Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Secretary WORK. Congressman Taylor, you are right in the center of this oil-shale country, when at home.

Hon. EDWARD T. TAYLOR. (Member of Congress from Colorado). Yes, sir, Mr. Secretary, I have lived 40 years right in the center of that great oil-shale country. I have been traveling up and down the Colorado River seeing those shale bluffs many times every year. Those "Book Cliffs" we call them, always looked to me like thousands of layers of books stacked up 2,600 feet high and 50 miles long on a perfectly horizontal base. These layers are cut through every few miles by many canyons and creeks-by Rifle Creek, Parachute Creek, Roan Creek, and numerous other creeks and gulches, which clearly expose the formation and often showing the oil shale on three sides. Mr. Fred Carroll has clearly demonstrated to you to-day that if you assay all those layers, from top to bottom there is oil in all of them.

It does seem to me the heights of unnecessary technicality to require a locator to do more than to open up and show some of that oil-bearing rock or material in order to prove an oil shale location on that formation. Because it is all so palpable and so plain to any man of common sense. It has all been oil-bearing material for thousands of years. It seems to many of us wholly unnecessary to resort to such an immense amount of technicality and delay on these claims and to make repeated investigations when it is so plain that no one could find anything else but oil shale if he sank a shaft or run a tunnel at any place in that formation for 50 or 60, probably 100 miles around, on that oil-shale country marked out by the Geological Survey. If I may repeat what Senator Kendrick has just said, it ought to be simply a question of good faith.

I do not appear here for any person or corporation or interest. I don't know anything about the individual interests or any of the particular cases that are or may come up before the department. But as the Representative in Congress of the district in which a large part of the oil-shale deposits are located-I have no concern about those. I am immensely concerned about the prospective potential value and the expeditious development of this wonderful assets. It is one of the greatest undeveloped assets that the Government of the United States has; it is one of our greatest undeveloped resources in the world. I believe the whole world will before long be compelled to look to us for oil and that we will be able to supply the world from this very oil shale. Tremendous responsibility rests in your hands, Mr. Secretary, of seeing that that great asset of the Government is handled honestly and fairly, and we know that you are going to try to do it and are doing it.

Secretary WORK. I am glad you made that last statement because you have been speaking as one making a protest, and I was going to ask you about what are you protesting. What has the department done that is not satisfactory in the way of final proof? I am asking for information. I am the pupil.

Mr. TAYLOR. I want to say that all Colorado has supreme confidence in Doctor Work. We have known him for 40 years. I may criticize you sometimes

myself, Doctor.

Secretary WORK. You are very ready to do it. Tell me what the land office has been doing? I want to know what is the objection, if any there is now, to the methods employed by the General Land Office in proving up these claims. None of them have been proved, but what is the objection to the methods employed in the preparation of proof and in hearing the claims? That is what interests me.

Mr. TAYLOR. All right.

If

Secretary WORK. Senator Kendrick has spoken about being a settler. the General Land Office follows its present practice in making title to homestead claims and issuing patents, they always give the settler the benefit, if they are in doubt they always resolve it in favor of the settler.

Mr. TAYLOR. They ought to.

Secretary WORK. They do do it, and I assume they will do it in this connection, too, but that is a little farther along. What I want to know here to-day particularly is what we are doing that is not satisfactory; that is not logical; that is not working out right, either directly by the department or by our people in the field.

Mr. TAYLOR. My idea of the matter is this, Mr. Secretary: As a member of the Public Lands Committee of the House I helped to pass that provision of the leasing law, section 37 of the act of February 25, 1920, compelling, as

108

us Members of Congress then thought, the Interior Department to recognize
and administer the mining law as it existed and was construed up to and
at that time, and to recognize the rights of the people who had made loca-
tions in good faith under the mining statutes at that time. I inserted the two
words "oil shale" in that section 37 myself. In putting that section in the
law we felt that the construction of the mining law that was then given to
those locations would be the same thereafter as it had been theretofore.
Frankly, we feel disappointed in that belief. We feel that the construction
that has been placed upon it since that time has been unreasonably techni-
cal, unwarranted, and unduly harsh. In other words, we feel that there has
been a continuous effort to interfere with the orderly and honest efforts of
hundreds and hundreds of these people to obtain patents to those lands, and
that they have thereby been compelled to expend very large sums of money
in assesment work for several years; also in many other ways. In some cases
their good faith is impugned. They feel that they are unnecessarily impeded
and delayed in obtaining patents by supertechnicalities of this department
and the numerous amount of inspections and of investigations of the people
who made the locations and who did the assessment work years and years
ago. Many of those people have left the country. Most of them have no more
interest in the matter now or in the welfare of their successors, and thereby
innocent purchasers are being harrassed in obtaining title. That is an impres-
sion, I think, that is quite prevalent out there.

Secretary WORK. I am sure that that is an impression that exists among some people who are being compelled to make good titles. How about the man that filed upon 130 claims in a day, for example? We have caught them. Congress would not criticize that. It ought not to make its laws and restrictions so severe and allow us a little initiative down here, but we have followed the letter of the law absolutely.

Mr. TAYLOR. This law, section 37 of the leasing act applies as of the 25th day of February, 1920, and these oil shale people have been and are earnestly trying to obtain patents under the old mining law as authorized by that section. And let me say another thing Mr. Secretary. Supposing somebody has filed on land that would not turn out to be profitable oil bearing. Supposing he went ahead and got patent and paid the $2.50 an acre, and after he got down 300 feet he did not find profitable shale or any oil there, who is to be hurt besides him?

The land is not of

Secretary WORK. I was thinking about that to-day. value to anybody else except the man who did the work. Mr. TAYLOR. If he s willing to take those chances it seems to me that there There is not a man that has located an oil is an undue amount of solicitude in this department about preventing him from taking those chances. (Applause.) shale claim in all of that officially known oil shale region in the northwestern part of Colorado in my congressional district but what knows when he sinks a shaft or tunnels into his claim he is going to get oil shale. If he is willing to take those chances it does seem to me that he ought to be given that opportunity more freely without this delay

Secretary WORK. What we want to know is that he has complied with the law, and we will help him to get his patent.

Mr. TAYLOR. And furthermore, let me emphasize another thing that has not been mentioned here that I know of, but it ought to be: It seems to meand it is what I have often said and thousands of others have said all this time that this great oil shale industry under present conditions never can be developed as a leasehold proposition. It can not and will not be developed on lands that have not gone to patent. I helped put that section in the leasing act because I know it will require millions and millions of dollars to make the production of oil from shale profitable; and people will not put in many millions of dollars in creating a plant on Government land that is held there under a lease That is not businesslike. It never has and solely at the whim or caprice of some executive official who may cut him off and destroy his plant any time.

been done in the world anywhere, any place, and it will not be done there. Secretary WORK. That is true. The result is that these patentees will want to sell this land. The only way it will ever be operated successfully will be in large holdings.

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, Mr. Secretary, it will have to be developed in large tracts, but it can not be done on merely a leasehold under an uncertain tenancy. Secretary FINNEY. We have a leasing law.

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes; and in 62 years there is no oil-shale development under it and mighty little development under that leasing law of coal lands, or anything else, excepting some flowing oil wells.

Secretary WORK. You recommend that Congress change the law. I will help you if I can.

Mr. TAYLOR. It is a serious condition and not a theory that confronts these oil-shale claimants. They have earnestly attempted to locate and file upon and do the annual assessments upon and develop all these lands under the placer mining law, and they are many of them now trying to get patents-some of them have been trying for years and years-and they are not getting any patents: somebody is preventing that development, and we feel that this department might wonderfully well exercise a little more sympathy toward it and be strictly within the mining law and practice and decisions as of February 25, 1920.

I might say that I went down the other day and visited the Government oil plant on the Colorado River below Rifle at Rulison in my home county. Secretary WORK. I helped you get that.

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes; and we all appreciate it and I hope you will help us to continue it, because it is held up in the air now. It will be stopped on the 30th of next June unless we can get another appropriation from this Congress. I certainly hope the executive department of the Government will help us to get it. The refining engineer, Martin T. Gavin, and his associates are doing a splendid work down there. They are actually getting results of tremendous importance to the country. When I was there they had some 30 or 40 barrels of fine shale oil in their tanks. They have demonstrated the practical production of oil and they are turning it out every day. It is a splendid process, and it does give confident hope of one of the greatest developments in the world. As a matter of fact, Doctor Work, it is going to make Colorado, our home State, one of the richest States in this Union if we can develop

Secretary WORK. It is now.

Mr. TAYLOR. But it will be much more rich; and I hope that you will exercise your great influence in a broader way for the welfare of the Nation and the Western States-in a way that will help the people who have pioneered out there to realize on this enormous resource-and I feel if you will it will be as great an act of statesmanship as any Secretary of the Interior has ever performed. (Applause.)

Secretary WORK. Mr. Congressman Winter, we would like to hear from you. Hon. CHARLES E. WINTER (Member of Congress from Wyoming). Mr. Secre tary, Judge Finney, Commissioner Spry, and members of the department; I want to express my appreciation first of the invitation of the Secretary here for this general open hearing. I particularly appreciate, Mr. Secretary, your invitation at this moment to speak.

Secretary WORK. You have all the time that is left.

Mr. WINTER. Not much left. I am going to take but a few moments.

I was very glad to hear the remarks of Judge Finney which brought out very clearly this situation that up to this time it is an open question as to what a discovery of shale claim is, notwithstanding the decision in the Freeman case, which stands upon a rehearing. We are here for the purpose of contributing, if possible, to the fund of your information, particularly as to geology and the physical facts, so that it may become apparent to the department, the Secretary, that these claims and these discoveries that are now before the department in patent applications do come within the law. It is stated that the department is not seeking to change the law but we must all recognize the fact that a violent unjustified construction of a law does change that law; and that is what we are here to try to avoid if possible.

Now, this proposition is not confined to the district of my good friend Congressman Taylor of Colorado or to his county. I am going to introduce here, if I may, for the record, a statement of fact which I do not believe has been put in the record up to this time, and that is the extent of this Green River formation or deposit. Reference has been made to the fact that it runs for perhaps a hundred miles up and down that great river and along the canyons adjacent to it. I have not the exact figures, but looked at the map as given in Bulletin No. 729, and having the report of the State geologist of Wyoming to the effect that there are about 4.000 square miles in that State of this oilbearing shale; comparing the areas as outlined in the map of Colorado and Utah there would appear to be approximately 4,000 square miles area in Wyo

46780-31-8

ming, about 2,800 in Colorado, and perhaps 3,000 in Utah. That is a total of 9,800 square miles-we can safely say approximately 10,000 square miles-in this great formation.

We members of the congressional delegation from these States have very courteously been invited to this hearing and I am sure that we have all gained a great deal of information. The discussion and the papers have been enlightening and illuminating to an unusual degree, and I may say further that they all tend in proof in one direction. There is no conflict in evidence in the facts that have been presented here to-day. We represent these States. We are, of course, anxious to see a great development go on in these States in this very important industry.

But I want to call your attention to the fact, Mr. Secretary, that while this industry may be located in these States, those who are interested come from every section of this country. This is not primarily a matter of concern merely to the citizens of Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah, as is evidenced by this group of men here to-day. They and those who have spoken for them represent States from the Atlantic to the Pacific coasts. It is of universal and nationwide interest.

Now another thing that I deduce from the presence of these gentlemen here to-day. I state without further proof that these are responsible, prudent, reasonable men. Perhaps some of the original locators and miners are here to-day. I will also classify them as reasonable, prudent men. What are they here for? They are here to ask that they be placed in possession by patents which will make secure immense investments of capital which they stand ready to provide; and in their minds there is just one thing or they would not be doing this, and that is, that they have a reasonable prospect of success if they are permitted to continue this development; and I submit that here is proof that the facts before you comply with the rule of law in your

Mr. CONSAUL. Castle-Womble?

Mr. WINTER. Castle-Womble case. Analyze it and you will see that it is here. If they were not within that rule of law they would not be here. They are a class of men who are designated in the rule; that are willing and ready and able to proceed to develop these claims. It seems to me that here is conclusive proof that they have that confidence in the indications and the mineral and the geological structure of these claims that your rule or principle is met right here by this fact. Of course, I understand that the department must rule upon every case upon its own basis and that each case must have its proof. I am speaking collectively; and I submit that, with continuous mineral value in the deposit shown, together with the favorable geological formation, these very hearings and these very arguments and the presence of these gentlemen here complete the fulfillment of the primary rule of principle laid down in that case; because as prudent men they are willing to spend time, labor, and money in further development with every reasonable prospect of success.

May I draw for just a moment a picture of the other side of this proposition? If the department should hold that these facts do not constitute valid discoveries, then what is the situation? It has been stated here, and probably accepted by nearly all, if not all, that the hope of an immediate development of this industry lies in the patented claims. One reason for that is, of course, that there is not imposed upon the patented claims any burden of Government royalty. I have made my position well known and do not hesitate to state here that I believe the general leasing law was a mistake; I believe that the general leasing law should be repealed. That is neither here nor there upon the merits of this matter.

This enterprise is not a flowing oil well proposition or a pumping proposition; it is a mining and manufacturing enterprise and for many years will be in competition with oil well and oil pumping production. I point out the fact that this manufacturing enterprise must operate upon the smallest margin of profit possible or they will have no business, and I am here to say that the development of this industry, notwithstanding the encouragement of this industry by the plant of the Government in Colorado, will for many years depend upon the development of these private claims.

The other side of the picture is that if the patents are not issued, if these are not found to constitute valid discoveries, we then will have all of this area under the Federal Government under the general leasing act, which, of course, imposes its royalties, and which proposes to lease these lands as oil producing lands of great value.

And here is a fact I would like, Judge Finney, to bring particularly to your attention. I recall that two years ago before the Public Land Committee in the House, when the subject of bringing potash under the general leasing law was under discussion, it was stated then that the department construed the leasing law in such a way that with known deposits such as potash and phosphates it would not issue permits but would issue leases, and if I am not mistaken during the last session last winter the law was amended so as to provide for such a situation where a discovery was not necessary. Is not that the present status?

Secretary FINNEY. The House passed the bill but it did not get through the Senate.

Mr. WINTER. I have forgotten the ultimate fate of it.

Secretary FINNEY. The point is that we do apply this rule as to potash, stated in a little different way. We issue a permit to the prospector only where it is not actually known. In areas, for instance, like Salt Lake there we issue a lease direct. That is what you have in mind.

Mr. WINTER. That is what I have reference to and I think the law now authorizes the department in that respect. My further inquiry now is whether the same rule apples to a shale deposit as to potash and the phosphates?

Secretary FINNEY. There is a separate law as to shale and my recollection is that the limit was 5,120 acres to one corporation.

Mr. WINTER. That brings me to this proposition. These deposits under the leasing law are leased to citizens or companies, as the case may be, upon the assumption and upon the classification by fhe geological department, that they are oil land on which the Government encourages and invites private capital to come in and take leases and develop? Now, can it be possible that there are such areas which the Government so holds and classifies and invites capital to lease and spend money upon where, at the same time, under the same conditions, it can deny the fact of valid discovery to the locator? The Government in one case says: "This is oil land, this is oil shale of great value; it is capable of successful development; we invite you to take a lease upon it. It is rich enough so you can pay the Government a royalty." Now, the Government is not responsible for anybody's losses, still they invite people to invest their capital in these very lands. In the other case, the case of these applicants, it virtually says: "You have discovered nothing of value." These lands, if patents are not granted upon them, will revert back and be disposable only under the leasing law. Permits are omitted and leases granted because the deposit is of known mineral value.

Now, it seems to me that these very facts should go a long way in the mind of the department officials to support the fact of discovery and the issuance of patent, because generally the Government is saying to those who apply for leases that this is oil land. It would seem to me to be more or less inconsistent, all of us having the same facts within our knowledge. these locators bringing these facts to the attention of the department, to deny in the one case the patent because of lack of valid discovery and then immediately invite the world to come in and develop the same ground under the leasing law. I have taken much time, now, and I have not

Secretary WORK. Charge that up against the department.

Mr. WINTER. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

My complaint goes back in the first instance to the entire matter of the passage of the leasing act because of the double burden and the royalties imposed upon capital seeking to develop these claims. I must perforce cease, but there are a great many things in my mind that I would like to say. I realize that it would be an imposition.

It is a fault of lawyers generally that when they start in on a proposition they want to cover every point for fear that the opposition may find on the record that they omitted to cover some material point. I believe that every aspect of the question has been covered here this afternoon, and it seems to me that there is not only no dissenting voice or opinion but there is no conflict here as to facts, or the law, and it seems to me the conclusion must be, therefore, from the facts presented here that these are valid discoveries and that patents should issue upon these claims where these facts are made to appear in the record.

Both the general mining law of 1866 and the leasing law of 1920 declare that they are for the promotion and encouragement of the mining industry, and, therefore, I take it that no one will quarrel with the proposition that

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »