Page images
PDF
EPUB

The CHAIRMAN. Has the Geological Survey made any estimate of the amount of oil contained in California Reserve No. 1?

Assistant Secretary ROOSEVELT. The Geological Survey has estimated it as containing 100,000,000 barrels of oil, but the geologist, Mr. Robert Anderson, in making the estimate, said: "Estimates of the amount of petroleum underlying any tract are necessarily rough and speculative." The estimated yield of the tentatively proven area is placed at 24,000,000 barrels only.

Senator PHELAN. By whom?

Assistant Secretary ROOSEVELT. That is by Mr. Robert Anderson. Senator PHELAN. The Geological Survey first estimated 300,000,000 barrels of oil.

Assistant Secretary ROOSEVELT. Which reserve is that?

Senator PHELAN. No. 1. That has since been corrected, as you say, to 100,000,000.

Representative FERRIS. It has it down to 30,000,000.

The CHAIRMAN. What did he say with regard to 24,000,000? Commander RICHARDSON. That is not Anderson's statement30,000,000.

Assistant Secretary ROOSEVELT. Mr. Anderson's statement was 100,000,000 estimated for Reserve No. 1, but there has only been proven-while they have sunk wells in a great many sections-that they have three producing wells in the reserve.

Senator CLARK. Do you know what depth those dry wells were drilled? Their productivity would depend something upon that, because the producing wells have been shown to be very deep wells.

The CHAIRMAN. How about this 24,000,000 barrels of oil in reserve No. 1 I am trying to get at that estimate.

Assistant Secretary ROOSEVELT. The 24,000,000 figures are the estimated contents of that area, which has been tentatively proven in reserve No. 1.

The CHAIRMAN. How many acres would that probably be?
Assistant Secretary ROOSEVELT. About 2,470 acres.

The CHAIRMAN. Out of the 38,124 in the naval reserve?

Assistant Secretary ROOSEVELT. Yes.

Senator PHELAN. The question was asked, how many dry wells have been sunk in reserve No. 1?

Senator CLARK. And the depth to which they were sunk? Commander RICHARDSON. I can give you a tabulated list. Senator CLARK. If you can take one or two of them, I think it would give us the depth of the dry wells.

Senator PHELAN. I would like to get it in the record how many wells the Navy Department has sunk in any reserve or all of the

reserves.

Commander RICHARDSON. None.

Assistant Secretary ROOSEVELT. We have been waiting to find out whose land it is.

Senator CLARK. Waiting to find out whether there is oil there. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other naval reserves except those mentioned?

Assistant Secretary ROOSEVELT. Those three are the only ones. There is a proposal by the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw some shale lands.

Mr. FINNEY. It is withdrawn, Mr. Secretary-two areas in western Colorado and Utah.

Representative FERRIS. How much acreage in those?

Mr. FINNEY. There were 45,000 acres in Colorado and 86,000 in Utah, with an estimated content of a billion barrels.

Assistant Secretary ROOSEVELT. The shale lands, up to the present time, are not a commercial proposition as oil lands-quite a different proposition. There is oil in the shale, and if it came down to a crisis and you could get no oil any other way, I suppose in time of war we could go ahead and crush the shale and extract the oil.

Commander RICHARDSON. In regard to the shale, you have to drive the oil off in the shape of gas, and out of the ton of shale you get 40 gallons of oil, and of that 40 gallons there is a fair percentage gas and gasoline, so that out of that ton of shale you would probably get 24 gallons of fuel oil.

of

Mr. FINNEY. How much would it cost to get it?

Commander RICHARDSON. $1.85 for the 24 gallons; and if it be in Colorado it is over a dollar to get it to the coast.

Senator CLARK. I saw something about some experiments made by people who are farsighted, I suppose, at a cost of about $4 a barrel to ship it.

Commander RICHARDSON. $1.85 is the statement by oil men.
Assistant Secretary ROOSEVELT. About 24 gallons.

Commander RICHARDSON. That would be substantially what I say. Senator PHELAN. What is the estimated contents of those shale reserves?

Mr. FINNEY. One billion barrels, according to the estimate of the Geological Survey.

Representative FERRIS. Of the two fields?

Mr. FINNEY. Yes.

Senator PHELAN. I have what purports to be a report very much in excess of that.

Commander RICHARDSON. The shale deposits on public lands are estimated to yield 20,000,000,000 barrels, but that is not withdrawn. The only information the Navy Department has in regard to any withdrawal of shale lands for the Navy Department has appeared in newspapers.

The CHAIRMAN. Commander Richardson, I understand you to say the only information the Navy Department has in regard to the withdrawal of the shale land is "newspapers"?

Commander RICHARDSON. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you made any inquiries at the Department of the Interior concerning it?

Commander RICHARDSON. No; I have not.

The CHAIRMAN. As one of the experts of the Navy Department, would you not consider a possibility of conserving 1,000,000,000 barrels of oil, even at an expense of $4 a barrel, for future use would be a matter of interest to your department?

Commander RICHARDSON. It was so much a matter of interest to the Navy Department that it requested the Department of the Interior to join the Navy Department in requesting the President to create a reserve of shale lands for the possible use of the Navy when the known oil fields of the country were exhausted; that it was realized that even if the oil fields are exhausted in a limited number

of years, as the statements of the Department of the Interior indicate, the Navy must have oil available from some source.

The CHAIRMAN. Then you have had the matter of shale-oil deposits under investigation?

Commander RICHARDSON. We asked for them.

Senator CLARK. I suppose it is safe enough to assume that upon an official request it would be withdrawn.

Mr. FINNEY. It has been withdrawn.

Representative TAYLOR. Are these oil withdrawals of December 6, 1916, specifically made subject to a right of surface entry for agricultural purposes?

Senator CLARK. Not naval reserve land.

Representative TAYLOR. I mean these two you spoke of, 45,000 acres in Colorado and more in Utah, because if not so specifically reserved I fear that agricultural entries may not be allowed upon them, although they ought to be.

Mr. FINNEY. I think the act of July 17, 1914, saves these lands to agricultural entry, subject to reservation of minerals.

Mr. TALLMAN. That has been my understanding.

Representative TAYLOR. I suppose these withdrawals were made under the Pickett bill, were they not?

Mr. TALLMAN. The order does not cite any particular act as authority.

Representative TAYLOR. The Pickett bill specifically does not allow agricultural entries upon withdrawals.

Mr. FINNEY. But the act of July 17, 1914, does.

Representative TAYOR. I wanted to know whether these withdrawals would be construed as "naval withdrawals" to the extent of interfering with agricultural entries. Is that your construction? Senator PHELAN. Is that the law as stated by Mr. Taylor, that agricultural entries are authorized, nothwithstanding the withdrawal of the shale lands?

Representative TAYLOR. That is what I am trying to ascertain, because most of that land is in my home county-Garfield County, Colo.

The CHAIRMAN. About half of naval reserve No. 2 is patented to the railroad companies, particularly the Southern Pacific, I believe. Assistant Secretary ROOSEVELT. Yes; subject to suit.

The CHAIRMAN. How many suits have been instituted against the Southern Pacific Co.?

Assistant Secretary ROOSEVELT. I would like very much for the Department of Justice to state what suits have been brought against the Southern Pacific Co. and the other claimants in reserve No. 2. Could you give us that, Mr. Williams?

Mr. S. W. WILLIAMS. We had filed 27 suits, up to the time of the Attorney General's report, against the locators.

Assistant Secretary ROOSEVELT. On withdrawn oil lands?

The CHAIRMAN. We are talking about naval reserve No. 2. How many suits have been instituted in that reserve?

Mr. S. W. WILLIAMS. I think most of those cases involve No. 2, but it is not specified in this report as to what reserve the lands are in. Senator CLARK. Mr. Williams, have you anything to show the suits brought for cancellation of patents to the railroad company? Mr. S. W. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir; we have seven, I think.

Senator CLARK. Have any of them reached determination?

Mr. S. W. WILLIAMS. One of those cases involved the Elk Hills reserve, which I understand to be naval reserve No. 1, and that has gone to the court of appeals, the Government being successful.

Senator CLARK. The Government was successful in the district court or the court of appeals?

Mr. S. W. WILLIAMS. Successful in the district court, and now it is in the court of appeals. The Government was successful in the district court in that suit. That suit differs from the remaining six suits, in that it was instituted within the period of limitation; the other suits are now being tried in the district courts. The Government has practically completed its case.

Senator CLARK. None of those other cases, not within the statute of limitations, has gone to the court of appeals yet?

Mr. S. W. WILLIAMS. Not yet. I will say in that connection that both the district courts and the courts of appeals for the eighth and ninth circuits held that the statute of limitations does no bar suit by the Government where the evidence shows patent was secured by fraud, and that the fraud was purposely concealed from the Government.

Senator PHELAN. Will you please state what decision was recently made by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of the United States v. New Orleans? I understand it held that the Government can not cancel a patent on ground of fraud or mistake after six years, under an act passed in 1896.

Mr. S. W. WILLIAMS. I assume you refer to the case against the New Orleans, Pacific Railway Co.?

Senator PHELAN. Yes.

Mr. S. W. WILLIAMS. That suit was not based upon fraud; there was no charge of fraud in it, and the decision was rendered by the court of appeals for the fifth circuit, Louisiana. If you will remember, I said that the court of appeals for the eighth and ninth circuits had rendered this decision. That question has never yet been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. How many suits have been instituted against the Southern Pacific in regard to land in naval reserve No. 2?

Mr. S. W. WILLIAMS. As I said a moment ago, Senator, we had 27 suits in California, but I did not know how many of them involved lands in No. 2, but the greater part of them. I think.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you get that for us?

Mr. S. W. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And how many suits have been instituted in respect to naval reserve No. 2, outside of those against the Southern Pacific?

Mr. S. W. WILLIAMS. You mean the oil withdrawal suits?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. S. W. WILLIAMS. Twenty-seven, but I can not say how they are divided as to reserves.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee was dealing particularly with naval reserve No. 2, and if you would kindly get, for the benefit of the conference, information concerning the suits on land in naval reserve No. 2, it will be of assistance to us.

Mr. S. W. WILLIAMS. In other words, you want the acreage rather than the number of suits?

The CHAIRMAN. We want the total number of suits and the amount of acreage involved in each suit and the status of each suit.

Mr. S. W. WILLIAMS. In naval reserve No. 2?

The CHAIRMAN. In naval reserve No. 2.

Mr. S. W. WILLIAMS. All right; we will get that for you. Senator PHELAN. Let me ask, if you know, whether that decision of the United States Court of Appeals in the New Orleans case was that no question of fraud or mistake existed, Mr. Finney?

Mr. FINNEY. I am not familiar with that case, Senator.

Mr. S. W. WILLIAMS. I did not say "mistake"-" no question of fraud."

Representative LENROOT. Do you know whether the patents were issued at the same time for the lands in No. 1 and No. 2 as to the Southern Pacific?

Mr. S. W. WILLIAMS. No, sir; they were issued at different dates. Representative LENROOT. Different questions of fact involved?

Mr. S. W. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir; but as I understand it, in the case now being tried against the Southern Pacific, there has been an understanding, if not an actual ruling by the court, that the evidence taken in that case on the general situation would be considered in the other cases, so far as applicable.

Senator PHELAN. Mr. Chairman, in order to get the record straight I would like to go back to Senator Clark's question and ask Mr. Finney if the presidential withdrawal of September, 1909, was not made for the purpose, and so stated, of giving Congress an opportunity to legislate on the subject? In other words, there was no mention of a naval reserve in the withdrawal order. Have you a copy of the President's withdrawal?

Mr. FINNEY. I have not a copy of the order, and I would not like to state now.

The CHAIRMAN. You can insert that at this point in the record. (The order referred to is here printed in full as follows:)

WITHDRAWAL OF SEPTEMBER 27, 1909.

The honorable the SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.

SEPTEMBER 27, 1909.

SIR: In accordance with your orders, I have the honor to submit the following recommendation, which covers approximately 3,041,000 acres, of which the larger part is probably private land and not affected by this withdrawal:

TEMPORARY PETROLEUM WITHDRAWAL No. 5.

In aid of proposed legislation affecting the use and disposition of the petroleum deposits on the public domain, all public lands in the accompanying lists are hereby temporarily withdrawn from all forms of location, settlement, selection, filing, entry, or disposal under the mineral or nonmineral public-land laws. All locations or claims existing and valid on this date may proceed to entry in the usual manner after field investigation and examination.

Senator PHELAN. The naval reserves were made in December, 1912.

Mr. FINNEY. Nos. 1 and 2 were specifically named and described as "naval reserves" in the fall or early winter of 1912.

Senator PHELAN. What I wanted to bring out was that there was no mention of naval reserve in the original presidential withdrawal. Mr. S. W. WILLIAMS. I am quite sure there was not.

« PreviousContinue »