Laserfiche WebLink
IBLA 2007-213 <br />potential FLPMA leases and not MLA leases, he had no basis for maintaining that the <br />lease sale was properly conducted for such leases under the MLA.'s competitive <br />bidding proceess. The consequences of his conclusion. are fairly weighty and go <br />beyond consequences to Vessels. If, in fact, the State Director believes BLM issued <br />FLPMA. leases, then the bidding process for a MLA. lease sale would not apply. <br />Moreover, under the MLA, the State receives a 50% share of bonuses, rentals, and <br />royalties. 30 U.S.C, § 191(a) (2000). It is fairly difficult to follow the terms of the <br />leases at Vessels' SOR Ex. V, given that they appear to grant rights authorized under <br />the MLA, and then, by stipulation to take away all of those rights. But, to the extent <br />MLA provisions remain and purport to subject the lessee to MLA. regulations, some of <br />these provisibns may not be enforceable, <br />B11A finds itself raking the contradictory positions that (a) it properly <br />conducted aicompetitive MLA lease sale (b) for leases its attorneys now contend are <br />FLPMA. leasds, while at the same time (c) BLM, Oso, and UAE all apparently concede <br />that the leases at issue here could not have been competitively issued under the MLA <br />because UA? could only contract with a single entity that it had already chosen, <br />UAE, at leas(, directly acknowledges that Oso had the competitive advantage by <br />virtue of its Operating Agreement with UAE, UAE Answer at 8. Thus, at least UAE <br />and Oso corucede Oso's competitive advantage in the lease sale, while arguing that it <br />was not an `!unlawful advantage," a murky distinction under the MLA, and an <br />irrelevant ozie if there was no need for an MLA lease sale. <br />11 R4versal of the State Director's Decision Rejecting the Protest. <br />For all of these reasons, we reverse the State Director's decision. This was not <br />a lease for VAM. The methane being emitted is undoubtedly "gas" under 43 C.F.R. <br />§ 3000.0-5?a) and it is being captured because it is methane gas. There are plenty of <br />reasons, found merely by reading the parties' concessions, to conclude that the lease <br />offer for three leases that eschewed all MLA standard form lease rights with respect <br />to oil and g2is deposits but granted the rights to capture the gob vent gas, was not <br />"cornpetitivd" Oso and UAE were in the possession of contract information relevant <br />to die bidding process that they concede was outside the possession of, and therefore <br />disclosure by, BLM. <br />111 Vessed'c Req erf for n Second ! ompetitiye A,ff A Oil and ds Lease Sale. <br />But simply reversing the State Director's decision does not resolve the parties' <br />disputes. Vessels asserts that once the decision is reversed, it is entitled to relief in <br />the form of a new "competitive" lease sale under the MLA, presumably for leases with <br />amended stipulations to avoid the terms of the Offending Special Stipulations, with <br />disclosure of details of the contract between Oso and UAE, and a requirement that <br />UA.E enter into contracts with other parties either for the service to be provided by <br />175 IBLA 22 <br />lZ/S? 'd £E(L 'ON bis( lair 1W.b:7.1 AW W *NAr <br />w.T .*.•rr OnnVI-17/0A <br />II __