2008-07-16_REVISION - C1980007 (3)

Home Browse Search

IBLA 2007-213 Oso, or for an overriding royalty. See Vessels Reply at 24. This is not the case-if Vessels is wrong in arguing that the authority for leases in This situation is the MLA. And so we move on to address whether the MIA is appropriate authority for issuing leases containing the terms found in Stipulation 1- that is, "granting the exclusive right for the surface capture of ventilated mine vent gas." We begin with a detour to the contract between UAE and Oso. The best information we have regarding the portion of coal to be mined by UAE that is part of the Federal mineral estate is in anecdotal guesses by Oso and BLM participants in the negotiating process; they surmise that a third of the mine's coal is Federal coal, leaving two-thirds owned by private entities or the State. We have no jurisdiction over State-owned or privately-owned coal. To the extent UAE claims that BLM has no jurisdiction over private contracts between UAE and Oso over such resources, or in particular the gas emitted as a byproduct of mining them, this is generally true. Therefore, as a general matter, we would not question such contracts, examine them, or opine about them, We agree that such contracts would be governed by other authority, presuming UAE and Oso had legal rights to engage in private contracts for the sale of that non- Federal methane gas. We are not so sanguine about such options when it comes to the Federal gas being. emitted as a byproduct of mining Federally-leased coal. In this case, to the extent Oso's and UAE's private contract for gas released in association with coal mining ventured into gas associated with the Federal coal, what may have been a perfectly legal private contract between Oso and UAE put UAE in the tricky position of selling gas released from Federally-leased coal, and therefore gas in which the Supreme Court has quite directly stated that UAE, as a coal lessee, owns no interest under a Federal coal lease. Thus; we do_ not necessarily endorse Oso's various conceptual positions, before us to the effect that BLM had no interest i 2 the terms of a contract between Oso and UAE .for collection of Federally-owned gaS. In fact, UAE's options with:respect to such byproducts and with respect to such private contracts would be guided to some extent by the R2P2 that would, of necessity, contain. data missing from the record before us;- including any. LMU agreements and-incorporated:MSHA shine safety requirements. In fact, 43 C.F.R.. § 3482.1(c) (4) describes the material to be included in the R2P2, including maps and czoss-spcdons of. ter alia coat beds -W be mined, L !r -beunda tinny ?'_ur'Yii ownership and boundaries, and the planned mining sequence, and 43 C.F.R. § 3482.1(c)(6) includes data required to be submitted to MSHA. Notably, the record contains information suggesting that the State of Utah permits its coal lessees to 22 Even with respect to privately-owned coal, Oso voluntarily sought to become and did become a lessee of the oil and gas associated with that coal, voluntarily paying a royalty. 175 IBLA 23 lW9t- 'd ML 'ON via] 10sn WA O:7.1 9887,07 'mnp .__ _ ? vv.r ns. • nT annv i t y inn