No lease issued under the authority of this chapter shall be assigned or sublet, except with the consent of the Secretary of the Interior. The lessee may, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior, be permitted at any time to make written relinquishment of all rights under such a lease, and upon acceptance thereof be thereby relieved of all future obligations under said lease, and may with like consent surrender any legal subdivision of the area included within the lease. Each lease shall contain provisions for the purpose of insuring the exercise of reasonable diligence, skill, and care in the operation of said property; a provision that such rules for the safety and welfare of the miners and for the prevention of undue waste as may be prescribed by said Secretary shall be observed, including a restriction of the workday to not exceeding eight hours in any one day for underground workers except in cases of emergency; provisions prohibiting the employment of any child under the age of sixteen in any mine below the surface; provisions securing the workmen complete freedom of purchase; provision requiring the payment of wages at least twice a month in lawful money of the United States, and providing proper rules and regulations to insure the fair and just weighing or measurement of the coal mined by each miner, and such other provisions as he may deem necessary to insure the sale of the production of such leased lands to the United States and to the public at reasonable prices, for the protection of the interests of the United States, for the prevention of monopoly, and for the safeguarding of the public welfare. None of such provisions shall be in conflict with the laws of the State in which the leased property is situated.
Notes of Decisions
Tearlach Resources Ltd. v. W. States Int'l, Inc., 219 Cal. App. 4th 773 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 3× “) The Western States parties and Aliet-Gass also assert “the 9th Circuit has interpreted 30 U.S.C. §187 as specifically NOT granting concurrent state court jurisdiction in Ventura County v.”
Wallis v. Pan Am. Petroleum Corp., 384 U.S. 63 (1966).
· cites it 2× “, § 30, 30 U. S. C. § 187 ; and it deals with rent and royalty payments to be made to the Government, e.”
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Comm'n, 693 P.2d 227 (Wyo. 1985).
· cites it 2× “Section 187 provides in pertinent part: "* * * Each lease shall contain provisions for the purpose of insuring the exercise of reasonable diligence, skill, and care in the operation of said property * * *.”
State v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 286 F. Supp. 3d 1054 (N.D. Cal. 2018).
“1984), to protect "the safety and welfare of workers," 30 U.S.C. § 187 , to ensure minerals produced on public lands are sold "to the United States and to the public at reasonable prices," id.”
Ventura Cnty. v. Gulf Oil Corp., 601 F.2d 1080 (9th Cir. 1979).
· cites it 2× “4 It contends that although preemption was perhaps appropriate in light of the narrow reservations of local jurisdiction in the Federal Power Act, a similar finding in the present case is unwarranted given the broad savings provisions contained in the Mineral Lands Leasing Act.”
Franklin Sav. Corp. v. United States, 56 Fed. Cl. 720 (Fed. Cl. 2003).
“The specific language which the State of Alaska argued gave rise to a contractual relationship was implied in a portion of the *744 statehood legislation that amended the Mineral Leasing Act 30 U.S.C. § 187 et seq. (1994) (MLA). Prior to the amendment, the MLA allocated 37.”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. BDS Int'l, LLC, 159 P.3d 773 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “Second, the Gulf Oil court relied on 30 U.S.C. §§ 187 and 189, part of the MLA, which indicate an absence of Congressional intent to assert exelusive control over federal lands leased for mineral development.”
Nat. Resources Def. Council, Inc. v. Berklund, 458 F. Supp. 925 (D.D.C. 1978).
“” 30 U.S.C. § 187 . This language must now be interpreted in light of NEPA’s stated goals and be administered “to the fullest extent possible” according to NEPA’s required procedures.”
Boesche v. Udall, 373 U.S. 472 (1963).
“Thus, assignments and subleases must be approved by the Secretary, 30 U. S. C. § 187 ; he may direct complete suspension of operations on the land, 30 U.”
Torgeson v. Connelly, 348 P.2d 63 (Wyo. 1959).
“It is argued with some force that 30 U.S.C.A. § 187 , 41 Stat. 449 , providing that no lease by the Government for oil and gas lands shall be assigned or subleased except with the consent of the Secretary of the Interior, is for the benefit of the Government and a party can take…”
Texas Oil & Gas Corp. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 277 F. Supp. 366 (W.D. Okla. 1967).
“30 U.S.C. § 187 . Another is that a pooling or eommunitization agreement involving federal and non-federal lands must be approved by the Federal Government.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.