OCR Text |
Show LEGAL ASPECTS OF MINERAL RESOURCES EXPLOITATION 751 spite the reservation in the Atomic Energy Act.371 This prompted claim jumpers, who based their locations on other materials, to locate on top of uranium claims. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 eliminated the troublesome reservation and retroactively validated all prior locations.372 Uranium ores discovered in the Colorado Plateau area were generally found in a type of sedimentary deposit which was also potentially valuable for oil and gas. And, one estimate was that as much as 75 percent of the available uranium lands were already under Federal oil and gas leases.373 The conflict between location and leasing came about because the Mineral Leasing Act, which made certain nonmetalli-ferous minerals exclusively leasable, made no provision for disposing of other minerals which might be discovered in leased land. On the other side of the coin, there was no attempt to amend the mining laws so as to provide that mining patents must contain reservations of the various Leasing Act minerals. A departmental decision in 1924 ruled that the issuance of a prospecting permit precluded, during the life of the permit, any entry under the general mining laws.374 Although the 371 See Bloomenthal, Multiple Mineral Development on the Public Domain, 9 Wyo. L. J. 139, 142 (1954) . 372 42 U.S.C. § 2098 (c) (1964). It is not to be assumed that there was general agreement on the advisability of repealing the reservation. See 130 New Republic 16 (May 17, 1954) ("... why in heaven's name should we give away and then buy back what is already ours?") . 373Waldeck, Uranium Mining Claims Staked on Prior Federal Oil and Gas Leaseholds, 30 Dicta 56, n. 12 (1953) . 374 Joseph E. McClory, 50 I.D. 623 (1924). Mc-Clory claimed to have discovered a placer gold deposit in 1921 while drilling (presumably with no authority) a test well for oil and gas. It was discovered that 11 months before, one Sackett had obtained an oil and gas prospecting permit under the Leasing Act, which was in.force at the time Me-Clory's location was made. McClory applied for a decision may seem doubtful in retrospect, it was soon expanded in other departmental decisions to bar entries on any land classified as valuable for Leasing Act minerals or on any land subject to a lease or an allowable application for a non-competitive oil and gas lease.375 On the other hand, a locator who had made his discovery prior to the issuance of an oil and gas permit or lease would, of course, have priority.376 Actually, the lease applicant had more difficulty discovering prior conflicting claims than did the locator.377 The uranium boom, which reached its height in 1954, was not unlike the California gold rush except that the average prospector was generally not quite as undernourished. One exception, however, was Charles A. Steen, a penniless geologist, who after unbelievable disillusionment, staked out a claim on a high sandstone ridge southeast of Moab, Utah, which the Atomic Energy Commission had declared to be barren of possibilities. Cer- placer patent, stating that he would agree to a reservation in the patent of all Leasing Act minerals. The Assistant Secretary of the Interior felt that the Leasing Act had the effect of "segregating" such lands and thus withdrawing them from location. This was based on a construction of the Leasing Act that the permit creates an inchoate right which, upon discovery of oil and gas, would absolutely entitle the permittee to a lease. "Hence, it is necessary to treat the land embraced in a prospecting permit as if embraced in an oil and gas lease . . ." The Department acknowledged that the permittee did not have the exclusive right to the use of the surface, however, since under the Leasing Act his rights were expressly subject to the provisions of the stock-raising homestead law. Moreover, it was felt that there could be no reservation of the Leasing Act minerals because the mining law authorized no reservations of this type. 375 Applicability of the Mining Laws to Lands Known to Contain Any of the Minerals Named in the Leasing Acts of Oct. 2, 1917, and Feb. 25, 1920, 50 I.D. 650 (1924) . See also Clear Gravel Enterprises, Inc., 64 I.D. 210 (1957) ; Jebson v. Spencer, 61 I.D. 161, 164 (1953); Monolith Portland Cement Co., 61 I.D. 42 (1952) ; United States v. United States Borax Co., 58 I.D. 426 (1943) ; Dredge Corporation, 64 I.D. 368 (1957) . |