Page images

charged, only 4,870.40 acres (28 cases); number of acres against which withdrawal charged, only 5,661.10 acres (22 cases); number of acres against which both withdrawal and dummy charged, 6,481.40 acres (25 cases); clearlisted, but not patented (18 cases), 3,086.94 acres; awaiting action on special agents' reports (6 cases), 1,200 acres; awaiting special agents' reports (20 cases), 6,494.54 acres; pending other actions, such as adverse suits, private contests, etc. (16 cases), 3,611.16 acres; total number of mineral applications pending September 20, 1916, 147, 34,864.68 acres.


Total area withdrawn, 9,481 acres; area patented, none; area in school section, 160 acres.

NOTE.-Excepting said 160 acres in school section, all the land in this area is vacant and unentered on the records of the General Land Office. Reports indicate that practically the entire area is covered by paper locations. All of this land was included in the September 27, 1909, withdrawal. So far as known there were no developments or operations leading to discovery of oil prior to the first withdrawal.

ITEM. Wells drilled, results of explorations, and estimated oil content. Three wells have been drilled in the Teapot field-one in 1911, to a depth of 420 feet, left unfinished on account of lack of water; one in 1914, to a depth of 456 feet, in which oil was reached. This well has not been pumped, but it is stated that it would be made a good producer. The third well was drilled in 1915, to a depth of 1,230 feet, where a trace of oil was secured, but the well is a water producer only. No attempt has been made to reach the lower or Wall Creek sand, which is the producing sand in the Salt Creek field and which underlies the Teapot field at a depth of about 2,500 feet. The estimated oil content of this field is 30,000,000 barrels.


Total area embraced in withdrawals, June 30, 1916, 791,467 acres, of which there have been patented 166,170 acres; area included in mineral applications (66), June 30, 1916, 10,060 acres; area against which adverse proceedings have been directed, 160 acres; area clearlisted (part of the 10,060 acres), 280 acres ; area patented during year ending June 30, 1916 (not included in the 10,060 acres), 560 acres; oil lands patented in Wyoming since September 27, 1909 (not included in the 10,060 acres above mentioned, except 1 of 160 acres), 2,300



Total area withdrawn, 28,680 acres; total area patented, 1,240 acres; total area in school section, 840 acres; area of producing portion of field, about 5,000 acres; area embraced in pending mineral applications, 8,000 acres; of which is clear listed, 280 acres; area embraced in adverse suits, 5,440 acres (NOTE.-Most all of these adverse suits are filed by the so-called Lobell interests); area against which proceedings directed, 160 acres; area embraced in trespass suits (same case as above), 160 acres; area in pending M. A. claimed and operated by Midwest Refining Co., Midwest Oil Co., or associated and subsidiary companies, 6,660 acres; area claimed and operated by the Central Wyoming Oil Co. and associated or subsidiary companies, known as the Franco interests, 1,340 acres.

Production from unpatented lands: Removed from lands now covered by contracts prior to execution of contracts, 2,816,998 barrels; removed from lands under contracts up to November 1, 1916, 3,845,780 barrels; removed from lands not covered by contracts up to May 1, 1916, 244,321 barrels; total oil removed, 6,907,499 barrels.



Twenty contracts, embracing 1,530 acres; 11 contracts (supplemental). Total production (net barrels), 1,633,169.09. Escrow deposits to June 30, 1916, $68,139.30; escrow deposits to September 30, 1916, $102,576.38.


Eighteen contracts, embracing 1,887 acres. Total production (net barrels), 3,845,780. Escrow deposits to June 30, 1916, $351,035.06; escrow deposits to October 31, 1916, $462,447.31.

The total production of the field, up to September 1, 1915, was 9,200,000 barrels. The estimated oil content of the field is 85,000,000 barrels, not including Teapot Dome.

NOTE.-In Wyoming one suit has been filed against unentered and unpatented land in the Grass Creek field, known as the Ohio case. This suit was tried on the merits and was decided adversely to the Government by the district court and affirmed on appeal by the circuit court of appeals. Motion for rehearing filed and denied.

Commissioner TALLMAN. Now, taking the whole California field, and referring only to those lands included in pending mineral application for patent, we have directed adverse proceedings in 88 cases, covering 20,472 acres. Of those adverse charges the dummy charge only was made against 4,870 acres; the charge of the effect of the withdrawal only against 5,661 acres; that is, 28 cases.

There are 22 other cases in which we have the charge of both dummy and effect of the withdrawal, aggregating about 6,400 acres; there have been clear listed but not patented in California 3,086


Representative FERRIS. Does that involve any claims other than the Honolulu?

Commissioner TALLMAN. Yes.

Representative FERRIS. How many others?

Commissioner TALLMAN. It involves approximately a thousand acres of others.

Representative FERRIS. And how many individual claims were in


Commissioner TALLMAN. Here are 18 cases, and the Honolulu was 12 cases; that would leave 6 cases covering the 1,000 acres.

The first data submitted was up to June 30; these last figures are up to September 30th.

Senator CLARK. These about to be given?

Commissioner TALLMAN. These here [indicating] are a little bit


At that time we had pending special agent's reports in our office— 6 cases which had not been considered, involving 1,200 acres.

We have in the field awaiting investigation on special agents' work 6.400 acres.

We have pending other actions such as adverse suits, private contests, at the present time, 3,600 acres.

The total number of mineral applications pending on September 20, 1916, was 147, and covers 34,864 acres.

Representative LEN ROOT. Now, Mr. Commissioner, can you give the data there as to the applications which have been rejected? Commissioner TALLMAN. The number that have been rejected? Representative LENROOT. Yes; that the department has acted on finally and adversely.

Commissioner TALLMAN. No; I have not that here. There are not so very many.

Representative LENROOT. I would like that that be furnished.
Commissioner TALLMAN. We will do that.


That is the oil land situation of California, so far as shown by the Land Office records. It covers 35,000 acres, roughly. And I may say right here, incidentally, that this 35,000 acres may be divided into two classes: About half of that land has not an oil well on it that is producing oil to-day; the other half, for the most part, is producing a great deal of oil.

Now, as to Naval Reserve No. 1, total area 38,000 acres; patented without oil and gas reservation, 12,000 acres, and there are no surface patents in this reserve.

There are patented to the Southern Pacific in Naval Reserve No. 1 10,770 acres. There was included in suit No. 221, known as the Elk Hills suit, which the Government won in the decree, and now pending in the circuit court of appeals, 6,109.

The area embraced in the pending mineral applications there are 10 such applications, representing 4,532 acres.

The area against which adverse proceedings have been directed, in seven cases, covered 2,772 acres.

Of the charges we have preferred in those cases, there is no case against which we have preferred the dummy charge only. There are three cases in which we have directed withdrawal charges. That does not account for all the cases. In the other four cases the principal charges are no discovery and not sufficient improvements as required by the law, and that is where the principal area exists of applications, or a large part of the area consists of the applications for patents which have no wells on the lands to-day. It is in those areas that we have a considerable quantity of applications for patent that are based on alleged discoveries of fuller's earth and gypsum.

Senator CLARK. Do they state in their application for patent or in their preliminary statement claims that are filed in your office or anywhere else just the kind of mineral they are after in their placer locations?

Commissioner TALLMAN. Oh, yes; we require them to state that. Senator CLARK. Does this gypsum come under the placer mining act also?

Commissioner TALLMAN. Yes; the location of gypsum comes under the placer mining act.

Senator CLARK. That is, where they claim they are patented by reason of the discovery of gypsum, is gypsum the foundation of their claim in the first place, or are they not required to state that in the first instance?

Commissioner TALLMAN. One of the proofs of an application for mineral patent is proof of the mineral character of the land, and the tendency of the regulations, as a matter of necessity, during recent years has been to make that proof more specific. We require a man making mineral application to tell what he has in the shape of mineral, what improvements, and what it consists of. In the case of gypsum they allege and make proof of a commercial deposit of gypsum, to which they desire to procure title. I do not think there is a single case at least, not that has occurred in recent years in these withdrawn areas--that we have not directed a charge against those applications, to the effect that the alleged gypsum discovery was a subterfuge; that there was no discovery of gypsum of such special value and use as to render same subject to patent under the

mining laws. I may say that two parties got into a private contest over this question of fuller's earth, and they went into it in great detail and very carefully. We decided that case, and it is now pending before the Secretary on appeal. We have directed charges in a number of other cases. The contention of the Government, as based on our reports, in each one of these hearings has been that the alleged discovery was not a discovery. Now, briefly, the general rule is that when we apply the placer law to deposits of gypsum and fuller's earth, and things of that sort, it must be shown clearly that it is such an unusually valuable deposit of gypsum as to render the land valuable for that purpose as against any other purpose.

These other cases, of course, I would not care to speak of any further, because we have got to decide them. But the Field Service, after going over these reports, have directed the charges mentioned in practically all these cases.

There is vacant and unentered in the Naval Reserve No. 1, according to our records, 21,436 acres, and only 160 acres involving trespass suits.

(The matter in detail referred to by Commissioner Tallman is here printed in full, as follows:)


Total area, 38,072.71 acres; patented without oil and gas reservation, 12,103.09 acres (no surface patents in this reserve); area patented to Southern Pacific Railroad, 10,770.70 acres; school sections, 1,332.39 acres; area included in suit No. 221, known as Elk Hills suit, won by Government in district court, now on appeal to the circuit court of appeals, 6,109.17 acres; area embraced in pending mineral applications (10), 4,532.95 acres; area against which adverse proceedings directed (7 cases), 2,772.31 acres. Charges--Dummy only, none; withdrawal only (3 cases), 1,598.20 acres; both, none; other charges, not involving dummy or withdrawal (4 cases), 1,174.11 acres. Area included in private contests or adverse suits (3 cases), 1,600.64 acres; area pending investigation (1 case), 160 acres; area vacant and unentered on General Land Office records, 21,436.67 acres; area in trespass suits, 160 acres.

This statement I have here is a summary of what Mr. Williams, of the Bureau of Mines, has already given you, simply prepared to go into the record in the shape of a table.

(The data here submitted by Commissioner Tallman is as follows:)

[blocks in formation]

Nine wells drilled over 3,000 feet; three producing, six too far away from structure and outside probable acreage.

(Commissioner Tallman thereupon read the following:)


Total area, 30,180.67 acres; area patented without reservation, 19,090.94 acres; area patented to Southern Pacific, 15,394.26 acres; area patented under the mining laws, 1,600.52 acres; area patented to Southern Pacific and included

in suits now pending, 15,394.26 acres; area in school sections, 1,920 acres; area patented under agricultural laws, 176.16 acres; area included in mineral applications (33), 7,383.60 acres; area against which adverse proceedings directed (20 cases), 4,986.15 acres; area clear listed but not patented (12 cases), 2,077.45 acres. Honolulu.-Area pending in adverse suits (1 case), 320 acres; area vacant and unentered according to Land Office records, 3,706.13 acres. (NOTE. With the exception of one section, practically all of this area is covered with claims and wells.) Land included in mineral applications and also in trespass suits, 1,443.72 acres; vacant and unentered land included in trespass suits, 480.87 acres. Pending under adverse charges--Dummy only (7 cases), 1,141.05 acres; withdrawal only (4 cases), 1,125.10 acres; both charges (9 cases), 2,720 acres.

The CHAIRMAN. What does that cover?

Commissioner TALLMAN. A total of 4,986 acres.

Representative LENROOT. Have you there data as to rejected applications finally acted upon in this reserve?

Commissioner TALLMAN. No, I have not.
Representative LENROOT. Are there such?

(Data requested by Mr. Lenroot, relative to rejected cases is here printed in full as follows:)

Two applications for mineral patent withdrawn oil lands in California, have been finally rejected within the last year or so. These applications covered 718.02 acres, all but 80 acres of which is situated in Naval Reserve No. 1. In one of these cases, however, two new applications were filed for the same land (638.02 acres, all in Naval Reserve No. 1) by the same applicants. These new applications are now pending as follows: 317.20 acres under private contest with the United States as intervenor; 160.82 acres under adverse charges by the United States, and 160 acres pending investigation. One other mineral application, embracing 644.48 acres, situated in Naval Reserve No. 1, has been rejected but is now pending before the department on appeal. No mineral applications have been finally rejected in Naval Reserve No. 2.

In addition to these rejections, it may be stated that considerable areas of the naval reserves were at date of the first withdrawal and at later dates, covered by State indemnity school land selections, all of which have been finally rejected and disposed of.

Commissioner TALLMAN. I think there are some. I can not say positively. I do not recall whether there are any in Naval Reserve No. 2 finally acted on adversely or not. There are 1,600 acres which has been acted on favorably, and there has been some agricultural patents granted in Naval Reserve No. 2.

Senator CLARK. Full patents?

Commissioner TALLMAN. Yes, old agricultural entries that were made and confirmed.

Representative LENROOT. Was the land acquired by the States? Commissioner TALLMAN. Yes, three sections. That goes in in my figures as patented land, but it is not technically, for, as Mr. Williams says, there is no patent granted to it.

Here is a summary of the information Mr. Williams of the Bureau of Mines gave you yesterday.

(The data here submitted by Commissioner Tallman is as follows:)

Oil trespass suits, California.

(Both in and out of naval reserves.)

27 suits brought to date_

11 of these involve entered lands_. 16 of these involve unentered lands.

1 of these involve land in Naval Reserve No. 1. 7 of these involve land in Naval Reserve No. 2. 19 of these involve land outside naval reserves.


6, 041. 65

2, 883.99 3,157.66 160.00

1, 924. 59 3, 957. 06

« PreviousContinue »