Two Oil Shale LeaseTracts in Limbo

On June 16, 1982, Rio Blanco submitted a request to the US Minerals Management Service for a suspension of operations under its federal oil shale lease. The company also wanted a five-year delay in the requirement for further minimum royalty payments and a five-year extension of the primary lease terms of 20 years. The request was granted in late July in the midst of yet another slump in oil shale activity. Rio Blanco holds one of four Federal oil shale leases that were granted under the Interior Department's Prototype Oil Shale Leasing Program in 1974. That year the DOI offered for lease six federal oil shale tracts, two each in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The leases in Colorado and Utah were granted for substantial bo¬nus bids as shown in Table 1, but the Wyoming tracts had no takers. In the eight years hence, no oil shale has been produced commercially. Indeed, the prospects for successful oil shale development have fluctuated widely, continuing a 60-year- old cyclical pattern in the fledgling industry. The prototype program was developed and initiated while this infant industry struggled to begin anew, without the benefit of any federal oil shale leasing regulations, or any history of federal oil shale leasing at all. Permanent regulations were not required because the effort was limited and designed to provide the foundation for any future leasing program. Section 21 of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, a Nov. 30,1973 Federal Register notice, and the leases themselves constitute the legal and regulatory framework for leasing and developing prototype oil shale tracts. The prototype leases contain some unusual provisions including installment payments of the bonus bids, credit of early development costs against payments due the government, adjustment of royalty rates according to regional crude oil price fluctuations, and unusually extensive and detailed environmental stipulations. Several of the provisions were intended to provide incentives for early development and financial penalties for failure to develop. The requirement for minimum royalty payments in lieu of actual production royalties beginning in the sixth year of the lease falls in the latter category. After the sixth year, the required minimum payment is increased east year through the 15th year by an increment equal to that due in the sixth year. The minimum royalty then remains the same through the final five years of the primary lease term. Minimum royalty is calculates on a different production level for each prototype lease, based on the quantity of 125 L/t (30 gal/st) shale estimated to be recoverable from. each tract by room-and-pillar mining. That mining system was selected for reference as the only proven extraction method for oil shale at that time (early 1970s) The minimum royalty (production) rate was calculated for each tract by direct comparison of its estimated recoverable 125-L (30-gal) resource to a hypothetical tract containing 1.9 Gt (2.1 billion st) of recoverable 125-L (30-gal) shale. For the hypothetical lease tract, the minimum production for the sixth year was calculated to be 3.2 kt/d (3,500 stpd), increasing by a like amount each lease year through the 15th to a daily production rate of 31.7 kt (35,000 st). Under this formula, the hypothetical lease tract would yield $16 million in minimum royalty payments over the 20-year primary lease term if there were no production, no development credits taken, and no adjustment of the royalty rate due to fluctuation of regional crude oil prices. The production rate of 31.7 kt/d (35,000 stpd) was a somewhat arbitrary figure that was considered, in the early 1970s, to represent a minimum size for a commercial oil shale operation. A production rate of 7.9 dam3/d (50,000 bbls/day) soon supplanted that smaller mine production figure as a rule of thumb for the minimum size for a commercial facility. The proportional relation-