May 29, 1973 titled to a suspension of operations and production under 43 CFR 3103.3-8. Furthermore, a petition for relief under that regulation must be filed with the Regional Oil and Gas Supervisor of the Geological Survey-not with the Bureau of Land Management. Compliance with law, regulations, stipulations, and conditions, including those pertaining to environmental protection and restoration, is an essential ingredient of the terms of an oil and gas lease. 30 U.S.C. § 189 (1970); United States v. Forbes, 36 F. Supp. 131 (1949) aff'd 125 F.2d 404, (9th Cir. 1942) aff'd 127 F.2d 862 (1942). The burden, including its financial aspects, of complying with environmental protection provisions, is the sole responsibility of the lessee. Appellant was previously informed to this effect. Duncan Miller, 10 IBLA 133 (1973); see John Oakason, 3 IBLA 148 (1971). In any event, since there was no drilling or devel nual rentals due on March 1, 1973, 30 U.S.C. § 188 (1970), he will not be obliged to expend funds for environmental protection purposes in connection with the leases. It follows that there is no justiciable issue, and the appeals are moot. Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to the Board of Land Appeals by the Secretary of the Interior, 43 CFR 4.1, the appeals are dismissed. NEWTON FRISHBERG, Chairman. WE CONCUR: DOUGLAS E. HENRIQUES, Member. EDWARD W. STUEBING, Member. UNITED STATES v. MERLE I. 11 IBLA 53 Decided May 29, 1973 opment on the leaseholds appellant Appeal from a decision by Adminis was never called upon to expend money for environmental protection. Nor can he be heard to complain of possible future contingencies which will never come to pass. Inasmuch as there has been no production on either lease, he is not entitled to a suspension under the cited regulation. Under the circumstances of this case the question on appeal is rhetorical. Appellant has not expended moneys for which he seeks recompense or relief. And, since the leases lapsed for nonpayment of the an trative Law Judge1 L. K. Luoma in Colorado Contest 441 declaring appellants' 2 association placer mining claims null and void. Affirmed. Mining Claims: Discovery: Marketability 1 The change of title of the hearing officer from "Hearing Examiner" to "Administrative Law Judge" was effected pursuant to order of the Civil Service Commission, 37 F.R. 16787 (August 19, 1972). 2 Appellants are the contestees in Colorado Contest 441, as listed in Attachment No. 1 accompanying Judge Luoma's decision of February 25, 1972. See discussion under the heading Default of Certain Contestees, infra. A mining claimant is not denied due process merely because of prehearing publicity where he fails to show that there was any unfairness in the contest proceeding itself. Administrative Procedure: Administrative Law Judges-Rules of Practice: Hearings An Administrative Law Judge is not disqualified nor will his findings be set aside in a mining contest because of a mere charge of bias in the absence of a substantial showing of bias. Administrative Practice-Administrative Procedure: Adjudication The procedures followed by the Department of the Interior in the initiation, prosecution, hearing and administrative decision of mining contests are in full compliance with the requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 554 (1970), as to separation of investigative or prosecuting functions from decision making, and such procedures do not deny due process. Administrative Procedure: Administrative Law Judges No request for a prehearing conference having been made, the failure of an Administrative Law Judge to order a prehearing conference, sua sponte, is not error unless it can be shown that such failure was an abuse of discretion. Administrative Procedure: Administrative Law Judges The refusal of an Administrative Law Judge to grant a motion for severance is not a denial of due process when a mining claimant is afforded a hearing and yet fails to present any evidence of unfairness because of such denial. Federal Employees and Officers: Authority to Bind Government-Mining Claims: Generally The authority of the Government to proceed with the determination of the validity of a mining claim is not barred by laches, because Government property is not to be disposed of contrary to law, despite any acquiescence, laches, or failure to act on the part of its officers or agents. Mining Claims: Contests The failure of the Government to contest other unpatented mining claims in a given area cannot support a charge of discrimination when a mining claimant fails to show that such action was arbitrary or prejudiced his rights in any way. Rules of Practice: Hearings-Administrative Procedure: Hearings Where an Administrative Law Judge's decision contains a ruling, in a single sentence, on all of the proposed findings and conclusions submitted by a party to a hearing and the ruling on each finding and conclusion is clear, there is no requirement that the Judge rule separately as to each of the proposed findings and conclusions. Mining Claims: Hearings-Rules of Practice: Evidence-Rules of Practice: Hearings Evidence tendered on appeal in a mining contest may not be considered except for the limited purpose of deciding whether a further hearing is warranted, since the record made at the hearing must be the sole basis for decision. APPEARANCES: Clement Theodore Cooper, Esq., Washington, D.C.; Kenneth Kienzle, Jr., Esq., Shawnee, Oklahoma; Edward L. Stolarun, Esq., Alexandria, Virginia, for appellants. Bryan L. Kepford, Esq., and George E. Longstreth, Esq., Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior, Denver, Colorado, for the Government. OPINION BY MR. GOSS INTERIOR BOARD OF LAND APPEALS The United States issued a complaint dated August 7, 1968 (amended April 25, 1969, and June 12, 1969), contesting the validity of 2,910 association placer mining claims located in Garfield, Moffat and Rio Blanco Counties, Colorado. The majority of claims were located in an area of Garfield and Rio Blanco Counties termed the Piceance Creek Basin. The complaint charged (1) the claims were not located in accordance with the mining laws and (2) there was no discovery of a valuable, locatable mineral deposit within the meaning of the mining laws within the limits of any of the claims. 3 The 2,910 mining claims contested in Colorado Contest 441 were all located by one man, Merle I. Zweifel. Zweifel, acting as locator and agent for over 250 co-locators, filed the vast majority of claims between May 2, 1966, and February 10, 1967. Most of the claims are 160-acre 3 At the hearing the elements of this charge were developed and the Government stated that appellants had failed to: (1) stake the claims, (2) go upon the land embraced by each claim, (3) post a location notice on each claim (Tr. 984-85). Attorneys for appellants acknowledged that they understood such to be the composition of the charge (Tr. 985-88). association placer claims with eight co-locators. A document was recorded with each claim group identifying the claims as "dawsonite claims;" however, at the hearing appellants asserted that the claims were actually located for alumina, the raw material from from which aluminum is produced (Tr. 24, 771). Although the Piceance Creek Basin is widely known to contain extensive deposits of oil shale, none of the mining claims were located for such material. In any event, oil shale is not locatable under the general mining laws and has not been since it was made a leasable mineral by section 21 of the Mineral Leasing Act of February 25, 1920, as amended, 30 U.S.C. § 241 (1970). Answers to the complaint were filed by a number of contestees. As to those contestees who failed to file answers, the Colorado Land Office Manager, Bureau of Land Management, on February 17, 1970, acting pursuant to 43 CFR 1852.1-7 (1970), now 43 CFR 4.450-7, declared their interests, if any, in the contested claims to be void. A hearing was held June 2 through 5, and September 21 through 24, 1970, in Denver, Colorado. After post-hearing briefs were filed, oral argument was heard on June 4, 1971, in Arlington, Virginia. Judge Luoma issued his decision on February 25, 1972. Attached thereto were a list of contestees, a list of the contested claims, the names of contestees represented by May 29, 1973 Clement Theodore Cooper, Esq., and a list of the claims which were located on patented or withdrawn lands (Attachments 1-4, respectively). The Judge declared that those claims or portions thereof which were filed on lands withdrawn for reclamation purposes by Public Land Order 2632, published in the Federal Register on March 17, 1962, were null and void ab initio. He also dismissed the complaint as to those claims or portions of claims which were filed on lands previously patented without mineral reservation (Exh. B-5). He declared all remaining claims null and void (1) because they were not located according to the mining laws and (2) for failure to show a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit on any of the claims. Judge Luoma also determined it was not necessary to consider the question of whether aluminum, as part of the alumina in dawsonite, is locatable under the general mining laws or whether the mineral dawsonite in its entirety is only leasable under the Mineral Leasing Act of February 25, 1920, as amended, 30 U.S.C. § 261 (1970). On appeal three attorneys representing various groups of appellants filed statements of reasons. Their substantive arguments are summarized as follows: (1) The evidence adduced at the hearing clearly shows that appellants had a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit on each and every claim. (2) Alumina is an intrinsically valuable mineral and as such a market is deemed to exist, and a claimant may continue to develop his claim with a prospective anticipation of profit. (3) Appellants proved the validity of each and every claim under the doctrine of known geological facts. (4) Appellants were restrained from expanding and developing their surface discovery because to do so would have damaged the oil shale which is a leasable mineral and the property of the United States. (5) Alumina, as found in dawsonite, gibbsite, nordstrandite, and analcite, is a locatable mineral within the meaning of the mining laws. (6) Colorado state statutory location requirements were not applicable to the location of the claims involved in Colorado Contest 441, and location by legal subdivisions of government surveyed lands is sufficient to satisfy the mining laws. (7) The Judge erred in refusing to grant appellants' motion to dismiss at the conclusion of the Government's case. (8) The Government has the burden of proof in a mining claim contest. (9) The Government failed to follow Departmental standards in examining the placer mining claims. (10) The failure of some contestees to file answers to the complaint was not a ground for dismissal because such an alleged defect was cured by the answer filed by Merle I. Zweifel. (11) Appellants were deprived of property without due process of law and without just compensation. (12) Appellants could not receive a fair hearing because of adverse publicity and it was error not to grant appellants' motion to suspend the proceeding. (13) The Judge was predisposed as to the outcome of the contest, and due to his relationship with the Department the rendition of a fair hearing and an unbiased decision were impossible. (14) It was prejudicial error and an abuse of discretion for the Judge to refuse to direct a prehearing conference. (15) Appellants were denied due process when the Judge refused to grant a |