WILDLIFE FEDERATH Working for the Nature of Tomorrow NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION 1400 Sixteenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036-2266 (202) 797-6800 STATEMENT OF DAVID ALBERSWERTH, DIRECTOR PUBLIC LANDS & ENERGY DIVISION NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON MINERAL RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION REGARDING S.30 AND H.R.2392 July 31, 1989 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for providing the opportunity to present the views of the National Wildlife Federation on H.R.2392 and S.30. The bills address the public policy dilemma posed by the existence of pre-1920 oil shale mining claims on the public lands. The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) is the nation's largest conservation education organization, with approximately 5.8 million members and supporters. We have a longstanding interest and concern about the proper stewardship of our nation's public lands and natural resources. We have been concerned about the disposition of these claims for several years. NWF supports the policy declared by Congress in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) that the public lands should be retained in public ownership. Unfortunately, this policy is undermined by the 1872 Mining law, an obsolete statute which was written at a time when it was this nation's policy to encourage the settlement of the West by giving away publiclyowned lands natural resources. It fails to recognize other multiple uses of the public lands and provides for disposal of public property at far less than fair market value - two other important policy objectives of FLPMA. The Department of the Interior's 1985 decision to settle the Tosco Corp. v. Hodel -2 lawsuit by issuing 41 oil shale patents covering approximately 82,000 acres for the $2.50 per acre patenting fee stimulated public concern regarding the disposition of the approximately 253,000 additional acres of public lands still subject to oil shale claims. Both bills before this subcommittee represent conscientious attempts to deal equitably with this issue by protecting the legitimate rights of persons holding valid claims to develop oil shale, while protecting the public's right to expect proper management of the public lands. The history of this issue has been explained thoroughly in hearings before this Subcommittee and the House Subcommittee on Mining and Natural Resources held in 1987 and 1988, and does not need to be repeated here. S.30 is identical in many ways to H.R.2392, which passed the House by an overwhelming and bipartisan majority. Both bills prohibit the future patenting of oil shale claims with the exception of those claims for which all patent requirements were met prior to the date of introduction. Both bills provide the same options to holders of valid oil shale claims: these claimants may choose either to maintain their claims in accordance with new assessment work requirements or to convert their claims to leases under the terms of the Mineral -3 Leasing Act. Both bills require reclamation of mined sites and surety bonds to ensure that reclamation is completed. There are also some significant differences between the two bills. H.R.2392 grants limited patents of the mineral only to claimants who had done no more than file applications prior to introduction of the bill, while all other minerals and the surface estate is retained in public ownership. This provision is not present in S.30. S.30 raises the annual assessment work requirement to $1000 per claim per year. H.R.2392 requires the expenditure of "not less than" $5000 per year, and permits payments in lieu of assessment work. Finally, S.30 prohibits the issuance of oil and gas leases to claimants who choose to retain their oil shale holdings as claims, a provision not contained in H.R.2392. Both bills represent an extremely generous compromise to the claimholders: persons holding valid claims have their right to develop oil shale protected, while the public is assured there will be no more "giveaways" of valuable public lands under the guise of oil shale claims. -4 Both bills contain provisions protecting the legitimate rights of claimholders to develop oil shale. For example, claimants who possess valid claims and who met all patenting requirements prior to the date of bill introduction are entitled to patents under Sec. 2(f) of H.R. 2392 and Sec. 2 of S.30. those claimholders who have not met this deadline, we believe that it is time to close the "window of opportunity" to patenting which has been open for 70 years. Nevertheless, under both S.30 For and H.R.2392, claimants who have not met patent requirements prior to the January introduction date are still provided options to develop their claims (if found to be valid). They may continue to maintain their valid claims under modernized assessment terms, (S.30 and H.R.2392) or they may convert their valid claims under modified terms of the Mineral Leasing Act which are favorable to the claimants. There is no question that Congress is well within its Constitutional powers to raise the annual assessment work requirement. The 1872 Mining Law requires that claimants perform "not less than" $100 worth of assessment work each year (30 U.S.C. § 28). Further with respect to the lease option provided, unlike other oil shale lessees holders of valid claims who apply for leases are exempt from competitively bidding for oil shale leases, exempt from paying bonuses, and are exempt from the acreage limitations. |