Opinion ID: 159335
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Undue Waste of Potash

Text: The IBLA continued: 50 We further reject the claim that awarding the potash lease to appellants would not be in the best interest of recovery of the potassium resources because it would result in the undue waste of potash and could pose an economic hardship on the potash industry. The fact that Hutchinson's analysis identifies as uneconomic some potash ore zones BLM considers commercial does not mean that those zones will be wasted should appellants be awarded the lease. 51 Pogo, 138 I.B.L.A. at 157. The record contains substantial evidence to support the IBLA's decision. The BLM conceded that: While the BLM maps designate a greater extent of mineable reserves than the Hutchinson study, BLM considers Mr. Hutchinson's study as reasonable. The BLM also realizes that economic analyses done before mining are subject to considerable change. Olsen Memo., Appellee's App. at 122. Regarding the fourth ore zone, the BLM stated: More core drilling would be necessary to justify a new mine or develop a detailed mining plan. Cranston Memo., Appellee's App. at 131. The evidence in the record supports the conclusion that Yates/Pogo were not seeking to deceive the BLM, but merely seeking to present the BLM with up-to-date data on the potash reserves of the area. Indeed, the additional data would provide the BLM with a better sense of the potash mining potential in the area. Thus, given all the evidence in the record, the IBLA did not err in deciding that a determination of undue waste of potash was premature at lease issuance.