2008-07-16_REVISION - C1980007 ‎(3)‎

• 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

IBLA 2007-213
Should Vessels continue to seek an oil and gas lease on the public lands,
Vessels would be afforded only the same opportunity to bid for such a lease as any
other party, for rights granted on the standard MLA oil and gas lease foi rn for the
subject oil ahd gas lease deposits. That said, BLM bears no obligation to conduct a
public competitive MLA lease sale for the parcels being mined subject to coal leases.
This analysis resolves Vessels' arguments A-D. Technically, however, it opens
the question of BLM's authority at all to issue leases, permits, or contracts for the
capture of the vent gas, similar to the ones issued to Oso. In his decision the State
Director concluded that such leases are more appropriately issued under FLPMA
sections 102 and 302.14 Belatedly, in its Answers BLM took the position that FLPMA
section 302 and its implementing regulations may provide authority for the leases in
this situation. The State Director's advertence to FLPMA thus raises the question of
whether the situation fits within the statutory authorization for a use or development
of the public lands within the meaning of that statute. We understand the
opportunity 1<LPMA and BLM's Manual, provisions appear:to provide to address gob
vent gas, but we also perceive the Ifluits of such authority in the circumstances of this
appeal. We. leave-.to BLM and its .counsel the debate regarding whether the "use" or
"development" of the public lands extends to Oso's capture of the gas, based on
MSMs directive to UAE, effectively, to vent the. gas, and the 8PA's directive,
effectively, riot to vent it, so that the byproduct must:be disposed of.15
We take no position in this- appeal regarding the pr. open application of FLPMA,
or any other authority for BL M- to issue. permits, leases, contracts, or licenses. While
13
(...continued)
under 30 U.S-C. § 191(a) (2000) does not apply here.
14 We disagree with the State Director's assertion, Decision at 3, that such authority
is found in );LPMA section 102, 43 U.S.C. § 1701 (2000), which is a Congressional
stmement of policy, not a grant of authority to the Secretary.
is We recognize that Vessels' position may suggest that that the "Offending Special
Stipulations" are a violation of FLPMA. Nonetheless, Vessels' position that the only
option for BLM was to issue MLA leases for the capture of gob gas ensured that
Vessels did not present that argument. Particularly given that we do not address
whether FIRMA applind here, we will not cont - -"-U IFLPhlk-a-rgumen for
Vessels. Moreover, Oso's assertion that Vessels could show no harm to itself from the
issuance of the leases may relate to the view that, even had Vessels raised specific
challenges tl?at the stipulations violate FLPMA, Vessels could show no harm to itself
from the issuance of non-competitive FLPMA leases with the cited stipulations
pursuant to 4,3 C.F.R. § 4.410. Donald K. Majors, 123 IBLA 142, 143 (1992). Just as
we do not Manufacture arguments under FLPMA for Vessels to challenge the
stipulation terms, we do not further develop a FLPMA standing argument for Oso.
1751BLA 27
11/0Z 'd £££L 'ON d191 10Zf1 Ndfl:Z1 800Z '91 UP
y ?n .ran W't, non Tnnrlr YVA 7.b : 4L R007. /L7194