My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-07-16_REVISION - C1980007 (3)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1980007
>
2008-07-16_REVISION - C1980007 (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:34:43 PM
Creation date
7/18/2008 1:40:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
7/16/2008
Doc Name
IBLA Decision Regarding Methane and MLA Leasing
From
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Type & Sequence
PR12
Email Name
TAK
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
IBLA 2007-213 <br />correspond to lands subject to pre-eNisting coal leases on which an operating <br />underground coal mine is located. This mine is venting methane into the <br />atmosphere. The three relevant leases subject to the 2007 oil and gas lease sale were <br />not issued for purposes of conveying rights to explore for, drill for, mine or develop <br />gas deposits, but only to convey,the right to capture methane at surface venting <br />structures constructed and maintained by the coal operator. As such, they ate not <br />leases issued pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA), 30 U.S.C. § 226 (2000), or <br />subject to competitive bid at a lease sale conducted pursuant to that statute. <br />Although the State Director properly concluded that the MLA is not a source of <br />authority for the leases, we nonetheless reverse the protest decision. The protest <br />against inclusion of the leases in an oil and gas lease sale under the MLA should have <br />been granted. <br />BACKGROUND <br />The facts of this case are complicated and raise matters of first impression. <br />The parcels at issue are subject to MLA leases for coal. Federal coal leases <br />UTU-81893, UTU-66060, and UTU-79975, were issued no later than 1994 for lands <br />in Carbon County, to, inter alia, Andalex Resources, Inc. (Andalex), and AMCA Coal <br />Leasing, Inc.2 The coal leases give the lessee rights to explore for, mine, and produce <br />coal deposits, subject to payment of a 12.5% royalty. 30 U.S.C. § 207 (2000). <br />Federal coal leases do not convey such rights with respect to oil and gas. Amoco v. <br />Southern Ulte Indian Tribe, 526 U.S. 865, 679-80 (1999). Rather, oil and gas deposits <br />on public lands subject to coal leases remain in the lessor, and sights to explore for, <br />drill for, and develop them are conveyed by oil and gas leases issued under the MLA. <br />Id.; 30 U.S.C. § 226 (2000). <br />UAE is the operator of the deep underground Aberdeen Coal Mine (Aberdeen <br />Mine) which nunes coal resources on State-owned and private lands, as well as on <br />public lands subject to the three Federal leases. To the extent the Aberdeen Mine <br />1 (...continued) <br />for 79 parcels of land in Carbon County, Utah, Vessels Exhibit (Ex.) 1, Jan. 5, 2007, <br />Notice of Competitive Lease Sale, Oil and Gas, attached to Vessels' Statement of <br />Reasons (SOR). Other than the three leases subject to Vessels' protest, the remaining <br />oil and gas leases are not at issue a.nd we address them no further. <br />` BLM's case record does not include the three coal leases. Vessels' Reply attaches <br />three leases at Ex. B, but its copy of coal lease UTU-81893 is unsigned and fails to <br />identify a lessee. BLM asserts that all three leases are held now by Andalex and we <br />accept this as true for purposes of this appeal. Andalex's name was apparently <br />changed to UtahAmerican Energy, Inc. (i1AE). <br />175 IBLA 9 <br />lZ/Z d ??EL'ON 9 IM 1 W011:71 RG', 1. ` <br />t 'Q Z 'N n ? <br />VVJ QQ!CT QAA7 /17ion
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.