2008-07-16_REVISION - C1980007 (3)

Home Browse Search

IBLA 2007-213 Thereafter, Vessels entered the scene. It is un dear to us when Vessels became aware of the arrangement between Oso and UAE. Thomas J. Vessels claims that the company first contacted UAE regarding collection of gob gas in the fall of 2005, attempting to `participate in the capture ofDrillhole Gas discharged from the Aberdeen Mine" Vessels Ex. E, Affidavit of Thomas J. Vessels, Of 8; SOP, at 13.7 Vessels claims that in February 2006 UAE responded that it was working with Oso, and told Vessels that any involvement by Vessels would be required to be made by direct arrangement with Oso. Id. Months later, Vessels acquired private lease interests in Carbon County, seemingly in hopes of participating in the capture of gob vent gas. Thus, while Vessels claims that its interest in this matter exists by virtue of its holding a number of private oil and gas leases "in and around the area covered by the Aberdeen Mine," see Vessels Ex. I, Affidavit of Fleet White, Jr,, at 412, the fact is that its acquisitions took place months after UAE and Oso entered into the February 2006 Operating Agreement- Vessels' claimed ownership interests are those identified on its Exhibit S. SOR at 13. These include four private lease interests "dated August 1, 2006" and several "dated April 7, 2007," thus post-dating the lease sale and even the date of Ex. S. Vessels Ex. S. Vessels thus obtained lease interests at a time it knew the GHVs were subject to contract for Oso's operation system. Vessels' Exhibit S, prepared as an attachment to its February S, 2007, protest letter, claims that Vessels acquired three future private lease interests "dated April 7, 2007," but recorded June 20, 2006. Vessels Ex. S. Those interests "dated April 7, 2007" (postdating the lease sale) are located in sec. 32, T. 12 S., R. 11 E., Salt Lake Base & Meridian. A legal opinion solicited by Tom Vessels indicates that Vessels acquired the sec. 32 leases in the belief that GHV #5 was located in that section, and that Vessels was attempting to obtain the right to capture gas from that vent by becoming a Federal oil and gas lessee. This issue apparently evaporated when it became clear that GHV #5 is located in sec, 31, on which Oso is a private lessee.8 7 But for this assertion, this contact is not documented. ° See Dec. 12, 2006, Opinion Letter from Ducker, Montgomery, Aronstein & Bess, b.6 to Toro elS. 1, els' attorney oSl-dion themthat "it appeanzi that Vessels has the right to capture, produce, and sell methane from the Gob vent if the Cob Vent is situated in Section 32, and OSO has the right to capture, produce and sell methane from the Gob Vent if the Gob Vent is situated in Section 31." Id. at 2. Presaging the issue In this case, the Opinion Letter also concluded that the ability of an oil and gas lessee to capture and sell gas from the vent depends on whether it was permitted as "an oil and gas well" by the Oil and Gas Division of the Utah Division of (continued...) 175 IBLA 1 lZ/8 'd Mt 'ON Viol l0Sn Nd90 : Zl 800Z'97 'Nnf vcU.r nn!or ann7ji7/nn