was completed in February but hasn't been made public. From: . Subject: Solicitor Acting Regional Solicitor, Rocky Mountain Region Petition for Rehearing--Andrus v. Shell Oil Company, U.S. In the subject case, the Supreme Court held that the "present marketability" feature of the test for determining whether a discovery exists on a mining claim cannot be applied to such a claim located for oil shale. It held Congress had carved out a "prospectively valuable" test for oil shale prior to 1920; that Congress, in passing the Mineral Leasing Act of that year, adopted this less stringent standard; and, that the subsequent promulgation by the Department of its Freeman v. Summers decision together with certain congressional hearings confirmed this lesser standard for oil shale. We believe the Court's decision overlooks or misapprehends important facts and points of law. We strongly suggest that a Petition for a Rehearing should be filed. As the dissenting opinion points out, the majority opinion reflects a misapprehension of the law of discovery as established in 1920. The relaxed "prospectively valuable" standard to which the majority refers applied only in cases involving disputes between rival or adverse mining claimants and not to disputes between the United States and a mining claimant. AS the court pointed out in Book v. Justice Min. Co., 58 F. 106, 124 (D.C. Nev. 1893): It must be remembered that this is not a controversy between miners, |