| OCR Text |
Show Sen. Kleirfl msy noU1 support oil shale hill (Special to the Vernal Express) By Helene C. Monberg Washington Sen. Gary Hart, D-Colo., D-Colo., told this correspondent in an interview Dec. 4 he might not support the new oil shale bill that the Senate Energy Committee has been trying to report out for weeks. Hart attended part of the session of committee mark-up on the bill Dec. 1, but when asked by Chairman James A. McClure, R-Idaho, and Energy Subcommittee Sub-committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., R-Va., about his views on the bill, Hart demurred. Asked about this Dec. 4, he said, "I would be glad to give the Committee my views when it is really interested in them. After I was asked for my views, they went ahead on something else; they weren't interested in my views at the time," he maintained. He said the bill would have to be changed to provide for solely one lease per owner, more state input along the line worked out by Interior Secretary James G. Watt and Govs. Dick Lamm, D-Colo., and Scott Matheson, D-Utah, "a restriction on the number of companies" com-panies" doing oil shale development on federal lands, and "modest checks on the rate of growth" of the oil shale industry. He said he also would prefer to see one lease term at one time, outside of the off-track lease for non-mining purposes, for each lessee. The current Senate bill provides for a follow-on lease to the same lessee if he has produced 30 percent of the recoverable shale in his initial lease as determined by the U.S. Geological Survey. He complimented the Committee "for getting away from the common dump" proposal to restrict an off-site federal lease to only one parcel of non-federal oil shale land. The mark-up is expected to resume on Dec. 8, but it is doubtful now that a bill will be reported out by the end of the year, as it is evident Sens. Dale Bumpers, D-Ark., on one issue and Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio, on a variety of issues are bent on delaying action on the bill as long as possible. Both want competitive oil shale leasing, and Metzenbaum wants a variety of environmental and non-monopoly non-monopoly amendments added to the bill. If the bill were reported out as now drafted, Hart was asked whether he would support it, "I don't know. We want to see what happens on the competitive leasing issue and what happens on restricting the number of companies" allowed to obtain new federal leases, he said. Hart has worked with the Democratic minority on the bill, notably Bumpers and Metzenbaum, who give every evidence of opposing the bill that clears the Committee, so Hart appears likely to do so too. Hart is adamant about one lease per company, holding that even if a company com-pany leases the poorer shale lands in Utah and Wyoming "it will get three times as much land as it does in Colorado." The limitation is 5,120 acres in Colorado and up to 15,360 acres in Utah and Wyoming in the draft bill. Very little progress was made at the Dec. 1 meeting, primarily because the Committee didn't have much time to meet and because its meeting room had been scheduled for another function at noon. Two amendments sponsored by Sen. Wendell Ford, D-Ky., were approved, one providing that "an off-site lease serving non-federal oil shale land may not serve more than one parcel of nonfederal non-federal oil shale land;" and another requiring a mining plan to be submitted to the Secretary of Interior within four years after the issuance of new oil shale lease, and the Secretary must approve the plan within two years after its submission to him. The committee broke up while considering an amendment by Metzenbaum Met-zenbaum requiring competitive bidding on all federal oil shale land except bypass leases. Bumpers also has a similar amendment. Metzenbaum was considering an alternative of allowing competitive bidding on only half of the oil shale acreage put up for federal lease sale, but there was no resolution of this point when the Committee broke up. Neither amendment is given a chance of passing the Committee because such requirements are likely to put a damper on oil shale development, develop-ment, in view of the U.S. Geological Survey and the committee majority, though for somewhat different reasons. James R. Rollo of USGS said such proposals would particularly hurt development of oil shale lands where dawsonite deposits occur, notably the Piceance Creek Basin in Northwestern Colorado. Language proposed by Sen. Harry M. Jackson, D-Wash., was approved to be written into the Committee report once and if the bill is ever reported out of Committee. It states in part: "It is not the Committee's intention that the oil shale industry move so fast or so massively as to overwhelm local communities with the problems that accompany economic growth. Nor is it the Committee's Com-mittee's intention that development proceed in contravention of sound principles of environmental assessment and protection. "For these reasons, the bill requires consultation between the Secretary of Interior and state and local govern-. govern-. .ments regarding leasing decisions, and requires consideration of environmental en-vironmental and other reasons values at appropriate junctures. The leasing activity authorized by the bill would be within the context of the policies and procedures for management of the public lands established by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976," which is the Bureau of Land Management organic act. McClure warned the Democratic minority at the Dec. 1 meeting that the GOP majority's patience was running low on their filibuster against the bill. "At some time the majority must work its will on this legislation," he underscored. |
