Making A Difference
a historical look at the IOGCC

Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
Established 1935

 An official publication of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
Printed January 2006

Front Cover: (1941) Members of the IOGCC’s Legal Committee (L to R, standing): C.A. O’Neill Jr., Louisiana;
E.J. Coyle, Illinois; R.B. McEntire, Kansas; (seated) Charles H. Jones, Ohio; W.C. Lawrence, New Mexico; Earl
Foster, Oklahoma; R.E. Hardwicke, Texas; and Hiram M. Dow, New Mexico. Hardwicke would later donate his
extensive collection of oil and gas related publications to the Commission’s library.

 Foreword
According to historians of American government, the accomplishments of the Interstate Oil
and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC) are unmatched. This remarkable organization
has succeeded repeatedly where governments at all levels have failed.
The IOGCC exists by virtue of a constitutional authorization that permits states to join
together for the common good. The agreement, approved by Congress, is legally described
as an interstate compact. The Commission has championed the conservation and efficient
recovery of our nation's petroleum resources for more than 70 years.
Accomplishments have come despite obstacles that at first glance seem formidable. Membership by states is voluntary. The IOGCC has no regulatory authority. Leadership changes
annually. The organization accepts no operating funds from industry.
Despite these challenges, the IOGCC has emerged as a working laboratory for public
policy. Its instruments are discussion, dialogue and dedication — all guided by a clarity
of purpose that has not wavered through times of both oil and natural gas surpluses and
shortages.
Throughout the IOGCC’s history, statesmen have emerged to lead the organization, the
states and the country in the development of sound oil and gas and environmental policy.
The summary on the pages that follow attempts to capture the flavor of the historical
significance of the IOGCC’s accomplishments.
It is important to remember that these successes came largely through the determination of
state leaders whose overriding concern is minimizing the waste of a nonrenewable resource
vital to economic development, national security and the lifestyle of all Americans. Lacking
the traditional tools of governmental power, the IOGCC is an organization that exists
thanks only to the individuals who have risen to speak for the principles it represents. It
is to those leaders, and to those who will surely follow in the future, that this publication
is dedicated.

 Historical Chronicle
of the Compact
The Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (often referred to as IOGCC or the Commission)
has a proud heritage of leadership. Since the IOGCC’s simple beginnings in 1935, with congressional approval of the Interstate Compact to Conserve Oil and Gas, the organization has shaped
regulation of the oil and gas industry through the principles of unity and cooperation.
With more than 70 years of continuous service to the states and the nation, the IOGCC’s history
is rich in accomplishment and statesmanship. A full-blown history of the Commission could fill
volumes. A brief overview of the history of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
follows.

On Oct. 3, 1930, most of the country sulked in the gloomy days of the Great Depression. But in
East Texas, a sense of wild enthusiasm was born when the Daisy Bradford No. 3 blew in, sending a
column of oil and water high above the derrick. In the next three months, as two more wildcat wells
blew in, even the most skeptical oil men were convinced of the significance of the find. Producers
flocked to the field that was to become known as the Black Giant. By April of 1931, a new well was
spudded every hour and two months later more than 1,000 wells had been
drilled. The Black Giant was producing 500,000 barrels a day.
Enthusiasm quickly turned to concern however, as the unparalleled discovery
sent prices tumbling. Texas oil sold for about $1 per barrel in 1930. By the
end of May 1931, the price had collapsed to 15 cents per barrel. Major finds
in Oklahoma added to the overproduction. Skittish oil producers scrambled
to offset low prices with breakneck production. The inevitable result was
even greater downward pressure on prices and, sadly, the loss of reservoir
pressure and the abandonment of marginally producing wells. Oil that cost
80 cents per barrel to produce sold for 4 cents per barrel.

(1861) Col. Edwin L. Drake, one of the earliest
drillers in Pennsylvania.

It is difficult to overstate the desperation that overtook the industry. By
August 1931, production from East Texas alone had soared to one million barrels a day. The industry
was drowning in its ocean of oil.

 The states had been the first to recognize the enormity of the problem. The Oil States Advisory
Committee, or Governors’ Committee, met for the first time on March 9, 1931. The action of
representatives from Arkansas, California, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas and Wyoming
formed the framework for what would eventually become
— through a tortuous process — the Interstate Oil Compact
Commission.
The resolution adopted that day reflected the urgency felt throughout the country: “. . . The oil industry in the United States and over
the entire world is suffering from a general condition of overproduction and slack demand, resulting in depressed prices . . . and
great distress in the industry, including particularly the producers
of crude oil as well as those engaged in the refining and marketing
business, as well as unemployment and threatened great waste of
crude oil reserves by the forced abandonment of approximately
300,000 small wells in the oil producing areas of the United States
alone . . .”
“. . . If present conditions continue unchecked and unabated,
they will result in not only the abandonment of hundreds of

(1929) Kingsville, Texas, blowout.

thousands of small oil wells but in the elimination of virtually,
if not entirely, the army of small or independent oil producers
in this country . . .”
The committee resolved to encourage the rapid
Snider-Triangle

development of uniform laws for the conservation of oil and gas resources.
The next month, committee members traveled
to Washington, D.C., and spent an hour outlining the grim situation to President Herbert
Hoover. Separate meetings were held with the
secretaries of Interior, Commerce, and War.
They pleaded for stabilization of production,
conservation of natural resources, unitizaOvercrowding of an oil field.

tion, curtailing imports, and federal-state
cooperation.

 “The above objectives . . . may and should be placed on a permanent basis by means of an agreement between the oil producing states, which will retain for each state its own administration and
cooperation through an inter-state advisory board,” the committee reported in a letter to the Federal
Oil Conservation Board dated April 9, 1931.
The work of the Oil States Advisory Committee for production constraints resulted in enactment of conservation laws in three states. They
proved difficult to enforce, however, and the industry continued its selfdestructive slide. In June 1931, a newly appointed Legal Subcommittee
traveled to Washington, D.C., “to see what could be done.” With it, the
subcommittee carried a proposal to form a new board with “very considerable power, not only psychologically but legally, to harmonize the
differences and bring about lawful and orderly cooperation between oil
parties, and particularly some very ugly controversies between the major
units of the industry.”
Warwick M. Downing of Colorado chaired the subcommittee and argued

Warwick M. Downing, Colorado

persuasively for its creation. “I feel that, if we can assure one ‘all together’
grand push, the industry will turn upwards in marked degree . . . The industry’s greatest problem
is East Texas. A palliative plan, based on private agreement (the conservation law being entirely
inadequate), is being discussed. Oklahoma and the other states will never stand for rigid pro-ration,
if East Texas is permitted to produce from 300,000 to 600,000 barrels daily. Furthermore, private
agreement is wrong in principle and practice.
“What is sought is honest conservation of natural resources in the public interest, administered by
public authority and under the action of the police power of the state. Yet due to the unorganized,
leaderless and helpless attitude of the industry, no one seems to dare to step out and declare that
such proposed palliative plan would prove very harmful,” Downing wrote.
The mood of the industry had grown more desperate. Oil men were clamoring for something to
be done. Yet each initiative to address the problem fell short. At the end of their rope, many in the
industry believed federal controls were the only solution.
The subcommittee’s recommendations were endorsed by Robert P. Lamont, secretary of Commerce,
and President Hoover. Former President Calvin Coolidge was suggested to head the board. But when
President Hoover broached the matter, the normally reserved Coolidge was emphatic in declining.
The “grand push” never materialized, and the proposal died.

 By this time, production was out of control, and these desperate times demanded desperate action.
In August 1931, Oklahoma Gov. William H. “Alfalfa Bill” Murray, in office less than eight months,
proclaimed a state of emergency. Martial law was declared, and the National Guard closed major oil
fields. The Oil States Advisory Committee later commended the action, saying Murray acted “bravely,
and with rare vision.” Texas Gov. Ross Sterling followed suit. National Guardsmen and Texas Rangers
shut down production from East Texas.
On Sept. 11, 1931, the Oil States Advisory Committee met in Oklahoma City. In retrospect, it was a
turning point for the industry. The committee identified the market demand at 2.376 million barrels
per day, “and of this figure, Texas should contribute 900,000 barrels.” Texas Railroad Commission
representative Cullen Thomas, acting under the verbal authority of Gov. Sterling, stated that the
commission would cooperate “to limit production only insofar as they could legally do so.” The Texas
Railroad Commission actually set the allowable production at 880,000 barrels, or 20,000 barrels less
than the committee’s recommendation.
“. . . The action taken at Oklahoma City proved that a compact would work; that the public officials
of the states had the right to make agreements to conserve oil and gas even if price be considered;
and that by cooperation and agreement between the states, effective conservation may be had,”
historians reported.
Even though prices rose to 92 cents per barrel, the work of the committee was far from over. On Nov.
11, 1931, the Legal Subcommittee was instructed to draft a bill for an act of Congress “for an interstate compact and other matters pertaining to the oil industry and stabilization thereof . . .”
On March 1, 1932, the draft legislation, known as the Interstate Oil Compact Bill, was approved by the
Governors Committee and later endorsed by the American Petroleum Institute (API). A promotional
pamphlet entitled A National Plan was prepared and widely distributed in support of the cause.
“The conservation of its natural resources is a paramount duty of any nation. This is particularly
true of its petroleum resources, which necessarily are limited and irreplaceable. Indeed, petroleum
is our most essential resource. It is the prerequisite of our natural defense. Without petroleum,
manufacturing and transportation except in a most limited way would cease, and our present
civilization would pass away. The premature exhaustion of our petroleum supply must be prevented,” A National Plan stated.
The idea of a compact was quickly endorsed by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The House
and Senate amended and reported bills from committees. But concerns over the fate of a tariff
on imported oil delayed action by supporters of the compact until after the presidential election.

 Plans were made to meet Nov. 18, 1932, in Fort Worth, Texas, the location of the first organizational meeting of the group. The Fort Worth meeting was expected to be the beginning of the
great push for the compact bill.
Instead, it signaled the end of the Oil States Advisory Committee. Following the election of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, change reverberated throughout the industry and support mysteriously
waned. At its Nov. 10 meeting in Houston, the API voted to withdraw financial support from
the committee. By wire, the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) informed
the committee that “due to opposition to an interstate compact in the (IPAA) organization,” it
would not send a delegation to the Fort Worth meeting. These industry groups, it was reported,
had been advised that “a better plan was in the making.”
In addition, new governors with unknown attitudes toward the proposed compact had been
elected in Arkansas, Kansas and Texas. These events rocked the committee. Lacking the full support of major companies, independents and even the governors, the committee abruptly decided
to disband. The many representatives who worked so hard for an interstate compact summarily
quit in disgust, and the notion of such an organization seemed quite dead.
In March 1933, President Roosevelt called a conference of the
governors of the oil producing states. Bootleg, or “hot” oil,
had eroded the effectiveness of state prorationing. Estimates
of up to 500,000 barrels a day were being smuggled across
state lines. Acting under an “Oil Code” developed through
the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), the Interior
Department was empowered to set state production quotas
and to use enforcement powers to eliminate “hot” oil from
the marketplace.
The Oil Code “effectually placed for all practical purposes
the administrative and legislative powers of the national
government and the states in a committee composed of
leaders of the industry, together with a small minority
representation by the federal government,” with no representation by the states.
Though in effect disbanded, the Oil States Advisory Committee, through Downing, argued against including conservation
and proration as a part of the Oil Code.

(1940) A political cartoon of the day. Another shows the IOCC
as a boy holding his finger in the hole in the “dyke of Waste &
Depletion of Natural Gas Resources.”

 “Conservation of oil is of paramount importance. The problem is in fact national. Nothing that
this administration could do would give greater or more enduring benefit to the people than to solve
the problem,” Downing wrote.
“No proration order should be made, even if recommended by the Advisory Committee, unless also
concurred in by a majority of the oil producing states as represented by their conservancy bodies,
or by delegates of their governors,” he added.
The fight against federal controls slowed. The period was described as a “temporary truce in the
warfare.” However, there were constant threats of rebellion and charges of Code violations. Many
credit Oklahoma Governor Elect E.W. Marland with reviving the idea of a compact by calling
a special meeting Dec. 3, 1934. Present at the meeting were Gov. Alf M. Landon of Kansas and
Governor Elect James V. Allred of Texas. Governors’ representatives from Arkansas, California,
Louisiana, New Mexico and Wyoming attended. Four members of a U.S. House subcommittee of
the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce traveled to Marland’s home in Ponca City,
Okla., for the meeting.
It quickly became clear that strong opposition existed to any form of federal control of the oil industry.
Marland championed the idea of rekindling the compact. In January 1935, the group met again and
within a month, enabling legislation had been adopted in California, New Mexico, Oklahoma and
Texas. The third and final meeting was called by Marland
at the Adolphus Hotel in Dallas.
In the meantime, the U.S. Supreme Court had struck
down much of the NIRA, opening the door for formation
of the Interstate Compact to Conserve Oil and Gas. The
stage was set for drama, and those present at the Adolphus
were not disappointed.

(1935) January 3 meeting in Ponca City, Okla. Seated in the center is
Gov. E.W. Marland.

“A situation tense in character existed that Feb. 15,” reported Blakely M. Murphy, a member of the Legal Com-

mittee. “In spite of the drives, the common cause, and the reason for the assembly, the meeting
was plagued with inconsequential controversy highlighted by the manner in which the press and
industry journals had focused on the governors of Texas and Oklahoma.”
Two distinct positions had crystallized, Murphy observed. “Marland supported a doctrine of economic waste that in his opinion meant the government should prorate production to obtain a fair
price for crude oil. The Texas delegates, almost hysterical in their opposition to price control which

 to them spelled eventual federal control, had aroused themselves to such a pitch that they seemed
to be against everything and anything that could possibly be tarred with the brush of price fixing,”
Murphy wrote.
The disagreement threatened the
possibility of compromise. Ultimately, on the floor of the conference, an
agreement was struck that centered
on the conservation of oil and gas by
“the prevention of physical waste,”
and empowered the compact “to
promote the maximum ultimate
recovery from the petroleum reserves
of the said states, and to recommend
measures for the maximum ultimate
recovery of oil and gas.” The compromise report was crafted by the
ever-present Downing of Colorado
whose stirring address reflected his
long, sometimes frustrating push for

(1941) Members of the Compact’s Legal Committee (L to R, standing): C.A. O’Neill Jr., Louisiana; E.J.
Coyle, Illinois; R.B. McEntire, Kansas; (seated) Charles H. Jones, Ohio; W.C. Lawrence, New Mexico;
Earl Foster, Oklahoma; R.E. Hardwicke, Texas; and Hiram M. Dow, New Mexico. Hardwicke would
later donate his extensive collection of oil and gas related publications to the Compact’s library.

a compact.
“If we can’t agree, let’s go home,” Downing exclaimed. “I for one don’t want to leave this conference without doing my best to accomplish something. We are agreed on essentials. We are agreed
on confining the purposes of this pact to the prevention of physical waste. We are agreed about the
‘stripper wells’ — we all know nobody wants to do anything to hurt them. We are agreed that we
can’t produce from flush wells enough petroleum to supply the needs of the nation. The only difference among us is by what name we shall call the rose.”
The compromise was forged and adopted unanimously. Legislatures in Colorado, Illinois, Kansas,
New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas promptly ratified the compact. On Aug. 27, 1935, the Interstate Compact to Conserve Oil and Gas was approved by the 74th Congress, and the Interstate Oil
Compact Commission was born.
Although progress had been incremental and labored, the resulting work to establish the compact
redefined the relationship between the industry and government. The Texas Railroad Commission
reported to President Roosevelt in 1937 that “there is a complete cooperation and coordination
at the present time between the federal government and the oil producing states in this common

 effort to conserve this natural resource.” It was a far different outlook than the country had faced
just a few years earlier.
Conservation efforts by the IOCC proved to be immensely important in the years of world turmoil
that lay ahead. In late 1941, the United States had surplus oil production capacity that exceeded
one million barrels per day. That provided a margin of security that would soon be activated, first
to supply Britain and later the United States and other allies during World War II.
In the early 1940s, the Commission turned its attention
exclusively to wartime issues. “Now in the national crisis,”
reported Chairman Gov. Leon C. Phillips of Oklahoma,
“the Compact Commission is cooperating with state agencies, the federal government and the industry in a program
to insure adequate petroleum to win the war. It is devoting
its talents and facilities to that task and earnestly desires
the help of every oil producing state.”
The work of the Commission received wide praise from
President Roosevelt, House Speaker Sam Rayburn, congressmen and governors.
(1943) Research chemist in the Carter Oil
Company laboratory.

“It is particularly gratifying at this time to find 11 of the
great states of our Union, controlling most of our petroleum resources, joining together in a
determination to protect our vast and valuable oil possessions at this time, because of conditions
throughout the world,” Rayburn said on July 31, 1941.
In fact, IOCC states were responsible for about 80
percent of the nation’s production. An important
tool in monitoring the nation’s oil output, the
national survey of stripper wells, began in 1941.
Though less than a decade old, the Commission
had earned the respect of its member governors.
“As a means toward true conservation practices, the
compact has been exceedingly effective,” said Kan(1947) Attending the IOCC meeting in Great Falls, Montana, (L to R): William
J. Murray Jr., Texas Railroad Commission; Warwick M. Downing, Colorado; and
N.E. Tanner, minister, Department of Mines and Lands, Alberta, Canada.

sas Gov. Payne Ratner. “It also has demonstrated
in its results the value of the American principle of
local self-government, whereby problems can best

 be solved by those who have the knowledge and understanding gained from close-at-hand experience.” In the years that followed, these sentiments would be repeated many times.
By 1945, the Commission's membership had grown to 17 states, and broad-based activities were
under way. In addition to its primary charges, the Commission had undertaken an education program for government officials and the public emphasizing the
benefits of conservation.
The program involved “the use of motion pictures, lantern slides,
written material, charts, graphs and pictorial and other forms of
exhibits” to create interest in and promote oil and gas conservation. This initial effort reflected the IOCC's goal of elevating
conservation to the level of national policy.
“An enlightened public will no longer tolerate their (natural resources) wasteful use and destruction. The public welfare demands
their proper development and use. Petroleum is one of the most
vital of these resources. The responsibility of producing it without

(1949) Geologists examine cuttings from a well on a
northwest Texas ranch.

waste rests upon the oil producing states. The Interstate Oil Compact Commission, acting as an interstate advisory committee, furnishes the facilities for the states, by
Associated Screen News Limited

cooperative action, to perform that obligation in the public interest,” the Commission stated.
The Commission’s work included
preparing comprehensive conservation
statutes, preparing a summary of conservation laws, and promoting scientific
and engineering advances.
The work helped prepare the country
for the profound influence oil would
play in the country. Indeed, in 1947, oil
(1952) Meeting of the Compact’s Regulatory Practices Committee during the
Banff, Alberta, Canada meeting.

exceeded coal as the principal supplier of
energy in the United States. The follow-

ing year, oil imports exceeded exports for the first time. The term “foreign oil” was born.
By the IOCC's 20th anniversary it was hailed as the model for addressing interstate issues. Richard
H. Leach, with the Duke University Department of Political Science, evaluated the work of the
Commission in 1957.

 “Perhaps no compact in operation in the United States has so effectively accomplished its objectives
and been so consistently popular while doing so as has the Interstate Compact to Conserve Oil and
Gas. The Interstate Oil Compact Commission, which was established as the administrative agency
of the compact, its staff and committees, have
become perhaps the most respected experts
on oil and gas conservation in the country. Its
record of over twenty years of service to the
party states and to the nation is unparalleled
in compact history,” he wrote.
By the late 1950s, more than 50 books and
articles had been published on engineering,
legal, regulatory, and supply and demand
issues. Ten other projects were under way.

(1954) Bus trip, part of the ladies’ tour for the Omaha, Nebraska,
meeting.

A clearinghouse of information on oil and
gas conservation had been established, and the IOCC had stepped up its public information campaign and its contact with federal and state lawmakers and bureaucrats. The remarkable fact that
the Commission was effective principally through “persuasion and the voluntary participation of
states” was not lost on Leach.
“Moreover, probably more than any other compact, the Interstate Oil Compact has a demonstrable
relation to the national welfare. The conservation of oil and gas is not merely the concern of the
states belonging to the compact but is a problem of grave national interest on which our national
security largely depends . . . Recognition of its importance and of its vital role in the national picture
has also strengthened the compact.”
In summary, Leach noted that other compacts have
similar authorities to study and recommend. However,
“none is listened to as is the Interstate Oil Compact
Commission. Legally, it has no power; actually it is
the most powerful and respected agency in the oil
and gas industry.”
With the establishment of mandatory quotas for
imported oil in 1959 and the formation of the Orga(1954) Gov. Edward F. Arn of Kansas, 1953 IOCC chairman, and Gov.
Johnston Murray of Oklahoma, 1954 chairman, dedicate the new IOCC
headquarters building at 900 N.E. 23rd Street in Oklahoma City.

nization for Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)
the following year, the IOCC faced important conservation questions.

 In response, the organization adopted
a strongly-worded resolution calling
for a reduction in oil imports at the
1961 Annual Meeting in Denver.
“Despite overwhelming evidence that
a flood of foreign oil is disrupting the
domestic industry and damaging state
conservation programs, further studies have been ordered” by President
John Kennedy, the IOCC noted. The
Commission called for “prompt and
effective action to reduce and stabilize
the rate of oil imports so as to prevent
weakening of state conservation pro-

(1961) Signing of oil and gas conservation bills for Pennsylvania. (L to R, seated) Lewis E. Evans,
secretary of Mines and Mineral Industries; Gov. David L. Lawrence; Genevieve Blatt, secretary
of Internal Affairs; (standing) William R. Davlin, secretary of Commerce; Rep. Austin J. Murpy,
chairman of the House Committee on Mines and Mineral Industries; Anthony J. DiSilvestro,
president pro tempore of the Senate; and Sen. Thomas J. Kalman, chairman of the Senate Committee
on Mines and Mineral Industries.

grams and assure a healthy domestic
industry . . .”
It was one of many warnings sounded by the Commission about the impact of imported oil.
Mandatory import quotas were destined to last 14 years.
To those at the Denver meeting, President Kennedy sent a message praising the work of the IOCC,
stating that “the nation’s strength has been significantly enhanced by the work of the Commission and I am sure that it will continue in the forefront of this highly important conservation
movement.”
But his administration questioned the functions of the Commission in two separate areas. In a
letter dated April 4, 1963, Interior Secretary Stewart Udall seemed to question the IOCC’s role in
ensuring that the petroleum industry “makes its maximum contribution to the national security
and to the strength of the national economy.”
“The purpose of the Interstate Compact is . . . 'to conserve oil and gas by the prevention of physical waste thereof from any cause.' In order to fully achieve this objective, the IOCC, we feel sure
you agree, must do everything in its power to assure that state regulatory practices enhance the
efficiency of the domestic petroleum industry,” Udall’s letter said.
The secretary requested an analysis of the regulatory systems of the states and “the effect of these
systems on the petroleum industry.”

 Within a week, Indiana Gov. Matthew E. Welsh
announced the formation of a Governors Committee to respond to the Interior Department
request.
Then in May, U.S. Attorney General Robert Kennedy issued a 31-page report “. . . as to whether
or not the activities of the states under the provisions of such compact have been consistent with
the purpose . . .”
New Mexico Gov. Jack M. Campbell observed

(1963) L to R: William J. Lamont, Department of Justice,
Anti-trust Division; Lawrence J. O’Connor, Federal Power
Commission; Jerome O’Brien, Department of the Interior; and
(seated) John M. Kelly, Assistant Secretary of the Interior.

that “the shadow of threatened federal control
had been cast upon this compact and the great
and progressive industry with which it is involved."
“I have noted somewhere that it has been said that this particular meeting (June 1963) may be
the most important one in the history of the compact,” Campbell said. “The implication seems
to be that we are faced with problems which are completely new and extremely shocking. Ominous notes of warning fill the mails as if this were the first occasion on which this compact felt
constrained to justify its existence . . . I cannot concur in this concern.”
Markow Photo

Despite whatever threats were perceived, President
Kennedy approved an extension of the IOCC
through September 1967.
The Governors Committee efficiency report was
developed and issued about a year later. The 321page study contained a number of recommendations
concerning conservation, which the Interior Department said would “tend to assure improved efficiency
in oil production.”

(1967) IOCC officers: Jerome McHugh, Colorado, second vice chairman; Gov.
Henry Bellmon, Oklahoma, 1966 chairman; Gov. Paul Johnson, Mississippi,
1967 chairman; and A.L. Porter Jr., New Mexico, first vice chairman.

In June 1965, the IOCC established its position
on environmental issues through a resolution that

favored regulatory development and enforcement “under the guidance of the local regulatory
authority most directly involved and most familiar with local conditions and needs.”

 Throughout the 1960s, the IOCC became the leading advocate for limiting oil imports; opposing
certain wilderness designations; and favoring natural gas import limitations, price deregulation,
and state regulation of the resource. Despite the fact that a step-out well completed in 1968 at
Prudhoe Bay on Alaska’s North Slope confirmed a world-class oil field discovery — the largest in
North American history — a fundamental change in the domestic industry would soon occur.
In 1970, U.S. oil production reached its apex — 11.3 million barrels per day. In a sense, it signaled
a time for introspection by the IOCC. In March 1971, the Texas Railroad Commission permitted
all-out production. Demand had outstripped production capability, and managing surplus was
no longer an issue for the Commission. The Railroad Commission noted the historic occasion.
“Damned historic, and a sad one,” the chairman said. “Texas oil fields have been like a reliable
old warrior that could rise to the task when needed. That old warrior can’t rise anymore.”
As the term “energy crisis” found its way into the country’s vocabulary and to the top of the political agenda, the wisdom of oil import quotas came into question. Although the IOCC argued
strenuously against the creation of a import tariff, just such a system replaced quotas in 1973.
The same year, an OPEC oil embargo sent oil prices skyrocketing and left motorists waiting in lines
at gas stations. An IOCC statement of policy adopted shortly after the
beginning of the embargo showed the group’s patience wearing thin.
“Due to shortsighted federal policies that regulated the price of natural
gas below its normal and logical level and encouraged the over-dependence on foreign oil by relaxing the Mandatory Oil Import Control
levels as initially established, this nation now finds itself in the predictable position of having insufficient energy sources to meet our present
needs and with no consolidated program for meeting expanding future
requirements,” the 1974 policy stated bluntly.
“The compacting states take no comfort from the fact that they have

California Gov. Edmund G. Brown, 1979 IOCC
chairman.

tried to warn the nation through repeated resolutions that the present
crisis was inevitable under recent federal policies.
“This compact, having forecast the problem in prior resolutions and urged measures to avert the
problem, now wishes it could, with equal confidence, project an immediate solution. Unfortunately,
we have descended too far into dependence on foreign sources to hope for an easy recovery.”

 The Commission developed a nine-point program to immediately address the issue, focusing on expanded opportunities for exploration and conservation.
With energy and conservation issues near the top of the political agenda, the IOCC won several
victories in the mid-1970s. The organization convinced the federal government to exempt enhanced
production and heavy gravity oil from freemarket prices and was successful in gaining flexibility in underground injection control regulations that would
affect thousands of older wells.
But the push for a national energy plan fell short as
did a relentless call for deregulation of natural gas
prices. When President Jimmy Carter proposed an
energy plan in 1977, it was met with widespread
criticism from IOCC states for failing to encourage
domestic oil and gas recovery.
The year 1979 found the return of gas lines and reiteration of IOCC’s statement of policy on the nation’s
energy picture. Noting that “the current crisis in
national energy supplies, resulting in crippling inflation(1982) Gov. David C. Treen of Louisiana, 1982 IOCC
chairman.

and unemployment, together with a weakened national
defense capability . . . only serve to emphasize the correctness of our past position,” the Commission
called for state and federal cooperation to correct what seemed to be a chronic problem.
Resolutions denouncing counterproductive taxes, to promote production of heavy oil, and for sensible
wilderness area consideration were passed and publicized.
“In stark contrast [to 1935 when the IOCC was formed], today the nation finds itself in yet another
crisis — having to import almost one-half of its oil needs from unstable foreign sources,” the IOCC
noted with irony.
The organization played a key role in the implementation of the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978,
which added regulatory responsibilities to state agencies. Resolutions dealing with environmental
issues began to appear more frequently as the organization served as a voice of balance between
conservation and environmental protection.
The group issued constant reminders to the federal government that existing production sources
were at least as important — if not more important — than new sources of oil and gas. Actions tar-

 geted simplifying application processes
and royalty collection verifications,
carving out incentives for enhanced
recovery and tertiary oil, and incentives for marginal gas wells. Increasingly, the IOCC became the voice
for the states concerning encroaching
federal policy.
“Some have been critical of the IOCC
for addressing itself to matters of federal policy,” wrote Chairman David

(1985) Ceremonies for the Compact Commission time capsule in Ponca City. On the far right are
Oklahoma Gov. George Nigh, IOCC chairman, and Executive Director Tim Dowd.

C. Treen, governor of Louisiana. “The
basis for this criticism is that the IOCC should be concerned with conservation and not with the
economics of price regulation and taxation. I couldn’t disagree more with such a position.
“Federal controls have had a real, and dramatic, impact on the state’s responsibility for conservation
of oil and gas and on our efforts to get maximum recovery and protect correlative rights . . . In my
view, the IOCC is the most logical organization to represent the producing states as we collectively
try to impress upon the federal government the undesirable and disastrous effects of its policies on our
efforts to promote conservation,” Treen said.
The organization observed its 50th year in 1985. A special ceremony at the former home of Gov. E.W.
Marland in Ponca City, Okla., and the burial of a time capsule — to be opened in 2035 — commemorated the event.
A key event in 1987, the IOCC’s
efforts to preserve state regulation
of drilling muds and produced
wastes, proved successful, thwarting yet another move to diminish
state authority.
As the IOCC prepared to enter
the 1990s, it set out yet again
to encourage development of a
1985 Co-Chairmen Gov. Mark White of Texas, left, and Gov. George Nigh of Oklahoma
at the IOGCC 50th Anniversary meeting in Austin, Texas.

national energy policy. Its six-part
program included encouraging

 exploration and production of U.S. oil and gas, a re-examination of federal tax policies on oil and
gas, decontrol of natural gas prices and promotion of the fuel for transportation, heightened awareness of the need to expand oil and gas research, end-use conservation of fossil fuels, and the creation
of an oil import program.
The Commission undertook a bold initiative at the close of 1988 when, under the leadership of Gov. George Sinner of North Dakota, the Council on
Regulatory Needs was formed. The organization began to develop guidelines
for state programs that regulate wastes associated with oil and gas exploration
and production. The resulting guidelines report spawned the State Review
program, which has immeasurably improved state waste-management programs and has been hailed as a model of regulatory development. The 20-year
IOCC battle to deregulate the price of natural gas ended when Congress
approved the Natural Gas Wellhead Decontrol Act of 1989.
During that year, Alaska Gov. Steve Cowper served as IOCC chairman.
(1993) Mary Scott Nabers, Texas, with U.S.
Deputy Secretary of Energy Bill White.

In a presentation replete with compelling first-person accounts, Cowper
addressed the Midyear Meeting less than three months after the oil spill in
Prince William Sound.

“To me,” he said, “what this spill means is still to be determined . . . I don’t know where this is going, frankly, in Congress, but I know that this was an important watershed for oil development in
this country and, in a less direct way, all resource development in this country. It is up to us to voice
responsible opinions in the Congress so that responsible decisions will be made.”
In early 1990, few organizations shared the IOCC’s concern regarding the growing dependence
on imported oil and the lack of a national energy strategy. But when Iraq invaded Kuwait
in August 1990, the Commission's wisdom
was affirmed, and the federal government
quickly sought advice on how to deal with
the crisis. Renewed interest surfaced in the
Commission's suggestions regarding a national
energy strategy.
(1994) Former U.S. Secretary of Energy Donald P. Hodel speaks
during the Breckenridge, Colo., meeting.

As one of the first organizations to address the
flight of major U.S. oil companies from domestic production sources, the IOCC completed a study of
the need for technology transfer that same year, under Chairman Gov. Mike Sullivan of Wyoming.

 In 1991, the IOCC became the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC), reflecting
the group’s time-honored commitment to addressing natural gas issues. Gov. Norman Bangerter of
Utah, serving as chairman, pointed out that the organization had been involved since its inception
in gas conservation by addressing venting, flaring and
well spacing concerns.
Also that year, the first peer review of state programs
to manage oil field waste was completed for Wyoming,
and the Commission officially called for opening
Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to “environmentally responsible oil and gas exploration.”
In 1992, the State Review process was effective in

(1994) Members of the Ohio State Review team.

the IOGCC’s successful effort to retain state regulation of waste associated with oil field operations. Landmark studies were completed on the nation’s
inventory of idle wells. Environmental training for regulators and industry was designed. A comprehensive study of the barriers to increased use of domestic natural gas was completed and widely
circulated.
The following year, the
IOGCC took steps to become
a proactive participant in the
development of energy policy.
A strategic plan was fashioned
that enabled the Commission
to focus on emerging issues
and to become the leading
authority on oil and gas. A
(1995) Attendees of the IOGCC Spring Quarterly Meeting in Washington, D.C., tour the
White House.

revision of the organization’s
mission statement, reflecting

the increased involvement in protecting human health and the environment, also was adopted. The
State Review program continued in earnest, and efforts by the states to upgrade environmental capabilities were documented.
In 1994, the IOGCC began to assert its aggressive, leading-edge approach, implementing an annual
congressional reception in Washington, D.C., as part of the Spring Quarterly Meeting agenda. A new
study, Marginal Oil: Fuel for Economic Growth, expanded the IOGCC’s annual report on stripper oil
production to include the economic impact of stripper wells, drawing national attention. Work began

 on linking the states electronically
through the Internet. An IOGCC
initiative resulted in the beginning
of a study to streamline regulations
governing exploration and production
on public lands.
Coming full circle with its heritage,
the IOGCC in 1994 instituted
the annual E.W. Marland Award
for outstanding service by a state
regulator.
The 60th anniversary year, 1995,
(1995) Governors and former governors/Compact chairman attending the 60th anniversary meeting
of the IOGCC include (standing, left to right) Jack Campbell, New Mexico; Mark White, Texas; Gary
Johnson, New Mexico; Henry Bellmon, Oklahoma; Bill Graves, Kansas; George Nigh, Oklahoma;
(seated, left to right) Frank Keating, Oklahoma; Ed Schafer, North Dakota; and George W. Bush, Texas.
(Not pictured is incoming Chairman Gov. E. Benjamin Nelson, Nebraska.)

signified a turning point in the role
of states in national energy policy.
Popular opinion and the political
climate began to favor returning
authority and responsibility to states

from the federal government. Sensing this new opportunity, the IOGCC acted quickly to advance
the framework for a state-led National Oil and Gas Policy.
At the heart of the policy are the principles that have provided a steady course for the IOGCC
in the past: research to improve finding costs and production efficiency, education of the public
concerning resource conservation, incentives for marginal
wells and other key issues, and
alerting the nation about the
consequences of depending on
precarious sources of imported
energy. First advanced in 1995
by Chairman Gov. Ed Schafer
of North Dakota, the IOGCC’s
National Oil and Gas Policy
continues to evolve.
The IOGCC’s role as an advocate for states’ rights has led to

(1996) Alberta Minister of Energy Patricia Black (center) and Canadian Consulate
General Henry Wells (far left) host IOGCC official representatives (L to R) James Slutz,
Indiana; Carl Michael Smith, Oklahoma; and Bill LeMay, New Mexico.

 a greater presence for the organization in Washington, D.C. The Commission has led the push
by states to assume oil and gas inspection and enforcement and other federal responsibilities on
public lands.
The proposed transfer of responsibility is projected
to save taxpayers millions of dollars, eliminate
redundant compliance efforts by operators, and
streamline permitting procedures. The IOGCC is
also a leading voice on environmental issues such
as air quality standards and chemical reporting
requirements.
January 1996 brought the leadership of Nebraska
Gov. E. Benjamin Nelson, who made “finding
common ground” the theme of his tenure as
IOGCC chairman. States continued their efforts

(1996) Official representatives John Snow, Nevada, and James Slutz, Indiana, receive
autographs from Roberto Guerrero, a top-five finisher in the Indianapolis 500, during
the 1996 Midyear Meeting.

to stave off federal encroachment of their rights
to regulate their natural resources by developing
coordinated approaches to challenges.
Also in 1996, the IOGCC established the Chairman's Stewardship Awards to recognize excellence
in voluntary environmental activities. The award annually singles out an environmental project
or program that goes far beyond the
letter of the law.
A new chapter in the IOGCC’s history
was penned with the members’ vote to
open affiliation status to other oil and
gas producing nations. The province
of Alberta, Canada, became the first
international affiliate in 1996, through
the IOGCC International program.
(1996) Long-time Wyoming Official Representative Don Basko, left, is recognized
for his service by Chairman Gov. Frank Keating of Oklahoma.

To reflect the organization’s growth
and strategic goals, the IOGCC

restructured its committee system in 1997 under the leadership of Chairman Gov. Frank Keating of Oklahoma. Three operational and five issues-based committees were selected to lead the
Commission.

 The restructuring is significant given the history of the organization. Since its earliest days, the
IOGCC has relied on deliberation and consensus-building at the committee level. This tradition
continues under committees on Legal and Regulatory Affairs, Public Lands, Environmental and
Safety, Public Outreach and Energy Resources, Research and Technology.
Implementation of a new Strategic Plan for the IOGCC began in 1997, with goals focusing on
environmental, regulatory, policy and public education efforts. To complement public education and
outreach efforts, the IOGCC Energy Education Award, which recognizes an outstanding effort to
educate the public concerning energy issues, was conferred for the first time during the 1997 Midyear
Meeting. The award has now become a part of the annual Chairman's Stewardship Awards.
Gov. Keating selected as the focus of his chairmanship the state-led National Energy Policy, which
focuses on fullest utilization and recognition of the importance of domestic energy resources. Opportunities for testimony before Congress and grass-roots educational appearances were significant
throughout 1997, as leadership teams consisting of a governor and member of Congress communicated
the recommendations of the IOGCC’s National Oil and Gas Policy.
Building on the momentum of its previous successes, the IOGCC launched 1998 under the chairmanship of Gov. Jim Geringer of Wyoming. Continued efforts to strengthen
the states’ policy-setting role in national
energy issues, including those dealing
with access to public lands, remained key
to the organization’s work. Kansas Gov.
Bill Graves led the IOGCC into 1999,
and attention was focused on the need to
stabilize crude oil prices in the wake of
rapidly increasing imports, dramatic cuts
in domestic production, and wells plugged
and jobs lost.

Left to right, 2002 IOGCC Chairman Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas,
2000-2001 Chairman Gov. Tony Knowles of Alaska, 2001 Second Vice
Chairman Philip Asprodites of Louisiana, and 1999 Chairman Gov. Bill
Graves of Kansas at the 2001 Annual Meeting in Santa Fe, N.M.

The IOGCC entered the 21st Century
with Alaska Gov. Tony Knowles at the helm in both 2000 and 2001. The IOGCC backed a drive
to give the states more regulatory power in dealing with environmental protection, called for improved access to public lands, and worked to increase public awareness of the benefits of a strong
domestic energy industry. The IOGCC claimed major legislative victories when net receipts sharing
was repealed and the Environmental Protection Agency ceased targeting oil and natural gas wells
for inclusion in Toxic Release Inventory reporting requirements. The IOGCC celebrated its 65th

 anniversary in August 2000, and named the headquarters building the E.W. Marland Memorial
Building in 2001.
Gov. Mike Huckabee took the reins in 2002 and focused attention on the importance of domestic energy to national security and the coordinated effort needed to protect the nation's energy lifelines.
North Dakota Gov. John Hoeven, 2003 chairman focused on the personnel shortage in the petroleum industry and how to attract new petroleum workers, organizing a Blue Ribbon Task Force to
find solutions. The task force developed an action plan to combat the problem, publishing it in an
award winning IOGCC publication Petroleum Pros.
"It is clear that addressing the manpower issue is an opportunity for the states, the federal government
and industry to contribute to a long-term solution," Gov. Hoeven said in comments submitted for
a U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources hearing in 2004.
In 2004, the Commission addressed research and development issues. Chairman Gov. Bill Richardson
of New Mexico initiated this focus in his address at the 2003 Annual Meeting in Reno.
"As representatives of oil and gas production states, it should be incumbent upon us to provide
the leadership necessary to educate our citizens about ... the need to continue to fund research and
development work that will provide technology needed to reach and develop these resources," said
Richardson.
Finally, in 2005, Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed a national energy policy. The
Commission, under the leadership of Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski, served as a leading champion
for a reality-based, comprehensive energy policy that included measures to enhance conservation
and efficient recovery of America's oil and natural gas resources. Although not all final provisions
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 were endorsed by the Commission, the organization cited hopes
that the legislation would signal a renewed focus on homegrown energy, and will continue to work
toward reducing the nation's dependence on unstable sources of energy.
Throughout its history, the IOGCC has helped write numerous success stories. Many of those are
told in chapters that span years rather than months. It is perhaps most notable that the IOGCC
demonstrated persistence and diligence and never discarded its views or ideals. It has been the group’s
single-minded goal of conserving the nation’s oil and gas that has allowed it to be effective in times
of both shortage and surplus. The conservation of oil and gas transcends both crises and periods of
relative calm; and the IOGCC continues to stand as a champion of these valuable resources.

 Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission
P.O. Box 53127, Oklahoma City, OK 73162
405.525.3556
www.iogcc.state.ok.us