US House passes tar sands leasing bill

Oct. 9, 2003
The US House of Representatives Wednesday passed by voice vote an oil industry-supported measure sponsored by Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) that aims to remove regulatory uncertainty surrounding tar sands leasing on federal lands.

By OGJ editors
WASHINGTON, DC, Oct. 9 -- The US House of Representatives Wednesday passed by voice vote an oil industry-supported measure sponsored by Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) that aims to remove regulatory uncertainty surrounding tar sands leasing on federal lands.

HR 3062 amends the Mineral Leasing Act to authorize the Sec. of the Interior to issue separate leases for tar sands and oil and natural gas within the same area. Sponsors of the measure say federal land managers find the existing law confusing because it combines leases for both resources, often triggering "complex" environmental reviews that discourage exploration.

Cannon said that the Department of the Interior knows of 11 designated tar sands areas in his state, covering more than 1 million acres of federal land. But since those areas were made available for development in the early 1980s, only one lease has occurred.

Some public land advocates say that the new bill may cause split estate problems similar to what has happened with coalbed methane production. But the bill's supporters do not foresee extensive legal ramifications. The bill also does not weaken existing environmental safeguards.

The measure requires a lease for tar sands to be issued using the same bidding process, annual rental, and posting period as a lease issued for oil and gas. It sets the minimum acceptable bid for a tar sands lease at $2/acre. It also authorizes DOI, in order to promote any resource covered by an existing combined hydrocarbon lease, "to waive, suspend, or alter any requirement that a permittee under a permit authorizing prospecting for tar sand must exercise due diligence."

The Senate still must consider the bill, which is regarded as being relatively uncontroversial, but it is uncertain when that will happen.

The White House does not oppose the provision but has not been actively calling for it to become law, either.