Mr. HUMBLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. FRANDSEN. Is it true that under the 1958 Federal law when one claims geological or geophysical survey work, as labor and assessment work on the claims, they are required to file a detailed report in the county in which the claims are located?

Mr. HUMBLE. If they rely upon those expenditures to support their assessment, yes, sir.

Mr. FRANDSEN. Did Exxon check the county clerk's office in Natrona County and, if so, did you find the required detailed report?

Mr. HUMBLE. We did and we didn't. We did check the records and to my knowledge such a detailed report is not of record. Mr. FRANDSEN. This letter also referred to some reconnaissance drilling. Did you inquire of Mr. Flanagan as to when and where and the results of that drilling?

Mr. HUMBLE. I have no personal knowledge of that, Mr. Frand

sen.

Mr. FRANDSEN. Does most of the work Mr. Flanagan refers to in this letter seem to be work that has taken place in the confines of his own office?

Mr. HUMBLE. I would say some of it. I am not sure that most of it is.

Mr. FRANDSEN. Did Exxon receive any evidence from Mr. Flanagan, documentary or anything else, or did you observe anything on the claims which would indicate that General Nuclear had performed any labor or improvements on the claims for the benefit of the claims?

Mr. HUMBLE. I am sorry but I am not prepared to answer that. Mr. Moss. Who would be prepared to respond to that question? Mr. HUMBLE. Mr. Chairman, there were a minimum of three persons who communicated directly with Mr. Flanagan. I am not one of those three.

Mr. Moss. To whom did those three report?

Mr. HUMBLE. To me, sir.

Mr. Moss. And the report would not contain this kind of information?

Mr. HUMBLE. The only tangible thing, to my knowledge, that we received from Mr. Flanagan is this letter of May 20. When someone asked me very specifically and very directly under oath as to whether or not something else exists, I am just not prepared to say so categorically, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Moss. Let me ask you something very specifically and very directly under oath.

Mr. HUMBLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. Moss. were you really concerned with whether or not the assessment work had been done in this instance?

Mr. HUMBLE. Mr. Chairman, we are charged with stewardship of good business.

Mr. Moss. I am glad to stipulate that, but were you concerned in this instance?

Mr. HUMBLE. We are always concerned about buying good claims, yes, sir, and in this instance, also.

Mr. Moss. Sufficiently to make specific inquiry and to have that reported back to the person in charge? Apparently not. Therefore, what attention actually was paid to it?

We have a tendency to give lip service to the policy. What else do we do feel comfortable with it?

Mr. HUMBLE. We follow our legal advice as closely as we can. Mr. Moss. Mr. Humble, I recall one time in the Oversight Committee where we went through many, many months of trying to determine responsibility in a major corporate setup. We could always find that things were not supposed to happen, but they did. No one ever knew who was responsible for it but it occurred. It was always counter to policy.

I have followed through many time since then inquiries and I find that same ability to insulate against final accountability.

Now there is a policy. We agree. How is it implemented? Who has responsibility at the level where it is effective to see that that policy is implemented in fact? Do you know?

Mr. HUMBLE. Mr. Chairman, I think I do.

Mr. Moss. OK.

Mr. HUMBLE. The land section is responsible for the implementation of that policy, and I am in charge of that land section.

Mr. Moss. Are you in a position to exercise or to assert▬▬ Mr. HUMBLE. To the best of my ability, yes, sir.

Mr. Moss. That is a qualification. Someone does. There is a point where someone makes an agreement and something then happens. Mr. HUMBLE. Yes.

Mr. Moss. That point is where it ought to be done. Apparently it was not.

Mr. HUMBLE. I don't agree with that observation in this case, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Moss. If you disagree, then tell me why.

Mr. HUMBLE. The reason I disagree is that we take very seriously our charge of conduct of business and good stewardship of business. We get legal guidance on what we can rely upon in the legal field and what we cannot.

We make what we consider to be a diligent effort to comply. Whether or not everyone will agree in every specific instance that we have fulfilled our due diligence, it is a subjective decision. I think we do an excellent job at it. Whether or not I can convince anyone else of it I don't know.

Mr. Moss. All I know is that there seems to be a thread of disregard on the part of those who buy an interest in varying degrees in these claims on the public lands with whether or not the assessment work required by law has been performed. That is the real glue that is supposed to hold the system together. In exchange for someone doing something on the public lands they get the exclusive right to try to exploit. A very minimal mandate is placed on them. It isn't an onerous burden placed on them at all. It is a minimal amount of work.

In 1872 $100 was more money.

Mr. HUMBLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. Moss. Today it is not that important. When you get up even to one package of 18,000 claims it is really a very small amount, even if it is $1.8 million a year.

However, the fact is that in each and every instance we have discussed here it has not been performed. Everyone says it is good, a good law. However, it is not a good law if it is not working. It is not a good law and it is not good for the conscience of the Nation if it engages constantly and continually its people in the role of scofflaws, as appears to be the case in the application of the mining laws. That is what this record shows-it shows disregard of the law. It shows subversion of law, an abuse of law.

Mr. FRANDSEN. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Mr. Moss. Mr. Gore?

Mr. GORE. How many uranium claims does Exxon have?

Mr. HUMBLE. Are you speaking in terms of Wyoming or throughout the Western States?

Mr. GORE. Throughout the Western States.

Mr. HUMBLE. Twenty-eight thousand.

Mr. GORE. Pardon me?

Mr. HUMBLE. Twenty-eight thousand.

Mr. GORE. How many claims on public land?

Mr. HUMBLE. All of those claims are on public land, Congressman Gore. Those are the only mining claims that exist to my knowledge, on public domain lands.

Mr. GORE. How many did Exxon stake itself?

Mr. HUMBLE. I cannot give you the exact number but in Wyoming we located all of our claims except 4.4 percent. We have 8,000 claims in Wyoming, so we have less than 400 claims that we have optioned. That is including the 210 we have spoken of this morning.

Nationally out of these 28,000 we have optioned about 10 percent from others, so 90 percent we have located ourselves.

Mr. GORE. When you locate a claim yourself do you do the staking properly under the law and the validation drilling, and so forth?

Mr. HUMBLE. Yes, sir; in most instances we do this through claim location contractors. We have persons on our staff with the claimlocating crews to see that they comply with the Federal and State laws and see that the most economic procedures of work are being conducted.

Mr. GORE. IS Mr. MacGuire's company one of the companies Exxon has contracted with to stake uranium claims?

Mr. HUMBLE. Very extensively and with the inventory of claims we have in Wyoming I think he located some 80 percent of those we still have on our books. He is very competent.

Mr. GORE. From Exxon's point of view is Mr. MacGuire's validation and drilling work done properly?

Mr. HUMBLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. GORE. As the chairman indicated, let me ask this and this may cover ground already covered.

When you purchased Mr. Flanagan's claims what was the condition of the staking and what was the evidence remaining of validation drilling?

Mr. HUMBLE. Congressman Gore, I indicated in response to one of Mr. Frandsen's questions that I don't know for sure whether or

not we have a report of the field investigation. I will check that and respond to the request.

If we do not have such a field investigation report, then I would conclude, and I think this is the case, that we did not make a field investigation because the claims were 7 years old, and because we have found through the conduct of business that it really has very little usefulness.

Mr. GORE. The point is that millions of acres of public land are being tied up by fraudulent speculative activities and the allegation has been made repeatedly on the record that this system of fraudulent speculation could not exist but for the fact that it is supported by the major oil companies who purchase these claims at prices which are cheaper than they would be if staked properly by the companies themselves.

Mr. Wunder, do you have questions?

Mr. WUNDER. Yes.

Mr. Humble, you were asked by Mr. Frandsen whether Exxon had ever overstaked another major oil company. Have you ever overstaked at all?

Mr. HUMBLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. WUNDER. How many times have you done that?

Mr. HUMBLE. To my immediate recall this morning, twice.

Mr. WUNDER. Twice.

Mr. HUMBLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. WUNDER. Those persons were obviously not major oil companies.

Mr. HUMBLE. That is correct.

Mr. WUNDER. In what type of business were they involved?

Mr. HUMBLE. In one instance it was in Wyoming. The claim locator was Mr. Zweifel from Oklahoma. The records reflected that there was no reasonable possibility that these claims could be validly located. We overstaked.

Another instance was in New Mexico with due inquiry where we satisfied ourselves that the annual assessment work was erroneously represented, and again we overstaked. That was the result of due and diligent inquiry.

Mr. WUNDER. In that you have availed yourself of this overstaking remedy, what were the circumstances under which you made the decision? What has to be apparent before you do invoke this remedy, before you utilize this remedy?

Mr. HUMBLE. As we become alert that something beyond the record is significant, then we get legal counsel and follow their guidance on due inquiry.

The results of that due inquiry are again reviewed by our legal counsel and we act according to their advise.

Mr. WUNDER. Were you successful in both instances of overstaking?

Mr. HUMBLE. Yes, sir, we were.

Mr. WUNDER. With respect to the General Nuclear and Mr. Burke, Mr. Burke indicated-withdraw that.

It was you, meaning Exxon, who went to Mr. Burke. Is that right?

Mr. HUMBLE. That is correct, and that is our company procedure. Yes, sir.

Mr. WUNDER. Why did you go to Mr. Burke? You checked the records.

Mr. HUMBLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. WUNDER. Both Federal and county.

Mr. HUMBLE. That is correct.

Mr. WUNDER. And found them to be in good order.

Mr. HUMBLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. WUNDER. Beyond that, then, Exxon contacted Mr. Burke. Mr. HUMBLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. WUNDER. Why would you do that if the record showed that everything was in order?

Mr. HUMBLE. The reason we contacted Mr. Burke is that the area of geologic interest exceeded the 4,200 acres that were encumbered by the Casper claims located by Flanagan.

In addition to that 4,200 acres there were several thousand other acres encompassing fee lands and encompassing other public domain land.

We contacted Mr. Burke to notify him of our intention to locate mining claims on the acreage of which he owned the surface which was not encumbered by existing claims, and we also contacted him to negotiate a mining lease on fee land that he represented.

Mr. WUNDER. And Burke tells you, "Well, they have never done anything on this land."

Mr. HUMBLE. That is right.

Mr. WUNDER. "To my knowledge, in spite of the fact the record shows they have filed the proof of labor affidavit, they have never done anything. I am telling you that."

Mr. HUMBLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. WUNDER. What was it you did then?

Mr. HUMBLE. We made an additional inquiry.

Mr. WUNDER. Of whom?

Mr. HUMBLE. Mr. Flanagan.

Mr. WUNDER. All right.

Mr. HUMBLE. We have also found ourselves in similar situations on other occasions where we have ignored the claims, located new claims, and those senior claimants have come back and have shown us that indeed they did do the work although the locals didn't remember their having been there.

Mr. WUNDER. This would be a case similar to the Burke case where a surface owner would say, "Nobody ever has been on this land before."

Mr. HUMBLE. That is correct.

Mr. WUNDER. "They have never done work."

Mr. HUMBLE. Yes.

Mr. WUNDER. And you subsequently found out there had in fact been work.

Mr. HUMBLE. That is always a possibility and that has happened to us in making decisions on such hearsay.

Also another situation which exists is this-in the record examination we made, the Casper claims were partially within the Burke ranch and partially outside the Burke ranch, with the acceptability of group assessment, it is always possible that work can be done on lands off the Burke ranch.

Mr. WUNDER. If they are contiguous?