OCR Text |
Show LEGAL ASPECTS OF MINERAL RESOURCES EXPLOITATION 749 since 1945. After spending $52 million exploring and developing Reserve No. 4 in Alaska, the Secretary of the Navy was asked in 1954 whether the time had come to turn the reserves over to private companies. His reply: "The policy is the same . . . the best reservoir for oil is in the ground."357 Although the four reserves are popularly said to hold nearly a billion barrels of oil worth nearly $2y2 billion, current income to the Federal government a few years ago did not exceed $15 million annually.358 The very mention of Teapot Dome has made politicians wince for the last 35 years. In 1959, President Eisenhower courageously suggested that the reserves were an anachronism and recommended continuing study of the advisability of their disposal.359 He felt that they were no longer a significant defense measure since a worldwide petroleum industry must be relied upon in both peace and war to provide our requirements. One might add, they may be even less important in a nuclear age.360 The Closing and Reopening of the Public Domain to Oil and Gas Leasing. The 1920 Leasing Act was generally regarded as compromise legislation as far as the opposing forces of conservation and exploitation were concerned. At the time, some may have believed that the production of oil might diminish in the future, although the over-production in the first 20 years of the century furnished no support for this position.361 As might have been predicted, over-production, depletion, and wasteful mining practices in the 1920's caused seri- 357 "Oil-Round 2," 130 New Republic 4 (April 5, 1954). 358 See note 353, supra. 359105 Cong. Rec. 751, 759 (1959) . 380 See Engler, The Politics of Oil: A Study of Private Power and Democratic Directions 83-86 (1961). 3BI See Part 2, n. 230 and text, n. 303 and text. 362 See Conservation of Oil and Gas: A Legal History 1948 (Murphy ed. 1949) . ous problems.362 The ominous possibility of an oil shortage eventually occurring led President Hoover to inaugurate a new and drastic policy on oil conservation. An understandable desire to disassociate his party from Teapot was undoubtedly a secondary consideration. Eight days after he took office, the President announced that there would be "no leases or disposal of government oil lands, no matter what category they may be in; ... except those which may be made mandatory by Congress. ... In other words there will be complete conservation of government oil in this administration."363 The next day Secretary of the Interior Wilbur requested the Commissioner of the Land Office to instruct all local offices to receive no further applications and to reject all those which were pending. It is estimated that 20,000 were pending on March 12, 1929. Moreover, the government inaugurated a concerted effort to cancel outstanding inactive permits. Between 1929 and 1932 approximately 16,600 outstanding prospecting permits were cancelled for failure to comply with the provisions of the Leasing Act relating to the commencement of drilling.364 The issues were clearly joined: Did the Secretary of the Interior or the President have discretion under the Leasing Act to refuse to issue permits on a wholesale basis because of the over-production of oil? To what extent, if at all, did the Mineral Leasing Act affect the President's withdrawal powers under the Pickett Act of 1910? Did the order of the Secretary actually constitute a withdrawal of the oil and gas reserves? A mandamus case was soon instituted to determine the validity of a refusal to grant a permit to an otherwise qualified applicant whose application had been filed after the deadline. The questions raised above ¦" Quoted in Noggle, Teapot Dome: Oil and Politics in the 1920's 209 (1963). 364 See note 362, supra, at 603. |