-4

many years.

Today, it is one of the most active and productive

onshore exploration provinces in America.

However, the significant finds that have been made are confined to a relatively small part of the Western Overthrust Belt. At least two factors have contributed to this exploration shortfall. First, only recently have exploration techniques been adequate to provide sufficient understanding of that highly complex geologic province. Second, the federal government has withdrawn large portions of these lands from access to oil and gas activity, despite statutory permission for such activities.

API submits that it has never been the intent of Congress to withdraw either wilderness or wilderness study areas from oil and gas or other minerals exploration prior to full evaluation of the total resource potential of such lands.

part:

Section 4(d) (3) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 reads in

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, until
midnight December 31, 1983, the United States mining laws
and all laws pertaining to mineral leasing shall, to the
same extent as applicable prior to the effective-date of
this Act, extend to those national forest lands designated
by this Act as "wilderness areas"; subject, however, to
such reasonable regulations governing ingress and egress as
may be prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture
consistent with the use of the land for mineral location
and development and exploration, drilling, and

production...

16-780 0-83-15

-5

In enacting the Wilderness Act, Congress recognized the desire of the people for a "statutory framework for the preservation of wilderness."1/

At the same time, however, Congress also recognized that

wilderness should be managed to allow other uses

incompatible with wilderness preservation

...

..." not
2/ including

oil and gas and other mineral activities that would benefit the nation. Indeed, Congress recognized at the time the need for a wilderness framework that would assure that no future

W

administrator could arbitrarily or capriciously either abolish wilderness areas that should be retained or make wholesale

designations of additional areas in which use would be limited. 3/

As a practical matter, however, the intent of the Wilderness Act has largely been frustrated.

Distressingly

little oil or gas leasing has occurred in wilderness areas or wilderness study areas since passage of the 1964 Act. In those areas where leases have been granted, excessively stringent

administrative restrictions have resulted in de facto withdrawal of those lands from virtually all oil and gas exploration and production activity.

S. 2801 seeks to further restrict such petroleum operations. Indeed the bill not only formally withdraws 23 million acres of designated wilderness but an additional 15

1/ House Report 1538 (Public Law 88-577) p. 3616.

Ibid., p. 3617.

2/

3/

-6

million acres of other lands. These include 5.6 million acres of Forest Service further planning areas, 7 million acres of national forest lands recommended for wilderness designation and 2 million acres of congressionally mandated wilderness study areas. Furthermore, S. 2801 makes no attempt to address the important issue of returning wilderness study lands to multiple use should they not be designated as wilderness.

Thus, without firm guidance from Congress which S. 2801 does not provide these Forest Service lands and certain

Bureau of Land Management lands (identified by Section 603 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act) may be subject to an incessant round of review, re-review and study, effectively foreclosing them from oil and gas development.

S. 2801 also fails to provide any degree of certainty or dependability that will allow sensible, careful planning to meet the nation's critical energy and mineral needs through exploration and development of these lands.

At the same time, however, the bill leaves wilderness areas open to other forms of mineral exploration and production. Thus, S. 2801 either admits that mineral activities are compatible with wilderness or that strategic minerals are of sufficient value to justify such activity on wilderness lands. It is particularly strange that petroleum operations would be precluded by the proposed legislation from qualifying under

these tests.

In fact, oil and gas operations do pass both tests. These operations can occur in wilderness areas without permanently

-7

impairing the wilderness. Oil and gas clearly are important

if not the most important

-

strategic minerals. Moreover,

today's sophisticated petroleum exploration and rehabilitiation techniques combined with stringent environmental controls

-

have made operations in ecologically sensitive areas far more justifiable and acceptable than ever before. The industry has demonstrated repeatedly that it can and does

operate in highly sensitive areas without permanently impairing any

environmental values.

Urgent National Need

S. 2801 merely pays lip service to the inevitable "urgent national need" for oil and gas and other minerals from the lands the bill proposes to withdraw. However, it provides no

sufficient means for evaluation of the mineral resources of withdrawn lands. Nor does the legislation provide any sensible response in the event of an "urgent national need."

Section 4 of S. 2801 would restrict oil and gas exploration to "seismic surveys and core sampling conducted by helicopter or other means not requiring the construction of roads or improvements of existing roads or ways, for the purpose of gathering information if such activity is carried out in a manner compatible with the preservation of the wilderness environment; provided, however, that seismic activities involving the use of explosives shall not be permitted in designated wilderness areas."

...

The limited exploration allowed by the bill is insufficient to determine the presence or absence of oil or gas.

-8

Exploration techniques allowed under S. 2801 only determine whether an oil or gas deposit is more or less likely to occur in a given area. Only the full range of seismographic techniques

including the use of explosives

and subsequent exploratory drilling will afford a conclusive determination as to the presence of oil or gas in the area. Only then will the public and the Congress have the information necessary to make a wise decision about the ultimate use of an area.

-

they are not

Oil and gas resource estimates based on nothing but surface surveys are speculative. Thus, claims by preservationists that designated and potential wilderness areas contain only tiny amounts of potentially producible oil and gas and, therefore, need not be explored are merely claims supported by extensive geological evidence. Indeed, the only way to obtain a valid determination of the resource potential of a given area is to conduct exploratory drilling. Without drilling, the degree of uncertainty that remains precludes objective policy decisions on the use of government lands.

Section 5 of S. 2801 allows the president to recommend to Congress that mineral exploration and development be permitted in a specific wilderness area:

...

if the president finds that, based on available information (1) there is an urgent national need for the mineral activity, and (2) such national need outweighs the other public values of the wilderness lands involved and the potential adverse environmental impacts which are likely to occur.