FIGURE 1.-Coal fields of the conterminous United States.

Anthracite and semianthracite

Low-volatile bituminous coal

Subbituminous coal

Lignite

LOCATION OF COAL RESERVES IN THE UNITED STATES

The map in figure 1 illustrates that the coal reserves of the United States are widely distributed. Anthracite reserves are primarily located in Pennsylvania, although less significant deposits are located in southwestern Virginia, west-central Arkansas, and central Colorado. During the last 2 years, there has been considerable interest in the commercial value of the deposits located in the Connecticut-Rhode IslandMassachusetts area, but the commercial value of the latter deposits has yet to be proven. The resources of bituminous and subbituminous coal in the United States are concentrated in three major regions the Appalachian basin, the Illinois basin, and the Western Interior Basin (located in the States of Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas). Another deposit of bituminous coal is located in northcentral Texas. In the northern Great Plains and Rocky Mountain States, bituminous deposits are located in the Rock Springs area of Wyoming, west-central and southwestern Colorado (less significant deposits are also located in the Trinidad and Boulder areas), eastcentral and southern Utah (Kaiparowits area), northeastern Arizona (Black Mesa), and northwestern (San Juan area) and northeastern (Raton) New Mexico. The subbituminous deposits which have undergone accelerated development over the last 5 years are located in the area of northeastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana and are part of the eastern Powder River Basin. The lignite deposits which are beginning to be developed are located in the areas of northeastern Montana and western North Dakota. Other lignite deposits of doubtful present value are located in the Gulf States and extend from southern Alabama westward through Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Southwestward through Texas nearly to San Antonio. Although some resource evaluation of these lignite deposits has taken place, these resources have not been the object of any extensive development. Because of the relatively low heat value and high moisture content of these lignites, it is questionable if they will ever be considered as more than a local or regional energy source.

JURISDICTION OF THE LANDS UNDERLAIN BY COAL

From the coal ownership map included in this report as a foldout, it is evident that a large percentage of the coal in the Eastern United States, is privately owned. Exceptions to this rule may be cases where. in the Appalachian States, coal resources are subjacent to national forests. Otherwise, the development of the coal resources in the Eastern part of the United States is generally unencumbered by jurisdictional patterns. The same is generally true for the coal deposits in the interior geographical areas of the country. Virtually all of the land in the Illinois, Indiana, and western Kentucky areas which is underlain by coal deposits is privately owned. Isolated exceptions to this rule may include instances where Army Corp of Engineers flood control projects are located over coal bearing lands such as the Shelbyville and Carlyle reservoirs in central Illinois. However, these instances do not involve areas of land which, if not mined, would hamper the overall coal resource development. Along the western boundary of the major coal deposit traversing Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma, it is difficult to determine jurisdictional conflict since the boundary of the coal

resource has not been clearly defined. Some of the coal deposits may underlie both National forest lands, particularly in Arkansas, and the Osage Indian Reservation in north-central Oklahoma. A great percentage of the resources in Oklahoma, however, are also classified as having "doubtful present value."

In the Western States, however, the ownership patterns become much more complex. Much of the coal bearing lands are under the jurisdiction of a host of Federal agencies including the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, all in the Department of the Interior, and the National Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture.

The States in these areas have some holdings in the form of land grants under the Ordinances of 1785 which originally allocated section No. 16 in each township as an endowement for education (after 1848, section No. 36 was added). In most instances these holdings represent a fairly standard checkerboard pattern in the States of North and South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, and Colorado, although in some instances the state's holdings constitute larger blocks because of trading with Federal agencies for convenience of administration.

Finally, it should be noted that the largest private owner in the total northern Great Plains area is the Burlington Northern Railroad which acquired its holdings during the 19th century via railroad land grants. The Burlington Northern holdings are concentrated in the eastern Montana and western North Dakota area and account for sizeable tonnages of both lignite and subbituminous coal.

The extent of the coal deposits that are located on both private and Federal lands is indicated by the hatched areas on the accompanying map of Federal land ownership. It should be noted, however, that the patterns displayed on the map delineate the surface ownership only. Even in some of the areas that appear as privately owned lands, the Federal Government may have retained the mineral rights. This split ownership of the surface and the minerals in the eastern Powder River Basin has been an extremely controversial issue during the consideration of the recently enacted Federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977.

B. GEOTHERMAL ENERGY SOURCES

One of the major problems affecting the development of geothermal energy resources is the lack of knowledge of the location, the extent, and the energy capacity of geothermal resources. Furthermore, in the absence of a well developed technology for extracting thermal energy from these resources it is essentially impossible to assess the potential of this resource. As a result, estimates of the energy value of geothermal resources vary widely, sometimes differing by a factor of 10 in magnitude. Though some of these uncertainties are beginning to be resolved, it would seem that definitive answers about the true extent of commercially exploitable geothermal resources will have to await. greater experience in tapping these sources on a pilot basis.

On the other hand, these are not the only problems. In a paper presented at the Second United Nations Symposium on the Development and Use of Geothermal Resources (San Francisco, Calif., May 20-29, 1975), Mr. Joseph W. Aidlin of the Magma Power Co. of Los Angeles indicated that the companies most interested in the development of geothermal resources have been reluctant to commit capital for such development because of the ambiguity of the existing local, State, and Federal guidelines related to geothermal energy. Among the most frustrating constraints for the industry have been the requirements for writing and filing the environmental impact statements.

Some proponents of geothermal energy feel that the legal entanglements associated with the industry have been the cause of unreasonable delays in the development of potential geothermal sites. Included in the list of criticisms by industry spokesmen is the complex procedure for filing and pursuing the disposition of environmental impact statements required for the development of geothermal sites and the delays encountered in the leasing of geothermal lands.

Some have suggested that the development of the geothermal industry could be accelerated by action at the Federal level through the creation of a centrally directed, integrated policy with respect to geothermal resources. Other proposed solutions to the legal problems of the industry include the development of a system of laws and regulations at both the State and Federal levels that would be addressed to the unique needs of the industry. The full spectrum of these problems is exceedingly complicated at present, particularly because the needs of the geothermal industry would seem to impinge on other questions, such as water rights, which have very broad ramifications.

The nature of the situation affecting development of geothermal energy is elaborated in greater detail in the five documents which are presented below, in whole or in part, to provide greater information on: (1) The extent of geothermal resources; (2) the different types of geothermal resources and their respective capabilities and limitations; and (3) Federal, State, and institutional barriers that are said.

to be inhibiting the development of these resources. The first two of these matters are highlighted in the excerpts from:

(1) U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Astronautics. Subcommittee on Energy. Energy from Geothermal Resources. Report prepared by the Congressional Research Service. 93d Cong., 2d sess. U.S. Government Printing Office., Washington, 1974.

(2) Department of the Interior. Geological Survey Circular 726. Assessment of Geothermal Resources in the United States-1975, D. F. White and D. L. Williams.

The other three documents deal more with the legal and institutional barriers that are said to inhibit the more rapid development of geothermal energy. They are:

(1) U.S. Congress. General Accounting Office. Problems in Identifying, Developing, and Using Geothermal Resources. RED-75–30. Mar. 6, 1975.

(2) National Conference of State Legislatures. State Policies for Geothermal Development. Douglas M. Sacarto.

(3) The Futures Group. A Technology Assessment of Geothermal Energy Resource Development. April 15, 1975.

Finally, the U.S. Energy Research and Development Agency has recently summarized its own position on the problems affecting the development of geothermal energy following an assessment by the Institutional Barrier Panel of ERDA's Geothermal Advisory Council. The ERDA position is presented in a report of the panel dated June 30, 1976, and is reprinted below. A later report of the panel summarizes its efforts, and the progress that was made in alleviating the difficulties identified by the panel, prior to December 1976. This document is included as well.