After nearly ten years of litigation, the Osage Minerals Council has prevailed in a lawsuit filed in 2016 that challenged the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review of two leases on the Osage Minerals Estate.
The case is also known as Hayes v. Haaland and was argued in the Northern District Court of Oklahoma.
“The Hayes II case represented another attempt by surface owners to impede the ability
of Osage Headright Holders to benefit from their mineral interests. The decision ensures that oil
and gas production within the Mineral Estate can continue without interruption and reaffirms the
Council’s authority to administer and protect the Osage Mineral Estate,” read a statement from the Minerals Council.
The challenges to the leases were brought on behalf of Paul Hayes, who owned 475 acres of surface land in Osage County. In 2012 and 2013, Chaparral Energy and the OMC entered into a lease beneath his property. In both cases, the BIA did not conduct a NEPA analysis. The court agreed that further environmental analysis was needed.
Last year, the Northern District Court in Oklahoma ruled the BIA still had to perform an environmental analysis but that oil and gas production could resume – a significant victory for the Minerals Council.
This is despite the BIA violating the NEPA analysis. The court could have shut down oil and gas operations while revisions took place
This year’s ruling ends the case entirely. During that year, the federal government revised its policies and said there weren’t any impacts from oil and gas production.
The District Court then allowed for comments to be made during this past year. No one did and the case is now dismissed entirely.
The Osage Minerals Council said they are committed to managing the mineral estate responsibly as they counted this as a victory.
“The Hayes II litigation was yet another attempt by surface owners to prevent us from benefiting from our Mineral Estate. The Council will always defend the Mineral Estate that our ancestors purchased and preserved in trust long ago,” said the council in a statement. “The Court’s dismissal of this case means that we can continue to manage our resources and protect the vital income that supports our families and communities.”
