I a LEASING OF ENZRGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES ON FEDERAL LANDS ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB82050 AUTHOR: Congressional Research Service Library of Congress David M. Lindahl, Coordinator Environment and Natural Resources Policy Divison THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM DATE ORIGINATED 04/07/82 DATE UPDATED 08/09/82 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 0809 CRS- I ISSUE DEFINITION -e Leasing of energy minerals has been a n issue of varying intensity f o r most of the past century, a s o i l , g a s , and coal became indispensable commodities i n both U.S. and world commerce. When high-grade, relatively cheap f o s s i l fuels were i n abundant s u p p l y , there was little pressure o n Federal l a n d s to provide additional quantities. Eastern coal was o f a higher quality a n d therefore, there was little interest i n Western accessible to markets -coal. Oil and gas from well-known locations on private lands mid-continent, California, Gulf Coast (onshore) was much more abundant a n d cheaper than o i l and gas from isolated, mountainous public lands. Current interest i n public lands relfects the depletion of the older, lower cost areas plus the high price of energy. -- Lands previously withdrawn from leasing for a variety o f public policy reasons a r e believed to contain large amounts of f u e l s which could reduce energy dependence on foreign sources, reduce the balance-of-trade deficit, Increases and generate revenues for t h e States and the Federal Government. development i s opposed in many cases by environmentalists who fear that energy leasing and subsequent development on wilderness l a n d s , p a r k s , o r areas withdrawn from leasing because of environmental considerations would d o irreparable harm to these areas. Some a l s o oppose leasing now because they doubt the existance of substantial economic resources sufficient to justify the likely adverse effects o n the environment. Many Western States, the oil companies, a n d the Reagan Administration have actively promoted the rapid leasing of energy minerals o n Federal land, a s did the Carter Administration. Leasing on Federal lands has increased by over 3 0 % over the past f i v e years. The issue h a s many aspects and is very complex; a n d , a s a result, i t has so far proven difficult for the Congress and the President t o avoid controversy over it. I t i s , and will probably continue t o b e , one of the major issues of the 1980s. BACKGROUND AND POLICY ANALYSIS The leasing policies o f the Reagan Administration, a s articulated by Interior Secretary James W a t t , have generated both strong support and strong opposition. T h e pro-development rhetoric and policies of this Administration stand in stark contrast t o those of its predecessor. Traditionally, the Interior Department has had a bias toward development, although rarely a s strongly expressed a s in 1 9 8 1 and 1982. Although the Carter Administration stressed a n increase in energy leasing, it also was more inclined to insist o n environmental protection measures than its predecessors, and operating regulations proliferated and became more stringent. The Reagan Administration took a position which was diametrically opposed to the Carter policy, seeking not only t o reverse the accommodations made to environmental interests, but also to make wilderness areas a n d other protected a r e a s more accessible to development than they had ever been before. The Reagan policy toward Federal lands i s still evolving and is likely to change even more in response to political pressures, but the basic policy includes the following objectives: (1) t o renew a n d to accelerate the leasing of energy minerals o n Federal lands (through areawide environmental impact statements, streamlining of the permitting process through self-imposed time limits, and larger and more rapid lease sales; (2) to CRS- 2 t r a n s f e r Federal lands t o t h e S t a t e s wherever f e a s i b l e o r t o sell d i r e c t l y t o i n d i v i d u a l s ( p r i v a t i z a t i o n ) ; ( 3 ) t o e n d new l a n d a c q u i s i t i o n s b y t h e F e d e r a l Government; ( 4 ) t o deny f u r t h e r w i t h d r a w a l s w i t h o u t t h e s a l e o r release of o t h e r F e d e r a l l a n d s ; (5) t o r e v e r s e t h e S o l i c i t o r ' s 1979 o p i n i o n denying t h e (6) t o update t h e 1902 I n t e r i o r Department t h e r i g h t t o reserve water; R e c l a m a t i o n A c t t o p r o m o t e water conservation porjects; (7) t o implement f i n a n c i a l i n c e n t i v e s f o r mineral e x p l o r a t i o n ; (8) t o r e t u r n t o t h e Interior and Department t h e l e a s i n g f u n c t i o n t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e Department of Energy; (9) t o reduce t h e mineral examination backlog a t t h e Bureau of Land Management. although efforts Many o f t h e s e o b j e c t i v e s h a v e y e t t o be f u l l y r e a l i z e d , t o a c h i e v e them are underway. Some o f them h a v e created considerable controversy. S e c r e t a r y Watt's d e c i s i o n t o l e a s e s e v e r a l t r a c t s on t h e O u t e r C o n t i n e n t a l S h e l f i n e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y s e n s i t i v e areas o f f t h e C a l i f o r n i a c o a s t The decision t o permit g e n e r a t e d h e a t e d o p p o s i t i o n a n d was l a t e r r e s c i n d e d . with widespread exploration i n c e r t a i n w i l d e r n e s s a r e a s was a l s o met cancelled. d i s a p p r o v a l , e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e S t a t e s a f f e c t e d ; a n d i t was l a t e r schedule In a d d i t i o n , t h e I n t e r i o r Department announced an a c c e l e r a t e d l e a s e t h a t l e d many i n t h e O i l i n d u s t r y t o q u e s t i o n p u b l i c l y its own a b i l i t y t o d r i l l e f f e c t i v e l y t h e l a r g e acreages t o be offered. The need t o g e n e r a t e revenues f o r b o t h S t a t e and F e d e r a l Governments are a p a r t i c u l a r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e Reagan A d m i n i s t r a t i o n b e c a u s e o f the income The n e e d t o t a x c u t s , which have r e s u l t e d i n lower r e t u r n s t o t h e Treasury. r e d u c e t h e d e f i c i t was a t l e a s t p a r t l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n ' s a c c e l e r a t i o n o f t h e p a c e of l e a s i n g f o r o i l , gas, o i l shale, coal, and g e o t h e r m a l r e s o u r c e s on F e d e r a l l a n d s . Opening t o l e a s i n g a r e a s t h a t a r e considered t o have high p o t e n t i a l b u t which were p r e v i o u s l y withdrawn o r n o t o f f e r e d b e f o r e would a l m o s t c e r t a i n l y g e n e r a t e s u b s t a n t i a l additional revenues through greater bonus b i d s , r e n t a l s , r o y a l t i e s , and c o r p o r a t e t a x e s . Whether o r n o t t h e revenue g a i n s w i l l be as g r e a t as t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n e x p e c t s , however, i s h i g h l y u n c e r t a i n . This issue brief provides an overview of the leasing issue. It is s u b d i v i d e d i n t o t o p i c s which p r o v i d e b r i e f summaries o f t h e major aspects of that subject, including: l e a s i n g of petroleum, coal, geothermal, and hardrock m i n e r a l s ; r e o r g a n i z a t i o n of F e d e r a l l e a s i n g f u n c t i o n s ; withdrawals of F e d e r a l l a n d from m i n e r a l development; r e s o u r c e a s s e s s m e n t ; d i s p o s i t i o n of F e d e r a l l a n d s , i n c l u d i n g l e a s e s t o f o r e i g n e r s ; a n d F e d e r a l l a n d s as a s o u r c e of F e d e r a l and S t a t e revenues. (David L i n d a h l , Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division) P E T R O L E U M LEASING P e t r o l e u m l e a s i n g became a m a j o r i s s u e i n t h e 1 9 7 0 s b e c a u s e o f t h e n e e d t o i n c r e a s e d o m e s t i c o i l a n d g a s p r o d u c t i o n t o r e d u c e t h e demand f o r i m p o r t e d oil. Most o f t h e m a j o r r e m a i n i n g p r o s p e c t s f o r c o m m e r c i a l o i l f i e l d s l i e e i t h e r on F e d e r a l l a n d s i n t h e Western United S t a t e s , i n A l a s k a , o r on t h e O u t e r C o n t i n e n t a l S h e l f (OCS). The h i g h p r i c e s o f c r u d e , on which F e d e r a l from t h e s e s o u r c e s were r o y a l t i e s a r e b a s e d , have meant t h a t t h e r e v e n u e s much g r e a t e r t h a n p r e v i o u s l y e x p e c t e d , w h i c h was w e l c o m e n e w s t o a s u c c e s s i o n of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s t h a t h a v e u s e d t h a t " w i n d f a l l " t o p a r t i a l l y o f f s e t b u d g e t deficits. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h o s e economic and n a t i o n a l security considerations, the l e a s i n g p h i l o s o p h y o f t h e Reagan A d m i n i s t r a t i o n i s t o maximize l e a s i n g so CRS- 3 IB82050 UPDATE-08/09/82 that the benefits of production could be achieved a s early a s possible. This policy, which increases industry access to Federal lands and revenue to the Government, has drawn stiff opposition from environmentalists who fear environmental degradation in the form of oil spills, a c c e s s roads i n wilderness a r e a s , a n d disruption of wildlife habitats. A s a result, the ambitious leasing schedule announced by the Interior Department i s facing some challenges. T h e Department has already backed down on plans to lease certain a r e a s off the California coast and to permit exploration in wilderness areas. T h e method of leasing has a l s o been a subject of concern. Federal l a n d s that are known to contain o i l , or a r e next t o producing s i t e s , a r e classified a s "known geological structures" (KGSs); along with all O C S tracts, these KGSs must be leased o n a competitive basis. The tract is awarded to the applicant who offers the highest bonus b i d , which entitles him to f i v e years i n which he can find oil and commercially produce it. If h e does find o i l , of the h e keeps the lease indefinitely and pays a royalty of 16 2/3% production value t o the Treasury. Only 3% of the total tracts offered each year are leased in this manner, but they produce most of the oil. Onshore lands t h a t have never been offered before or previous leases which have been abandoned o r returned a r e leased on a noncompetitive basis. New offerings a r e made on a n over-the-counter basis i n which the l e a s e i s awarded t o t h e first applicant. The previously leased lands are offered through a lottery i n which o n e application i s chosen a t random from a l l of those made for each tract; a l l of the applications in the lottery a r e considered to have been filed simultaneously for lottery purposes. The royalty rate f o r noncompetitive leases is 1 2 1/2%. T h e petroleum leasing program; which is administered by the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management and the Minerals Management Service, normally generates about $ 8 billion per y e a r , although the Administration plans to double that in FY83. T h e Interior Department a l m o s t always collects more money than it spends, making i t o n e of the few departments to actually make a profit each year. Because this revenue is so important i n reducing budget deficits, numerous suggestions have been made to increase it. These have included increasing the royalty rate on noncompetitive l e a s e s , raising the royalties o n a l l l e a s e s , accelerating the leasing schedule so more tracts a r e offered each y e a r , making a l l leases competitive, offering desirable tracts in KGSs that had been previously withdrawn from l e a s i n g , a n d by raising the application and rental fees. Another leasing consideration, and one that often conflicts with the goal o f maximizing r e v e n u e from energy l e a s i n g , i s the question of equitable access to K G S l e a s e s , particularly o n the OCS. The high bonus bids for such leases tend to f a v o r the major o i l companies because they generally have more available capital. Participation i n O C S leasing by independent o i l companies has been limited to a great extent by this bidding system a n d by the high cost of operating offshore. In recent y e a r s , new joint OCS ventures by the major oil companies have been banned a n d alternative bidding systems h a v e been approved for about 20% of O C S lease sales. Onshore, the main concern o f both the major and the independent o i l companies is access t o the most promising areas. Some of t h e s e , like the Douglas Arctic Wildlife Range in Alaska, may well contain upwards of 1 0 billion barrels of oil -- the equivalent of P r u d h o e B a y , which adjoins o n i t s western boundary. Because i t and other a r e a s , such as parts of the Rocky Mountain Overthrust Belt and t h e North and Central California C o a s t , have CRS- 4 IB82050 UPDATE-O~/O~ been withdrawn from leasing, a large potential supply of oil and gas cannot be tapped. Even when lease sales are held, legal challenges, often on environmental grounds, can delay actual drilling for years. Despite the opposition to the existing system, however, there has been considerable reluctance on the part of a succession of Congresses and Administrations to substantially alter the leasing program because of entrenched industry support of it. (David Lindall, Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division) OIL SHALE LEASING The Secretary of the Interior has the responsibility for leasing and managing the publicly owned oil shale lands. Thus far, only 20,000 acres (or 1%) of these lands, which contain the thickest and richest U.S. oil shale deposits, have been leased to the private Sector through the Department of the Interior's (DoI) Prototype Oil Shale Leasing Program. DO1 i s currently considering the lease of additional tracts under its prototype program a s well as the creation of a permanent oil shale leasing program. In addition to these executive actions, several oil shale leasing bills have been introduced. The House of Representatives has passed, and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has reported, legislation -H.R. 4053 and S. 1484, respectively both of which are designed to expedite shale oil production on federally owned lands. The principal concerns associated with oil shale leasing are: (1) the appropriate extent and timing (2) State and local governmental of future oil shale leasing activities, concerns regarding future leasing, and (3) the environmental protection of the areas where oil shale extraction would occur. (Paul Rothberg, Science Policy Research Division) -- COAL LEASING In 1971, after discovering that a substantial amount of Federal coal had been haphazardly leased, the Department of the Interior established a moratorium on all long-term leasing, pending the development of a new and comprehensive coal management program. About 1 6 billion tons in 565 leases had been awarded, but little development of these leases was taking place. The first attempt by the Department was thwarted by litigation in which environmental interests charged that the Department had failed to consider "no leasingw of Federal coal a s one of the available options in the array of leasing levels. In 1976, Congress enacted the Federal Coal Leasing Amendments Act (FCLAA) to solve the major leasing problems identified by the Department of the Interior. Major provisions included the development of "logical mining units" out of the hodgepodge of individual lease tracts; the leasing of Federal coal by a competitive bidding process only, the diligent deveopment of Federal coal leases (under penalty of forteiture) to discourage speculation in Federal coal by nonmining interests; and the establishment of a percentage royalty payment t o the Federal Government to more accurately reflect the value of the coal, with an increased percentage returned t o the States to ameliorate the socio-economic impacts of development. The establishment of the diligence requirements, however, has created new issues for the Congress to address. A number of lessees holding pre-FCLAA leases will obviously not be able to produce the required amounts of coal to avoid forfeiture. Interior has tried to solve the problem a t the regulatory level through its own interpretation of the law. This may lead to a CRS- 5 PB82050 UPDATE-08/09/82 challenge i n the courts. Mining interests have charged that diligent development should not concern the government since it is assured a percentage royalty of the coal's v a l u e , regardless of when i t i s mined. Furthermore, mandating coal development on a preset schedule disregards market conditions a n d could result in a n oversupply situation. P r o p o n e n t s o f diligent d e v e l o p m e n t , h o w e v e r r have expressed fears that eliminating the requirement would lead to renewed speculation i n c o a l leases. In response t o the industry's oversupply c h a r g e , they counter that prospective l e s s e e s should not actively bid for Federal coal unless the entlre output of the mine is committed over i t s life. F e d e r a l c o a l ownership, over the last decade, has definitely tilted toward the large energy companies, primarily the o i l producers and the electric utilities. T h e profile of total reserve ownership (both Federal a n d non-Federal) must include the railroads, particularly the Burlington Northern and the Union Pacific. Railroad reserves were originally procured during the 1800s via land grants a n d , although they a r e considerable, they a r e configured i n a checkerboard that complicates the formation of "logical mining units." T h e railroads have offered a s o l u t i o n , now being considered by Congress, t h a t they be permitted to lease the missing "checkers" o f Federal coal. Such a n action would permit the leasing of these particular reserves which would otherwise be difficult to develop. It c o u l d , however, exclude other interested parties from competitively bidding for the Federal portion o f the reserve. Opponents of the proposal (otherwise k n o w n a s the repeal of section 2-C of the 1 9 2 0 Minerals Leaslng Act) include the independent c o a l mining companies who state that this proposal would r e q u i r e them t o c o m p e t e with the railroads for customers when they are already i n a n railroads. untenable "captive-shipper" relationship with . the (Duane Thompson, Environment- and Natural Resources Policy Division) GEOTHERMAL LEASING T h e major legislative f o c u s o n geothermal energy development i n the 9 7 t h Congress is i n the a r e a of leasing reform. T h e basic authorizing legislation for the leasing o f Federal o r public lands for geothermal resources development is the Geothermal Steam Act of 1 9 7 0 , P.L. 91-581. This Act authorizes the Secretary of t h e Interior t o issue leases for geothermal resources development and provides for the size of the lease, conversion r i g h t s , r e n t s a n d royalties, duration of the l e a s e , readjustment of l e a s e terms, beneficial uses of w a t e r , a n d ownership of geothermal steam in s u r f a c e patents. In a d d i t i o n to establishing lease terms and c o n d i t i o n s , this Act defined two k i n d s of areas: Known Geothermal Resource Areas (KGRAs) which a r e leased to t h e highest bidder, and a l l other areas (leased by application). H o w e v e r , the implementation of this Act and the geothermal leasing o f Federal lands have not proceeded i n a timely fashion. Leasing reform legislation passed both Houses i n the 9 6 t h Congress but failed t o reach conference before adjournment. Similar measures, introduced i n t o the 9 7 t h C o n g r e s s , a d d r e s s a number o f concerns including: increasing the a c r e a g e limitation per S t a t e from the present level of 20,480 a c r e s per lessee t o 51,200 a c r e s ; revising the definition of KGRAs to eliminate the competitive interest a s p e c t ; providing for declassification of KGRAs on which there a r e no bids i n a l e a s e sale; extending lease renewals from 10 t o 20 y e a r s ; and specific provisions f o r protecting the thermal features of national parks. Meanwhile i n consonance with congressional concerns over the management o f geothermal leasing o f Federal l a n d s , the Secretary o f the Interior has announced actions to expedite lease applications and the holding of l e a s e Sales. Currently there are over 2 , 0 0 0 lease applications still pending CRS- 6 although 1 , 7 5 0 non-competitive leases have been issued over the past 7 years. (James Mielke, Science Policy Research Division) LEASING OF HARDROCK MINERALS The disposal of many nonfuel minerals on public lands comes under the jurisdiction of the General Mining Law of 1 8 7 2 , which provides that, in instances where minerals on Federal public lands have been located in commercial quantities, a claim to those lands may be awarded to the claimant through the local land office by the Bureau of Land Management. The claim, once properly located, filed and recorded, conveys to the claimant the exclusive possessory right to remove the mineral from the property. The only Government requirement of the claimant i s that $100 worth of work be performed on the claim annually. The Go.vernment receives neither an annual rental on the property nor a royalty on the production value of the public minerals. In addition to obtaining the right to extract the minerals within a claim, a claimant may apply for a "patentw or deed to the claimed area. A patent conveys title to the land, but the United States may reserve certain rights for itself. An important issue arising from the claim/patent system for the disposal of minerals on public lands is the fairness of return to the public for the rights of removing and marketing the minerals. Unlike coal leasing, i n which the royalty is a function of the value of the c o a l , under the claim/patent system there is n o return to the Federal Government for the minerals that are removed. Concer'n has also been expressed over the title transfer of public -lands t o - p r i v a t e - p a r t i e s ..when.-these lands will eventually be abandoned following mineral development. The General Accounting Office has documented several instances of gross abuse to the mineral patent system. Included among these were intances where the land was never used for mineral Critics also maintain that extraction, but for other, non-related purposes. patent issuance can also result in "islands" of privately owned land in an otherwise uninterrupted "seaw of public domain land with possible adverse consequences for subsequent land use. D u r i n g - t h e 94th and 95th Congresses, legislation was introduced to address many of th,ese problems by changing the claim/patent system t o a leasing system. However, it was introduced during the time of acute dep.ression in the copper industry and was abandoned following severe opposition from interest groups in some of the key western mining States. Among other reasons, the mining industry has objected to the imposition of a hardrock leasing system on the grounds that royalties would further add to total production costs that are now considerably higher than those of foreign competitors. Furthermore, it claims that to change from absolute ownership of the mineral deposit to a royalty arrangement would encourage the mine Operators to engage in "high-grading," or removing only the best ore and leaving the marginal ore that otherwise could economically be developed without a royalty. (Duane Thompson, Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division) ENERGY AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT ON FEDERAL LANDS Three agencies in the Department of the Interior have major energy and minerals management responsibilities. The Bureau of Land Management has responsibi1ity.for .administering leasing o n all federally owned lands, CRS- 7 Is82050 UPDATE-08/09/82 including those managed by other a g e n c i e s , a s well as on the 1.1 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf; .the U.S. Geological Survey h a s responsibility for assessing the resources on the public l a n d s ; and the newly formed Minerals Management Service carries o u t royalty collection for l e a s e d land and enforcement of regulations governing the leases. All three of these agencies have been reorganized within the past year in order to effect changes in policy o r direction under the Reagan Administration. This Administration has given the energy resources o n public lands a central position in its energy policy. In the July 1 9 8 1 report on t h e National Energy Policy P l a n , required annually by l a w , the Administration stated, "The Federal Government's most direct impact on America's energy future arises from i t s position a s the steward of the Outer Continental S h e l f and of the 7 6 2 million acres of publicly controlled l a n d , one-third of t h e land a r e a of the United States. These lands contain an estimated 85% of o u r tar s a n d s , 8 0 % of our oil shale, and 50% of our geothermal resources. The Federal role i n national energy production i s to bring these resources i n t o the energy marketplace, while simultaneously protecting the environment." The report observed that these are rough estimates o f the figures, and t h e full extent of these resources a r e unknown, but it indicated that i t i s t h e Administration's policy to inventory the Federal l a n d s and waters "to determine the quantities of energy resources so that wise resource decisions can be made." On July 2 1 , 1 9 8 1 , the Director of the Bureau of Land Management announced a reorganization of its functions, stating, "One of our primary objectives i s to icnrease the availability of Federal lands and resources for energy a n d T h e -positlan o f Deputy Director for Energy a n d m i e n r a l _daxelapnent.* I . Minerals was established, "to elevate the role of energy and minerals i s s u e s in multiple-use management." Major priorities were listed as streamlining existing energy and mienral leaging programs, accelerating development a n d implementation of n e w programs for leasing programs, accelerating development and implementation of new programs for leasing oil s h a l e , tar sands a n d Alaskan onshore oil and gas; increasing availability o f Federal lands f o r exploration a n d development a c t i v i t i e s , particularly for o i l and gas a n d strategic minerals; streamlining and coordinating decisionmaking for energy and mineral-related uses of Federal l a n d s , and improving the energy a n d minerals management capabilities of BLM professionals. The BLM reorganization memnorandum s t a t e s , "Our emphasis o n energy and minerals recognizes the critical national interest i n orerly eocnomic development o f these resources, while maintaining our commitment to environemtnal quality and balanced resource management." At present, the U.S. Geological Survey is engaged in a n accelerated evaluation of the potential of the Federal lands for o i l , g a s , and m i e n r a l s , The preliminary assessment is based o n overlaying the percentage of federally owned land o n the estimated undiscovered resources in each a r e a , and coming up with the estimated percentage of the resource that i s federally owned. This method results in only a very crude estimate, and will be refined o v e r the coming several years. The U.S. Geological Survey maintains a large scientific staff which carries out energy resource assessments, along with its other responsibilities for mapping and other resource evaluations. Until January 1 9 8 2 , i t also included a Conservation Division which w a s responsible f o r enforcement of leasing regulations after BLM issued the l e a s e s , and a l s o w a s responsible for r o y a l t y _ c o l l e c t i o n s . T h e divergence between these scientific CRS- 8 IB82050 UPDATE-O~/O~ and regulatory functions in USGS, and the findings of problems in royalty collections by the Fiscal Accountability Commission appointed by Secretary of the Interior Watt, led to a decision in January 1 9 8 2 , to remove the Conservation Division from the USGS and place these functions in a Minerals Management Service which reports through a Mineral Management Board t'o the Secretary. The Board is composed of an Undersecretary and two Assistant Secretaries of the Interior. However, the staff and operations of the Mienrals Management Service at present remain in the same location in the USGS facilities in Reston, Virginia. (Susan Abbasi, Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division) WITHDRAWALS OF LAND FROM MINERAL DEVELOPMENT A strong clash of values is evident in the controversies over whether or not adequate amounts of the public lands are available for oil, gas, and mineral leasing. The energy and mining companies frequently complain that large areas containing oil, gas, and minerals on the public lands are off limits to commercial development because of restrictions imposed a t the urging of "environmental extremists." Environmentalists argue t h a t plenty of Federal Land i s available for development without disturbing wilderness areas, that the energy and minerals industry do not fully explore the public land currently under lease, and that a crisis atmosphere in the public lands debate has been created for the purpose of acquiring leases on those lands. The fact i s , no one really knows how much energy and mienral resources exist or public lands or how much of the acreage is actually open to development. Estimates of the maount of Federal land withdrawn from oil and gas exploration range from 16% to 788. A withdrawal review effort i s underway in - - the-Inlterior Department ,- an& i t has found that many areas are subject to more than one withdrawal, and have been double or triple-counted. This means that the actual acreage withdrawn i s probably less by up to 50% than was originally thought. The leasing system itself is being criticized a s an inadequate tool in determining how the Nationa should exploit its natural resources, since it provides not way of determining if a leaseholder i s really interested in development or merely a speculator. It is not clear, therefore, whether more leasing will necessarily increase the production of energy resources. The mineral leasing methods also make i t difficult to determine the mineral potential of a n area without damaging certain characteristics. This results from the requirement that the Government must contract with mineral development companies to expore the public lands, y e t the companies a r e reluctant t o commit their resources to exploration if they cannot be guaranteed that they will be permitted to extract what they find. ' The issue of increased abailability of Federal lands for energy and To mineral development is focused to a great degree on wilderness areas. date, 8 0 million acres of Federal lands (10%) have been designated a s wilderness. Another 44.5 million acres of BLM and Forest Service lands a r e being considered for such designations by Congress and/or the land management agencies. That leaves 76% of Forest Service lands and 94% of BLM lands open to development. Under the Wilderness Act of 1 9 6 4 , land designatd as wilderness i s protected from the construction of ralds, dams, buildings, and other permanent structures; from logging; from coal mining; and from the operation of motorized equipment and vehicles. Grazing i s allowed, a s is hunting and fishing in some instances. The law allows o i l , gas, and mineral companies to explore in nonpark wilderness areas until midnight of Dec. 31, 1983. CRS- 9 IB82050 UPDATE-08/09/82 Oil and mining companies complain that their activities in designated wilderness areas have been effectively excluded as a result of excess government restrictions. Indeed, there has been almost no mining and very little oil exploration allowed on either BLM designated wilderness a r e a s (12,000 acres) or o n the 25 million acres of national forest wilderness. Oil and gas leasing, however, is occurring on Forest Service a n d BLM l a n d s which a r e being studied for inclusion i n the wilderness system. Industry a n d wilderness advocates disagree o n the compatibility of exploration activities with wilderness values. They further disagree o n the value of focusing t h e access debate on wilderness a r e a s which make up only 3 % o f the Nation's land. Environmentalists cite a recent study by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory o f the oil and gas potential i n the 23 million a c r e s of BLM land under wilderness review which says that this land represents less than 1% of t h e Nation's potential energy resources. Representative James Santini, chairman of the Mines and Mining Subcommittee has a bill (H.R. 3364) that would extend the 1 9 8 3 d e a d l i n e on mlneral exploration in wilderness areas for 1 0 years. T h e measure is currently lodged in the Interior Committee. L a s t y e a r , the House Interior Committee withdrew several wilderness areas i n Montana from o i l a n d g a s on further leases leasing and passed a resolution requesting a moratorium after the three leases were approved in the Capitan Wilderness in New M e x i c o * Secretary Watt agreed not ot issue any more leases until the end of the 9 7 t h Congress. At first, the Adminisration favored a 20-year extension of t h e 1983 deaclline but its latest proposal includes a ban on o i i and g a s leasing H.R. i n most wilderness areas in the lower 48 States until the year 2000. 5603 allows the President to open any wilderness area if he finds there i s a n -- urgent national. n e e d for s p e c i f i c mineral r e s o u r c e s ; gives Congress until t h e end of 1 9 8 4 to act on the Forest Service's RARE 11" wilderness recommendations and rules out any further wilderness review of national forest lands; and allows the Interior Department t o release without congressional approval BLM l a n d s studied f o r wilderness designation but found unsuitable. Conservation groups strongly oppose the bill. They a r g u e that i t provides less protection t h a n the current l a w and would severely restrict later wilderness additions f o r national forest a n d BLM lands. (Cynthia Huston, Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division) I' RESOURCE ASSESSMENT The resolution of problems stemming from human habitation or use of land involves a l l levels of government. Competition and conflicts a r e the primary stimulus behind local z o n i n g , State land-use plans, or Federal land management legislation. Minerals and energy usually occupy a prominent position in these considerations. It i s customarily recognized a s rational i n choosing among the alternatives to examine the public interest in terms of the benefits to be gained by one form o f use (or uses) over another. Exclusive o r irreversible land commitments prove particularly difficult to make. T h u s , our legislative history is characterized by specifications to "inventory" o r "evaluatew resource values a s part o f the decision process. The Wilderness Act of 1964 states: ... i n accordance with such program a s the Secretary of Interior shall develop and conduct in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, such areas shall be surveyed on a planned, recurring basis consistent with the concept of wilderness preservation by the Geological Survey and the Bureau of Mines to determine the mineral v a l u e s , i f a n y , that m a y , be present ... T h e F e d e r a l Land Policy and Management Act of 1 9 7 6 continues this pattern of requiring a p p r a i s a l of mineral resource potential by specifying a Bureau of Land Management Study: T h i s section extends the Wilderness Act to the public lands. It directs the Secretary t o review...tracts of Bureau of Land Management land...and to submit recommendations on wilderness suitability or within 1 5 years. T h e review must include nonsuitability mineral surveys.... Once a tract is designated a s Administration will include wilderness by the Congress periodic mineral surveys. ... ... ... T h e desire t o inventory continues t o appear i n current legislative PrOpOSalS. But concern also appears a b o u t h o w much review is necessary a n d 24, f o r h o w long. T h u s i n the purposes of H.R. 5603, introduced o n Feb. 1 9 8 2 , w e f i n d directives that: resource values in wilderness a n d wilaerness study a r e a s be properly inventoried, In order that informed land use and resource allocation decisions will be fostered... and - - . - - --- . - - wilderness study lands judged not suitable for d.esignation a s wilderness...not be retained i n indefinite or repetitious wilderness study processes. T h i s continuing call for mineral inventorying i s likely to be considered by many a s comparable to the evaluation of public land f o r g r a z i n g , timbering, water supply, or various developmental purposes. While these k i n d s o f a p p r a i s a l s a r e not f r e e of di,fficulties, t o gather information a b o u t hidden mineral a n d energy resources values i s significantly more costly, time-consuming, a n d imprecise a t best. D e s p i t e advances i n modern electronic g e a r , the sensing instruments currently available to u s rarely identify the presence o f mineral values in a n y sort o f specific fashion. It i s n o t possible f o r a designated Federal agency merely to f l y o v e r , o r traverse o n , a surface a n d make a judgment a s to the mineral resource potential that may exist. T h i s k i n d o f reconnaissance can provide only the most elemental identification o f the geologic a n d petrologic characteristics of the large a r e a s that a r e involved. T h e U.S. Forest Service i n its January 1 9 7 9 Final Environment Statement (RARE I1 Report) rated the mineral and energy potential of 2,919 individual study a r e a s covering 6 2 million areas. This effort w a s m a d e i n 11 months by a small g r o u p o f USFS geologists a n d mining engineers. The General Accounting Office reports that Congress i s currently making decisions based upon information that "implies a substantially firmer k n o w l e d g e of mineral presence (or non-presence) than actually exists...." In contrast, U.S. Geological Survey a n d Bureau of Mines spent 1 0 years examining 5.5 million a c r e s of primitive wilderness with uncertainty remaining a b o u t the quality of the results. O n e 230,000-acre area w a s subjected t o h e scrutiny of 1 5 staff people for over four years. GAO estimates that the USGS/USBM assessments required by the Wilderness At would cost an estimated $ 3 2 0 million. This work would have to be interspersed with other demands placed o n t h e two agencies. I t is well recognized among resource specialists t h a t none of the methods available to the Federal agenciess f o r inventorying k n o w n r e s o u r c e s o r assessing future mineral potential i s satisfactory. Usually, t h e work is based on limited observation, biased d a t a , a n d a reliance o n analog drawn from past experience. Highly subjective judgments a r e t h e n made o n a c r u d e s c a l e ranging from areas being not very promising t o those being "highly mineralized." Such estimates a r e not specific a s t o i n d i v i d u a l minerals, commodities, exact locations, or quantities likely to be found. T h i s i s f a r from the kind of site-specific exploration process used by individual f i r m s which involves laborious examination o f small, f a v o r a b l e a r e a s through seismic work, drilling, excavation, a n d o t h e r means not suitable f o r regional assessments and likely to intrude on t h e wilderness. Given the current interest in our domestic capability t o produce k e y energy and mineral supplies, much of which may rely o n the public land a r e a s , the need for resource assessment will continue. I t i s not l i k e l y t h a t a n y significant advancement will be made i n the near f u t u r e t o m a k e t h a t task q u i c k e r , better, or cheaper. The k e y problem t h e n becomes h o w i s the Congress and the Administration to make allocation d e c i s i o n s given this pervasive uncertainty. (John S c h a n z , Senior Specialist Division) DISPOSITION OF FEDERAL LANDS Since the 1 9 7 0 s , the Federal Government has operated .under a policy o f retaining and managing public land and other property. It is to acquire property only when needed to support i t s various programs a n d t o d i s p o s e s f the same when a determination has been made that the property i s s u r p l u s to the Government's n e e d s , o r , in the c a s e of public l a n d s , that t h e national interest would best be served by the sale o r exchange o r particular tracts o f land. Today approximately one-third o f the land a r e a of the 5 0 States belongs to the Federal Government--over 90 percent of this land i s located west of the Rockies in the 1 1 western contiguous States. T h r e e hundred forty million acres of the federally owned land--that which i s unreserved a n d unappropriated--is the responsibility o f the Bureau o f Land Management (BLM) within the Department of the Interior. In 1 9 7 6 , the F e d e r a l Land P o l i c y a n d Management Act ratified B L M f s practice of management under multiple use--the responsibility to find ways of accommodating insofar a s f e a s i b l e and compatible, the f u l l range of beneficial uses of the land. G r a z i n g , timber production and mineral extraction, i n that o r d e r , a r e the three major economic uses of the pubiic domain lands. In FY 78, l e a s e s issued through 5.6 the public land onshore oil a n d gas program supplied approximately percent of domestic oil production and 5.4 percent of domestic gas production. These lands a r e a l s o used f o r recreational p u r p o s e s , protection of wildlife, rights-of-way, and a s a source of water f o r downstream communities. Currently, there are two movements calling for the disposition of l a r g e portions of Federal land and/or property. T h e "Sagebrush R e b e l l i o n w is a n effort a t the State and Federal level t o provide the cession and c o n v e y a n c e of federally o w n e d , unreserved, unappropriated lands to Western States, including the mineral rights o n o r underlying such l a n d s a n d a p p u r t e n a n t water and access riqh-ts. It i s a l e g a l challenge a s to w h o r i g h t f u l l y o w n s and is the more competent administrator of these lands. Supporters of this cause say that the States are the logical public lands manager since they a r e in a better decision-making position, being close to the lands and its people, than the Federal landlord on the Potomac. They list a potential for increased production of renewable resources and increased mineral royalties to the States if the land transfer were to occur. It is unclear, however, whether the States could actually absorb the job of managing a mineral leasing program for the amount equivalent to the 10 percent now being deposited I n the U.S. Treasury--50 percent of the royalties go directly back to the States under the Mineral Leasing Act and 4 0 percent goes to the Bureau of Reclamation for use on a wide range of water projects in Western States. Concern about the llrebellionwalso stems from what many perceive to be conflicting premises of the proposal and overwhelming barriers of continued balanced management of the public lands. Shared management of resources has been suggested a s an alternative to the Sagebrush Rebellion--some say i t will only be achieved through legislation, others hope i t i s possible through procedural changes at BLM a s part of Secretary Watt's "good neighborv policy and through the Administration's support for the drive to reduce Federal control over regional land-use policies. Even more recently, public land disposition and the sale of Federal property are being discussed a s a management initiative to raise revenues and help reduce the national debt. Advocates of "privatization" say that historically the Federal Government has not managed its real property assets in a manner that saves costs to the Federal Government or promotes the highest and best use of the N a t i o n T s ' r e a l property. The Administration has taken the first steps necessary toward development of a comprehensive Federal policy encompassing all' phases of public lands management from acquisition t o disposal by establishing a Federal Real Property Review Board to identify and evaluate high value holdings not developed to their optimum economic use and to recommend alternative practices to accelerate General Services Administration sales and improve marketing techniques. The Administration i s proposing to extend the Federal land sales and asset management program to the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, but with land review in that phase to focus on not on national treasures such a s parks, but lands already used for commercial purposes such a s grazing and mining. Lands likely for disposal would be residual BLM land with patterned ownership problems; small tracts of land which cannot be managed due to its size or location; land in urban/suburban areas which hinders local economic development, etc. Resolutions in the House and Senate emphasize the need for the Federal Government to estimate the current market value of its land and property holdings, to identify likely sales, and to streamline the sale process--focus a t this point is on nonpublic land properties and small parcels in or near urban areas. Some of the many questions raised by the proposal include: exactly which Federal lands would be targeted for sale? What are Federal lands really worth? On what scale would the sale of Federal property be cost/beneficial? How would a large-scale Federal property disposal program impact on State/local communities, the real estate market, current users of the land, and the environment? Opponents of the Federal property review program, such a s the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and others, fear that i t i s a disguise for massive land disposal. Alternatives for reduction of the national debts and increased revenues which these groups propose include stricter control by the Federal Government of its land management program; an increase in royalties on oil/gas leases and the creation of a leasing/royalty system for hardrock minerals; sale of land uses rather than of the land itself. The appeal as a public land policy of large-scale land/property disposal lies in the fact that resource users would achieve security of land tenure with added freedom to pursue their own plans for the CRS-13 IB82050 UPDATE-08/09/82 l a n d and l o c a l o f f i c i a l s would s e e t h e l a n d added t o t h e i r t a x r o l l s . FOREIGN INTERESTS I N FEDERAL M I N E R A L LEASES S e c t i o n 1 of t h e Mineral Lands L e a s i n g A c t of 1920, as amended, l i m i t s t h e i n t e r e s t s f o r e i g n i n d i v i d u a l s o r c o r p o r a t i o n s can hold i n l e a s e s of minerals on t h e F e d e r a l p u b l i c domain l a n d s i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s : ... (minerals). ..and l a n d s containing Deposits of s u c h d e p o s i t s owned by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , . . . s h a l l be s u b j e c t t o d i s p o s i t i o n i n t h e f o r m a n d m a n n e r p r o v i d e d by t h i s c h a p t e r t o C i t i z e n s o f t h e United S t a t e s , o r t o a s s o c i a t i o n s of such c i t i z e n s , o r t o a n y c o r p o r a t i o n o r g a n i z e d u n d e r t h e laws o f t h e United S t a t e s , o r of any S t a t e o r T e r r i t o r y t h e r e o f , o r i n t h e case of c o a l , o i l , o i l s h a l e , or gas, t o municipalities. Citizens of another country, t h e laws, customs, o r r e g u l a t i o n s of which d e n y similar o r l i k e p r i v i l i e g e s t o c i t i z e n s o r c o r p o r a t i o n s of t h i s c o u n t r y , s h a l l n o t by stock ownership, stock holding, o r stock control, own a n y i n t e r e s t i n a n y l e a s e a c q u i r e d under t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s A c t . _ T h i s language establishes t h e concept of r e c i p r o c i t y in the holding of from c o u n t r i e s t h a t grant our c i t i z e n s m i n e r a l l e a s e s -- o n l y n a t i o n a l s s i m i l a r o r - l i k e - p r i u i l e g e s may h o l d . o r own a n d y i n t e r e s t i n a m i n e r a l lease of F e d e r a l p u b l i c domain l a n d s . I n 1 9 4 7 , t h e p r o v i s i o n was. made a p p l i c a b l e t o m i n e r a l l e a s e s f o r " a c q u i r e d w f e d e r a l l a n d s as w e l l . T h i s r e c i p r o c i t y p r o v i s i o n f o r leased m i n e r a l s i s i n c o n t r a s t t o t h e l a w r e s p e c t t o t h e development of l o c a b l e o r h a r d r o c k m i n e r a l s on t h e F e d e r a l p u b l i c domain l a n d s . In t h e latter instance, t h e r i g h t t o claim and S t a t e s Citizens and develop minerals technically i s l i m i t e d t o United c o r p o r a t i o n s , b u t a f o r e i g n f i r m may q u a l i f y b y i n c o r p o r a t i n g a s u b s i d i a r y c o m p a n y u n d e r t h e laws o f a n y s t a t e . with The d e t e r m i n a t i o n a s t o which o t h e r n a t i o n s a l l o w o u r n a t i o n a l s r e c i p r o c a l In p r a c t i c e , t h i s l i s t i s r i g h t s i s made b y t h e S e c r e t a r y o f t h e I n t e r i o r . developed i n c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h t h e S t a t e Department. Obviously, t h e r e could b e s u b s t a n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e s of o p i n i o n as t o w h a t c o n s t i t u t e s " s i m i l a r o r l i k e privileges." I n a d d i t i o n , o t h e r f o r e i g n p o l i c y c o n c e r n s may e n t e r i n t o t h e determination. T h e r e f o r e , t h e f i n a l l i s t of r e c i p r o c a l n a t i o n s i s l i k e l y t o be c o n t r o v e r s i a l . Most r e c e n t l y , f o r e x a m p l e , c o n t r o v e r s y h a s s u r r o u n d e d t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t Canada i s a r e c i p r o c a l n a t i o n . Many o b s e r v e r s f e e l that r e c e n t c h a n g e s i n t h e laws o f t h a t c o u n t r y d e n y o u r c i t i z e n s a n d c o r p o r a t i o n s many p r i v i l e g e s s t i l l e n j o y e d b y C a n a d i a n s i n o u r c o u n t r y , s o much so that Canada no l o n g e r s h o u l d be d e s i g n a t e d as a r e c i p r o c a l n a t i o n , regardless of other, arguabley extraneous, policy concerns. (Susan Abbasi and Cynthia Huston, Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division) FEDERAL LANDS AS A SOURCE O F STATE R E V E N U E A s i z e a b l e p o r t i o n of t h e energy p r o d u c t i o n i n t h e Western S t a t e is from Federal lands. F o r - e x a m p l e , o v e r o n e - h a l f o f Wyoming's o i l and n a t u r a l gas production, along with one-third of i t s coal production i s from Federal land. For New exico, one-third of i t s oil and coal production and half of i t s natural gas is from Federal lands. H e n c e , the Federal royalties received from this production, along with the revenues from the State-imposed severance t a x e s , a r e significant. In FY 1 9 8 0 , Wyoming a n d New Mexico received 223 and 2 0 0 million dollars respectively from o i l , natural g a s , a n d coal leases on public lands. Wyoming received and addition 1 million dollars from production of oil and natural gas from acquired lands. Disposition of royalties from mineral leases t o t h e S t a t e s i s delineated by sections of the 1 9 2 0 Minerals Leasing Act, as amended. Under the l a w , one-half of the revenue collected from leases on public lands a r e returned t o the S t a t e of mineral production with the recommendation that priority be given to local i m p a c t assistance. The disposition of royalties from acquired lands is less specific. Royalties from acquired lands a r e distributed by the agency having jurisdiction over the lands in the same manner a s prescribed from other receipts from the same lands. - Federal leasing expressly does not interfere with the right of States to tax "improvements, output of mines, o r other rights, property, o r assets of any l e s s e e of the United States." Since minerals, once served from the l a n d , a r e considered the property o f the lessees, States a r e permitted t o tax o i l , natural g a s , and c o a l production from Federal lands. Wyoming, f o r e x a m p l e , imposes a 10.5 percent severance tax on a l l coal produced i n t h e State. Similar taxes exist for oil and natural gas, and a r e applied by most producing States. T h e OCS l a n d s , seaward of the three-mile extension from the c o a s t , comprise a special category of public lands on which the minerals are leased by the Federal Government. The principal sources of revenue from these l a n d s - a r e l e a s e s of crude oil and natural gas although sulfur and salt provide some small amounts of revenue. T h e O C S Lands Act of 1 9 5 3 , a s amended in September 1 8 , 1 9 7 8 , requires that revenues from O C S minerals to be deposited i n the U.S. Treasury a s miscellaneous receipts. T h e requirement of the O C S Lands Act not withstanding, two other laws provide channels through which revenues from minerals from the 0 C S . r e a c h the States. T h e Historic Preservation Act of 1 9 6 6 established a fund which has the objective of protecting, rehabilitating, r e s t o r i n g , and reconstructing d i s t r i c t s , s i t e s , buildings, structures, and other objects significant in American history, a r c h e o l o g y , architecture, or culture. This l a w designates revenues from the O C S a s the source o f funds. T h e Historic Preservation fund received $ 3 0 0 million i n FY81. T h e Land a n d Water Conservation Fund Act established a fund to a s s i s t the States i n planning, acquiring, a n d developing needed l a n d , water a r e a s , and facilities for certain Federal acquisitions. T h e fund i s maintained a t a level of $900 m i l l i o n , and to the extent that this l e v e l i s not maintained by funds from other s o u r c e s , revenues from OCS minerals a r e used. This f u n d received over $ 8 6 7 million from OCS revenues i n FY81. T h e S t a t e s a d j a c e n t to OCS production have asked that they be given a greater share of O C S revenue. This i s a n issue t h a t could be difficult to resolve because o f the need t o maximize Federal revenue from the O C S to reduce the budget deficit. (Larry P a r k e r , a n d William Hymes, Environment a n d Natural Resources Policy Division) FEDERAL LANDS AS A SOURCE OF FEDERAL REVENUES T h e Congressional search for sources of revenue, i n the context of large projected budget deficits, has led to examination of options for deriving more money from t h e minerals and other natural resources on Federal lands. Options that may be considered include increases in royalty r a t e s , sales of property, a n d resource development by the Federal Government itself. Each o p t i o n , however, has consequences that run counter to other Federal policy g o a l s , such a s optimal development of domestic natural resources, control over publicly owned resources, and increased health of domestic mineral industries. (Bernard Gelb and J a m e s Bickley, Economies Division). LEGISLATION H.R. 64 (Albosta) , H.R. 1 2 6 7 (Penetta et al.) Directs the Secretary of t h e Interior to retain specified lands within t h e Outer Continental Shelf extending from P o i n t Concepcion i n the south to t h e California-Oregon border i n the north and extending seaward a s a national reserve for oil o r gas production development. a H.R. 3 9 9 (Pickle), H.R. 2990 (Hammerschmidt e t . ,/ S. 8 5 9 (Bumpers et al.) al.) H.R. 459 (Roth et Amends the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands to require receipts received from leases o n l a n d s set a s i d e f o r military o r naval purposes, except t h e Naval Petroleum R e s e r v e s and National disposed of in the s a m e manner a s similar receipts under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. H.R. 1 4 0 9 (Marriott et al.) Amends the Mineral Lands L e a s i n g . A c t to authorize holders of leases o f o i l s h a l e _ l a n d s . - t o l e a s e - . a d d i t i o n a l . - a c r e a g e f o r operational purposes a n d prohibits mining of oil shale o n those additional lands. H.R. 2826 (Emerson et al.) Amends the Mineral Lands Leasing Act to prohibit, f o r a specified period, a n y f o r e i g n person from acquiring more than 25 percent 06 the v o t i n g securities i n a U.S. mineral resource corporation. 2897 (Santini et a . , H.R. 4053 H.R. 2 8 4 4 (Marriott et a . , H.R. (Mariott e t al.) , / S. 1 0 3 2 (Jackson), S. (Hart, and S. 1484 (Warner et al.) Amends the mineral Leasing Act t o revise the authority of the Secretary of the Interior t o l e a s e lands containing o i l shale deposits. H.R.3092 (Marriott et al.), H.R. et al.) / S. 1 5 7 5 (Wallop et al.) 3 1 1 4 (Santini et al.) H.R. 3975 (Santini Amends the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1 9 2 0 . a n d the Mineral Leasing Act f o r Acquired L a n d s to expand the application of such Acts to include gilsonite a n d a l l vein-type solid hydrocarbons, and i t Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish a lower aggregate acreage limitation f o r leases i n designated tar sand areas. H.R. 3313 (Udall et al.) Amends the Mineral Leasing Act of 1 9 2 0 to prohibit major oil companies from directly o r indirectly acquiring a n y Coal lease or locating a n d recording a n y claim for uranium or other fissionable materials, a n d i t a l l o w s any holder of a mineral l e a s e t o modify. or re.vise a l e a s e t o include a limited amount of contiguous lands. Makes appropriations for the agencies for fiscal year 1982. H.R. Department of the Interior and related 4053 (Marriott et al.) Amends the Mineral Leasing Act to revise the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to lease lands containing oil shale deposits. Introduced June 28, 1981; referred to Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Reported July 27 (H.Rept. 97-202); passed House, amended, July 28, 1981. H.R. 4463 (Williams) Amends the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 to repeal the limitation on the acquisition of a coal lease or permit by a railroad, and i t requires a railroad leasing public lands adjacent t o grant lands to use a t least 33 1/3 percent of the revenues from resource development for the operation and maintenance of the railroad. H.R. 4597 (Jones) Amends the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act provisions concerning permits and oil gas development, or production on the OCS. - and other Acts to revise leases for exploration, - K.R. - 4 7 1 2 .(Conyers - et a1 ,) Establishes -the Federal Oil and Gas Development Corporation to.exercise sole control over oil and gas exploration and extraction operations on Federal land. H.R. 5121 (Markey et al.) Provides for a comprehensive accounting system of Federal mineral interests by amending the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 to require 50 percent of all money collected in connection with public land sales and rentals to be paid to the State within which the land is located, except that the rate shall be 9 0 percent for Alaska. H.R. 5260 (Kogovsek et. al) Amends the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 to provide that beginning with fiscal year 1 9 8 3 , the balance of money received from sales and rentals of public lane shall be credited to a Payment in Lieu of Taxes ~ r - u s tFund which shall be established in the U.S. Treasury. H.R. 5263 (Marlenee) Prohibits the issuance of mining leases in Area in Montana. H.R. the Bob Marshall Wilderness 5282 (Burton et al.) Withdraws lands within the national forest system designated s wilderness or wilderness study areas and lands recommended for wilderness designation or further planning from appropriation or disposition under the mining and mineral leasing laws. H.R. 5295 (Hertel) P r o h i b i t s , under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1 9 2 0 , the issuance of a n y or g a s l e a s e in the Great Lakes. H.R. oil 5603 (Lujan et al.) Withdraws the national wilderness preservation system and other l a n d s from operation o f the general mining a n d mineral leasing laws. H.R. 5 7 7 0 (Markey) Modifies the royalty rates applicable to oil and g a s leases. S. 60 (Bumpers) Amends the Mineral Leasing Act of 1 9 2 0 to authorize competitive o i l gas leasing and to modify leasing procedures for onshore Federal lands. and S. 669 (Jackson) Amends the existing geothermal leasing and permitting l a w s , a n d f o r other purposes. Bill would modify the Geothermal Steam Act of 1 9 7 0 to f a c i l i t a t e and require accelerated exploration and development of geothermal steam resources o n Federal lands. T h e bill contains provisions designed t o a s s u r e competition i n the geothermal industry and protect nationally significant geothermal features i n national parks and monuments. Amends the Mineral Lands Leasing Act to authorize the Secretary o f the Interior t o l e a s e additional lands to the holder of a n oil shale l e a s e f o r purposes that the lessee demonstrates a r e necessary for the o i l shale operation. P e r m i t s the lessee to use the land t o , among other things: (1 dispose of oil shale waste; and (2) build plants, reduction works, a n d other needed acilities. S. 1 1 3 8 (Chiles), S. 1633 (Hawkins), and S. 1873 (Chiles) Prohibits the issuance of phosphate leases in the Osceola National F o r e s t , Florida. S. 1 4 8 4 (Warner) A bill t o amend section 2 1 of the Act of Feb. 2 5 , 1 9 2 0 , commonly k n o w n a s the Mineral Leasing Act. Introduced July 1 5 , 1981; referred to Committee o n Energy and Natural Resources. Reported out Dec. 1 1 , 1 9 8 1 , a s "National Oil S h a l e Leasing Act o f 1981." S. 1 5 1 6 (Warner) ; H.R. 4 0 6 7 (Santini et al.) similar bill Amends the Geothermal Steam Act. Redefines "known geothermal resource area "(KGRA) to remove the economic test of competitive interest i n a tract a s a n indicator of the geologic presence of geothermal potential i n a n area. Provides f o r automatic declassification of KGRA lands where there a r e no competitive bids. Provides royalties of not less than 10% o r more t h a n 1 5 % for electrical generation, a n d of not less than 5% o r more than 1 0 % f o r nonelectrical utilization. Increases the maximum acreage a single lessee can hold in any one State from 2 0 , 4 8 0 to 51,200 acres, and authorizes the Secretary to increase the limitation to 115,200 acres in 1985. Extends the periods of review and adjustment of lease terms and conditions from 10 to 2 0 years. S. 1516 compares identically with H.R. 4 0 6 7 , with the exception that S. 1516 does not direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish and maintain a 15-mile-wide buffer zone around Yellowstone National Park and a one-mile-wide buffer zone along the southern border of Lassen Volcanic National Park. S. 1542 (McClure et al.) Amends the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 to repeal a provision which prohibits a company operating a common carrier railroad from holding a coal lease under the Act unless the coal is used for its own railroad purposes. S. 1732 (Hart et ab.) Amends the Mineral royalties. Leasing Act concerning prepayment of rentals and S. 1 7 7 4 (Baucus) Amends the Wilderness Act to exempt certain wilderness from mining and mineral leasing. areas in Montana S. 2083 (Sasser et al.) . . A bill to discourage.the vialation of mineral leasing laws, and to improve the collection of Federal royalties and lease payments erived from certain natural resources under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior. HEARINGS U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Lacey Act. Hearings, 96th Environment Coordination Act Congress, on fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (joint hearing with Subcommittee on Water Resources of the Committee on Public Works and Transportation). Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 3 4 6 p. "Serial no. 96-47" LRS80-16202 -- U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Subcommittee on the Panama Canal/Outer Continental Shelf. OCS oversight -- part 1. Hearings, 97th Congress, 1st session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. 537 p. "Serial no. 97-6" Hearings held Mar. 26-May 5 , 1981. LRS81-13347 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. Amending the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. Hearing, 97th Congress, 1st session. Part 1. Oct. 2 7 , 1981. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982. 182.p. Publication no. 97-57 ----- Amending the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970. Hearing, 9 7 t h Congress, 1 s t session. P a r t 2. Dec. 1 2 , 1981. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1982. 1 4 1 p. Publication n o 97-57 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981. Hearing, 9 7 t h C o n g r e s s , 1 s t session, on S. 1575. Sept. 1 7 , 1981. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. 3 9 p. "Publication no. 97-39" LRS81-12266 ----- Off-track [ i - e . tract] oil shale disposal. H e a r i n g , 97th Congress, 1s.t session, o n S. 1073. J u n e 2 5 , 1981. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. 9 2 p. "Publication no. 97-25" LRS81-9085 ----- Reinstatement and validation of United States o i l a n d g a s leases. H e a r i n g , 9 4 t h C o n g r e s s , 1 s t session, o n S. 3 8 3 , S. 4 6 6 , S. 6 5 1 , S. 1 4 5 7 [ a n d ] S. 1605. Sept. 1 7 , 1981. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. 66 p. "Publication no. 97-42" LRS81-12621 ---U.S.--Congr.ess. Sena.te. Committee an Energy and Natural Resources. Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Supply. Proposed 5-year plan for oil a n d gas development in the Outer Continental Shelf. Hearing, 9 7 t h Congress, 1 s t session. Oct. 6 , 1981. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. 1 6 7 p. "Publication no. 97-43" LRS81-13824 ----- T o reinstate the Pauley petroleum leases in the S a n t a Barbara Channel, California. Hearing, 9 7 t h Congress, 1 s t s e s s i o n , on S. 506. July 2 2 , 1981. W a s h i n g t o n , U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. 1 9 5 p. "Publication no. 97-36" LRS81-11974 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee o n Energy and Natural Resources. Subcommittee on Energy Resources a n d Material Production. Federal Oil a n d Gas Leasing Act o f 1979. H e a r i n g , 9 6 t h Congress, 1 s t Session on S. 1637. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 259 p. "Publication no. 96-89" LRS80-2607 ----- O C S oil and gas leasing program. Hearings, 9 6 t h C o n g r e s s , Washington, U.S. Govt. 2 6 session. Mar. 18 a n d 2 0 , 1980. Print. Off., 1980. 256 p. "Publication no. 96-100" LRS80-5030 ----- Oil shaleleasi.ng. H e a r i n g , 9 6 t h Congress, 2d session o n S. 2858. Sept. 1980. 143 p. "Publication LRS80-15057 ----- Reinstatement 9, 1980. no. of Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 96-144" o i l a n d g a s l e a s e New Mexico 33955. Hearing, 9 6 t h C o n g r e s s , 2d s e s s i o n o n S . 2 2 7 9 . Aug. 5 , 1 9 8 0 . W a s h i n g t o n , U.S. G o v t . P r i n t . O f f . , 1 9 8 0 . 32 p . " P u b l i c a t i o n no. 96-133" LRS80-13448 U.S. O i l Congress. Senate. S e l e c t Committee on I n d i a n A f f a i r s . and g a s leases on I n d i a n l a n d s ( p a r t 1 ) . Hearing, 97th Congress, 1st session. W a s h i n g t o n , U.S. G o v t . P r i n t . O f f . , 1 9 8 1 . 117 p. Hearing h e l d Feb. 27, 1981. B i l l i n g s , Mont. LRS81-3295 ----- O i l and g a s l e a s e s on I n d i a n Congress, 1st session. Apr. P r i n t . O f f . , 1981. 382 p. LRS81-6925 ----- O i l and g a s leases on I n d i a n lands 6, (part 2). 1981. lands Hearing, Washington, (part 3). U.S. Hearing, 97th Govt. 97th W a s h i n g t o n , U.S. G o v t . P r i n t . O f f . , Congress, 1st session. 1981. 395 p. Hearing held i n Albuquerque, N.M., J u n e 1, 1 9 8 1 . LRS81-8372 U..S-. Congres.~ ,- S e n a - t e . S e l e c t Committee.-on S m a l l B u s i n e s s . 1 m p a c t . o f o f f s h o r e o i l a n d g a s d e v e l o p m e n t on G e o r g e s Bank. H e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e S e l e c t Committee on S m a l l B u s i n e s s a n d t h e Committee o n Commerce, S c i e n c . e , a n d T r a n s p o r t a t i o n a n d t h e S u b c o m m i t t e e on E n e r g y R e s o u r c e s a n d Materials P r o d u c t i o n o f t h e C o m m i t t e e on E n e r g y a n d N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s , U n i t e d S t a t e s S e n a t e , Ninety-sixth Congress, second s e s s i o n on i m p a c t o f o f f s h o r e o i l a n d g a s d e v e l o p m e n t on G e o r g e s Bank. W a s h i n g t o n , U.S. G o v t . P r i n t . O f f . , 1 9 8 0 . 217 p. LRS80-4726 . REPORTS A N D CONGRESSIONAL DOCUMENTS U.S. ----- Congress. House. C o m m i t t e e on I n t e r i o r a n d I n s u l a r A f f a i r s . Amending S e c t i o n 2 1 o f t h e a c t of Feb. 2 5 , 1 9 2 0 , commonly known a s t h e M i n e r a l L e a s i n g A c t ; r e p o r t t o a c c o m p a n y H.R. 4053. W a s h i n g t o n , U.S. G o v t . P r i n t . O f f . , 1 9 8 1 . 1 2 p. (97th Congress, 1st session. House. R e p o r t no. 97-202) LRS81-6972 F a c i l i t a t i n g and encouraging the production of o i l from tar s a n d and o t h e r hydrocarbon d e p o s i t s ; r e p o r t t o accompany H.R. 3975 i n c l u d i n g t h e c o s t e s t i m a t e o f t h e C o n g r e s s i o n a l Budget O f f i c e . W a s h i n g t o n , U.S. G o v t . P r i n t . O f f . , 1 9 8 1 . House. R e p o r t no. 97-174) 1 6 p. (97th Congress, 1st s e s s i o n . LRS81-6130 ----- F a c i l i t a t i n g and encouraging t h e production sand and o t h e r hydrocarbon deposits; report of o i l from tar t o accompany H.R. 7242, including the cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 30 p. (96th Congress, 2d session. House. Report no. 96-1161) LRS80-7224 ----- Reinstating and validating U.S. oil and gas leases numbered QCS-P-0218 and OCS-P-0226; report to accompany H.R. 1946. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. 6 p. (97th Congress, 1st session. House. Report no. 97-173) LRS81-6343 ----- U.S. U.S. Reinstating and validating United States oil and gas leases numbered OCS-P-0218 and OCS-P-0226; report to accompany H.R. 5769. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 1 1 p. (96th congress, 2d session. House. Report no. 96-1260) LRS80-9143 Congress. House. Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Disapproval of certain coastal zone management consistency regulations; report together with additional and dissenting views to accompany H.Con.Res. 166. Washington, U.S. Govt. (97th Congress, 1st session. Print. Off., 1981. 1 9 p. House. Report no. 97-269) LRS81-10227 Congress. House. Select Committee on the Outer Continental Shelf. Final report including proposed legislative changes. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 133 p. (96th .-Congress, 2d sessian._ House.. Report no. 96-1214) LRS80-7866 ... U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Georges Bank Protection Act; joint report together with additional and minority views of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on S. 2119. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 4 9 p. (96th Congress, 2d session. Senate. Report no. 96-934) U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Amending section 21 of the act of Feb. 2 5 , 1 9 2 0 , commonly known as the Mineral Leasing Act; report to accompany H.R. 7941. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 1 4 p. (96th Congress, 26 session. Senate. Report no. 96-1023) LRS80-13561 --------- ----- Facilitating and encouraging the production of oil from tar sand and other hydrocarbon deposits; report to accompany H.R. 3975. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1981. 1 5 p. Federal Oil and Gas Leasing Act of 1980; report together with minority views to accompany S. 1637. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. 6 8 p. (96th Congress, ed session. Senate. Report no. 96-793) LRS80-4819 Providing for reinstatement and validation of U.S. oil and gas lease numbered M-15450 (ND); report t o accompany S. 466. - W a s h i n g t o n , U.S. G o v t . P r i n t . Off., 1 9 8 1 . 5 p. (97th Congress, 1st session. Senate. R e p o r t no. 9 7 - 2 4 5 ) LRS81-10863 ----- Providing for reinstatement and validation United States oil a n d g a s l e a s e n u m b e r e d W - 4 6 1 0 2 ; r e p o r t t o a c c o m p a n y S. 6 5 1 . 6 p. (97th W a s h i n g t o n , U.S. G o v t . P r i n t . Off., 1981. Congress, 1st session. Senate. R e p o r t no. 9 7 - 2 4 7 ) LRS81-10864