3. The shales lie horizontally, or nearly so, in most cases, and the potential oil values therein are more or less unevenly distributed in zones or streaks practically throughout the entire Green River deposit, which, its maximum depth in Colorado, is about 2,600 feet.

at

4. There is no single streak or bed falling within the classification schedule of the Geological Survey which will probably ever be worked alone and by itself.

5. In order to attain the best results, the shales must be mined in a large way-by mass production methods.

6. Regardless of any question of homogeneity of the Green River deposit, of any argument as to richness here or leanness there, or any differentiation in color, texture, or specific gravity, the whole mass, inasmuch as practically all of it contains more or less kerogen. should be considered as one workable bed, just as the "porphyry coppers" are treated as one bed whether the mineral values therein run in one place only a trace, in another one-half per cent and in still another two per cent. On the whole, the general copper values which they carry make up a commercial average. Just so will oil shales, if mined as a whole, make up a product of commercial grade when the day of their utilization arrives.

7. Inasmuch as there is so close a relationship between the oil shales and the prophyry coppers in so far as the unequal distribution of values and the consequent necessity for wholesale production in both cases is concerned, there seems to be no need for differentiation between their bases of discovery. Copper ore is basically metallic, of igneous origin and is subject to location under the lode law, while oil shales are of aqueous origin, possess nonmetallic mineral and are subject to location under the placer act. Certain porphyry coppers have been known to run only a trace at the surface, but they did run that trace and they were taken to patent on that basis. Some of the oil shales at the highest elevation in the Green River series produce only a small quantity of oil, but they do produce oil, and we therefore maintain that the production of oil, be the quantity thereof great or small, is a discovery within the meaning of the law.

8. Finally, the question of discovery is one of a practical nature and while it involves the application of a rule of law, such application should not be made in a technical sense but in the manner in which the practical miner out in the hills would apply it. Therefore, every physical and economic fact connected with the entire problem should be carefully considered before any change in law and in precedent governing "discovery" is seriously undertaken, and it is to the end of arriving at the facts in the premises that I respectfully submit this contribution.

Faithfully yours,

Secretary FINNEY. May I ask a question or two?
Mr. RUSSELL. Yes, sir.

WM. C. RUSSELL,

Denver, Colo.

Secretary FINNEY. Do I understand that in your view these oil shale deposits are disseminated throughout the entire formation just as the porphyry copper is disseminated through the Utah copper mine deposits.

Mr. RUSSELL. Not exactly in the same manner.

Secretary FINNEY. In other words, is the oil shale or the oil-bearing content, distributed all the way through this 2,000 feet or does it lie in different beds? Mr. RUSSELL. It lies in different beds. Just as the porphyry copper lies in different beds excepting where there is brecciation.

Secretary FINNEY. Is not there more or less mineralization all through a formation like that?

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes indeed. You are correct.

Secretary FINNEY. In other words do you follow your mineralization all the way down through?

Mr. RUSSELL. You find your mineralization all the way.

Secretary FINNEY. You find a barren streak 15, 20, or 30

Mr. RUSSELL. Your mineralization is with you all the time and you find it lean here and rich there.

Secretary FINNEY. But all of the bed contains more or less of the oil? Mr. RUSSELL. Yes. Down as far as the "mahogany" ledge, for 500 or 600 feet, at least.

Secretary FINNEY. What you call the mineralized area. Now, you spoke of the 15 gallons a ton. You do not understand the department has made any decision of that kind in an actual case for patent do you?

Mr. RUSSELL. I understand that before we can get our patents we will be obliged to show 15 gallons.

Secretary FINNEY. Is not that apprehension, rather than based on any actual decision?

Mr. RUSSELL. I will refer that question to Mr. Hawley.

Secretary FINNEY. Mr. Hawley, has the department rendered any decision to that effect?

Mr. HAWLEY. Yes; it has. They have affirmed that discovery in the Freeman case, and in the case of the Empire Mining Co. in Wyoming they rejected the application for patent because they had not met the rule in the FreemanSummers case.

Secretary FINNEY. The Freeman case was not closed yet.

Mr. HAWLEY. But the rule was applied in the Empire case as a precedent. So we have reason to think that has been established as a basis of discovery. Secretary FINNEY. I do not think there has been any practical rule established. We may have discussed that rule of classification in some decision. This calls also for a further showing. There has been no final decision yet. Mr. HAWLEY. We are very glad to hear that.

Mr. RUSSELL. It is a fact that we have obtained but two patents in Colorado in over two years?

Secretary FINNEY. That is not due to the rejection. There has been no claim finally rejected by the Secretary of the Interior that I know of. We have had two cases come here. the Empire case and the Freeman case, and after final decisions were made further rehearings have been ordered, so that the department has not laid down a general rule by a decision such as you are discussing.

Mr. RUSSELL. That is the mark that we are shooting at. inference.

Secretary FINNEY. You also suggested a change in the law.

That is the

Do you know

of any recommendation that we have made as to changing the law as to what constitutes discovery? I do not know of any.

Mr. RUSSELL. Well, if the 15 or 30-gallon rule is made to apply I think that law itself will first have to be changed, because I know of no

Secretary FINNEY. You mean if the department would put a restriction or that sort of limitation on what constitutes discovery we would construe the law that way. I understood you to say that there was some proposition to amend the placer-mining law.

Mr. RUSSELL. I suggested

Secretary FINNEY. In other words, I think it is the department's duty and probable intention to administer these claims and decide them under the existing placer law as continued in effect by the general leasing act. That general leasing act continued the old mining law in effect as to any claims valid at the time of the passage of the general leasing law and that are properly maintained.

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes.

Secretary FINNEY. So we will go back, then, to look whether compliance was had with the old mining law, whether it be a placer claim or a lode claim, whether it be coal or potash or phosophate and all that?

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes.

Secretary FINNFY. So I do not know of any proposition to get a new law on the subject.

Mr. RUSSELL. I merely made that reference there. I could not see how the 15-gallon rule could be put through or applied unless there was a new law, unless the old law was amended. I am not a lawyer, however.

Secretary WORK. Neither am I, so I can talk to you. [Laughter.] Isn't it that you are concerned about the regulations that the department promulgated under existing law? Isn't that what you fear?

Mr. RUSSELL. That is it. I perhaps may have gone a little bit beyond my scope and sphere.

Secretary WORK. No; you did not. That is what I got from your talk.
Mr. RUSSELL. In suggesting what might happen to us?

Secretary WORK. Neither of us being lawyers we can understand each other and that is exactly what I got; that you are anxious about the regulation that

the department will formulate under existing law rather than in the operation of the law itself.

Mr. RUSSELL. Yes, doctor.

Mr. HAWLEY. There may be some misunderstanding by the different branches of this department on that subject, because the field agents require us to show 15 gallons discovery before they will clear list our applications.

Secretary WORK. You understand that our agent does not have the right to pass on a mining application?

Mr. CONSAUL. May I ask a question of Mr. Russell before he leaves?
Secretary WORK. Oh, yes.

Mr. CONSAUL. I would like to ask Mr. Russell as a mining engineer of experience and wide observation in this particular kind of mining whether or not it is a fact disclosed by experiments thus far conducted that it is advisable from a manufacturing standpoint to mix the leaner shales or oil-yielding materials with the richer ones for the purpose of avoiding manufacturing trouble during the process?

Mr. RUSSELL. I understand that it is available not to attempt to retort the richer beds singly because of the possibility of coking or massing of the shale, it being so very rich. I understand that it is the opinion of some of our best Scotch chemists and retort experts, who have studied the Colorado shales, that a mixture of the leaner with the richer will produce the better results.

Mr. HAWLEY. The next speaker, Mr. Secretary, is Mr. L. H. Larwill, of Denver, Colo., a member of the Denver bar.

Mr. LARWILL. Mr. Secretary, I have with me a statement prepared by Mr. F. A. Goodale, who has been a mining engineer and geologist at work in this field since 1920 in the employ of the Columbia Oil Shale & Refining Co., one of the parties interested for whom I speak. I will file this statement of Mr. Goodale at the close of my argument. But right along the lines suggested by the discussion at the conclusion of the last address, I wish to read just a little from this statement prepared by Mr. Goodale. Mr. Goodale is an engineer who has been practicing since 1902, a graduate of the Colorado School of Mines and one who has been in the shale field continuously since the year 1920, taking many samples and engaged in all of the work in the shale field. Mr. Goodale classifies these oil-shale deposits as syngenetic sedimentary deposits. (Mr. Larwill here quoted at length from Mr. Goodale's statement :) DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

In the matter of discovery in oil shale placer claims.

the occurrence of oil shale.

INTRODUCTION

GENERAL LAND OFFICE.
Geological statement of

The mining laws of the United States are a system of legal principles which grew out of the customs of miners in the mining camps of California, Nevada, Colorado, and other States, and which principles were later enacted into Territorial, State, and Federal statutes.

These mining customs grew up in mining camps where gold was being mined. Accordingly, the miners' customs, out of which the laws grew, were founded upon gold mining; and whenever these mining laws have been invoked for a new mineral there has been a period of uncertainty in the construction of the laws, which period has continued until courts and land office have accommodated the old principles to the new mineral.

A well-known illustration can be given: A case arose which was decided in 1883 by Secretary Teller under the title of Dughi v. Harkins (2 L. D. 721). Secretary Teller was a well-known mining lawyer. His early practice was in the gold camp of Central City, Colo. In that camp the gold-bearing veins are more or less vertical in position. Therefore the presence of a vein of rich mineral on one claim afforded no proof or even an indication that there was mineral in a parallel claim lying alongside the first claim.

Accordingly, Secretary Teller, with this training, rightly ruled in the Dughi case that when the surveyor general has returned land as agricultural

"The burden of proof is therefore upon the mineral claimant, and he must show, not that neighboring or adjoining lands are mineral in character, or that that in dispute may hereafter by possibility develop minerals in such quantity as will establish its mineral rather than its agricultural character,

but that, as a present fact, it is mineral in character; and this must appear from actual production of mineral."

This language of Secretary Teller has been widely quoted and is undoubtedly a correct statement of law as applied to gold-bearing perpendicular veins, and for a time an attempt was made to apply this rule to coal. See Commissioners v. Alexander (5 L. D. 126), decided in 1886, where, under the authority of the Dughi case, the Secretary reversed the commissioner and held that the coal character must be proved from "the actual production of mineral" from the land. But it soon became apparent that the rule would not apply to flat veins like coal; and in 1903, in re Don C. Roberts (41 L. D. 639), it was said: "It is the well-established practice of this department and has been since long prior to date of final proof upon this entry to take into consideration, in determining the character of the land, not only surface indications but the geological formation of and discoveries upon adjacent or nearby lands. This is particularly true with respect to coal deposits whose peculiar formation is of such a bedded or general flat nature and of such wide extent and regularity as to permit the geologist or expert miner to determine its existence under large areas by examination of the geological formation and the characteristics of the coal and its dip as exposed in near-by workings."

*

*

Another case of difficulty in applying the mining laws arose in regard to oil. It has always been a basic principle that "discovery" is the first thing to be done about a mining claim but, of course, if the oil pool were 2,000 feet under ground, there could be no discovery until months of drilling had been done. To meet this new condition the courts stretched the old principle of "possession" and held that as long as drilling was in progress in good faith, the driller would be protected to the outer boundaries of his claim. A wellreasoned case is Whiting v. Straup (17 Wyo. 1, 95 Pac. 849.). In order, therefore, to understand what constitutes "discovery " in regard to oil shale, it is important to understand clearly how the oil shale occurs, and this statement is prepared for that purpose.

1. Mineral deposits are classified by J. D. Irving and A. M. Bateman, of the geological department of Sheffield Scientific School, Yale University, as follows (p. 392, Mining Engineers' Handbook, by Robert Peele):

I. Bedrock (or primary deposits):

A. Syngenetic deposits

1. Igneous.

2. Sedimentary.

B. Epigenetic deposits

3. Fillings of cavities

a. Fissure veins.

b. Other rock openings.

4. Replacement deposits.

5. Contact metamorphic deposits.

II. Distintegration (or secondary) deposits:

6. Mechanical concentrations, placers.

7. Chemical concentrations.

8. Residual concentrations.

III. Metamorphis derivatives.

In the above classification, which includes all classes of mineral deposits, oil shale would be placed in Division I, class A, subdivision 2, or what is known as syngenetic sedimentary deposits.

These types of mineral deposits were formed during and contemporaneously with the rock-making processes and are classed by some geologists as contemporaneous deposits. These show by their form, by their relation to the country rock, and by their contents that they are, just like the stratified rocks, a product of sedimentation. They have been formed at the bottom of seas or oceans, either as a mechanical or chemical precipitate. Clays, shales, slates, sandstones, etc., owe their existence to a mechanical precipitation. Water brought the detritus and deposited it in the sea, ocean, or lake. In time the deposits hardened through pressure and other metamorphic processes. The oil shales in the Green River formation of Colorado do not contain their mineral matter as oil but primarily as a carbonaceous substance called 'kerogen," from which oil may be obtained by "destructieve distillation,"i. e.. heating in the absence of air and breaking up the hydrocarbons of the "kerogen" into vapors, which are then condensed into oil.

Theoretically the formation of oil shale is considered analogous to coal. Vegetation grew in a basin in great abundance and repeatedly died off and grew again. These accumulations were carried off during periods of depression and, together with marine life, deposited as sediments. By a process of slow oxidation and the action of bacteria, which combined with heat and pressure and the element of time during which these operations were repeated many times, the great oil shale deposits of the Green River formation were laid down. The mineral substance called “kerogen," from which oil is obtained by destructive distillation of the oil shale, was formed and deposited contemporaneously with the rock-making sediments, and it is that which gives oil shale its value.

66

Syngenetic" or contemporaneous" deposits of other minerals have been formed similarly, among which are the copper deposits in the shales and schists near Mansfield, Germany. These deposits are in the Pernian and extend for hundreds of miles and are the main source of copper production in that country. The copper deposits in Mora County, N. Mex., along Coyote Creek, a branch of the Mora River, are in the shales and are quite extensive.

The Clinton iron ores of the Appalachians, from New York to Alabama, are examples of "syngenetic" deposits.

To this class of "contemporaneous deposits belong all coal deposits, and many mineral deposits of manganese and iron.

J. D. Irving and A. M. Bateman, of Yale University, in People's Mining Engineers' Handbook, state that "sedimentary ore layers are the most uniform and extensive of retalliferous deposits. Their origin being recognized, their extent can be predicted from a single outcrop over a geographic range subject only to removal by erosion far greater than the area of any given property. Thickness and tenor may be nearly uniform over the entire area, provided estimates are based on a portion of the mass beyond the reach of surface alteration."

The oil-shale deposit of the Green River formation is analogous to the sedimentary-ore deposits described above, and is one large extensive deposit made up of layers of shale, the zones or horizons of which vary in richness and color and lime and sand content, all of which carry some kerogen. Therefore the shale from which oil may be obtained, regardless of quantity, when found in any part of the Green River formation constitutes a discovery, and is sufficient reason to justify a prudent man in going ahead and spending his money with a reasonable expectation of developing mineral in paying quantity.

2. The Green River series of oil shale rests on what is known as the Wasatch formation and its greatest thickness is about 2.600 feet. It is composed of zones or horizons of oil shale, varying in thickness and color and lime and sand content, practically all of which will yield oil in varying quantity when tested in retorts properly constructed to make the essay.

The oil shales of the Green River formation are very extensive and are noted for their continuity and the uniformity of yield of the various horizons. Like many other "syngenetic" or "contemporaneous" deposits, they cover a vast area.

3. A zone situated near the middle part of this formation, and known as the mahogany zone contains the richest of the oil shales, and a composite sample across 10 feet of this zone will yield in excess of 50 gallons of oil per ton of shale. By varying the width of the composite sample, various yields can be had; as for example, a sample across 50 feet of the mahogany zone will yield about 35 gallons of oil per ton of shale. By extending the composite upwardly and downwardly to the limits of the oil-shale series in the Green River formation we can get a composite zone about 2,600 feet thick, which would constitute one immense mineral deposit, made up of many zones of varying oil yield, and a sample taken from any portion of this deposit and yielding oil in any amount would constitute a discovery.

4. The mahogany zone can be traced for hundreds of miles in and out of the gorges and canyons cut through the Green River formation, by following their sinuosities, and can be easily identified by a very markedly uniform and persistent calcareous sandstone parting about 6 inches wide, lying at a distance of some 13 or 14 feet above the richest part of the mahogany zone. By finding this parting in many places from Grand Valley to 20 miles or more west of Watson, Utah, a total distance of at least 75 miles, I have been able to pick out and identify the mahogany zone wherever it outcropped and was accessible.