A Guy Named Craig May Soon Have Control over a Large Swath of Utah(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
A Guy Named Craig May Soon Have Control over a Large Swath of Utah
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/a-guy-named-craig-may-soon-have-control-over-a-large-swath-of-utah
112 comments
Very interesting! How does this work from an average citizen's perspective? If I had a spare $10k, could I simply go bid on some parcels, and (assuming I won the auction), simply let it sit for 10 years, thereby denying other companies the ability to exploit it?
Environmentalists do things like this sometimes for specifically that reason.
Another way of simply buying more environmental protection from the federal government is to purchase SO2 allowances at auction. The US government runs a “cap and trade” system for sulphur dioxide emissions where prospective SO2 emitters have to buy allowances at auction for the tonnage of SO2 they will emit. Environmentalists frequently buy a chunk of allowances and refuse to resell them, reducing emissions even more while raising costs for polluters.
Another way of simply buying more environmental protection from the federal government is to purchase SO2 allowances at auction. The US government runs a “cap and trade” system for sulphur dioxide emissions where prospective SO2 emitters have to buy allowances at auction for the tonnage of SO2 they will emit. Environmentalists frequently buy a chunk of allowances and refuse to resell them, reducing emissions even more while raising costs for polluters.
Is this one of the strategies used by the Nature Conservancy?
I don't know. The Acid Rain Retirement Fund is a nonprofit that primarily bids in the SO2 allowance market.
I'm surprised they don't get eminent-domain'd, not that I think they should, but I feel like that would be a ripe target for something like that
But why would it be subject to eminent domain? The land still belongs to the federal government. I don't think you can seize a lease just because the government doesn't think you're making optimal use of it.
Yes it can.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
Wow this is unbelievable. Thanks for the link.
"The case arose in the context of condemnation by the city of New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property, so that it could be used as part of a "comprehensive redevelopment plan." However, the private developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an _undeveloped empty lot._"
"The case arose in the context of condemnation by the city of New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property, so that it could be used as part of a "comprehensive redevelopment plan." However, the private developer was unable to obtain financing and abandoned the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an _undeveloped empty lot._"
Yes you could! These lease sales can get quite expensive if they're worth anything to oil and gas companies. My company has been party to auctions for clients that have stretched into seven figures alone. Other times, many leases don't see a single bid and you could snatch up acreage for next to nothing.
EDIT: As the article and some Google searching shows, apparently the BLM can deny a lease on the basis of lack of intent to drill (or at least they are trying). I did not know this was something they could attempt and I stand (potentially) corrected. A major effort to raise money to tie up Federal minerals would likely create enough noise to where the BLM might try to deny leases.
EDIT: As the article and some Google searching shows, apparently the BLM can deny a lease on the basis of lack of intent to drill (or at least they are trying). I did not know this was something they could attempt and I stand (potentially) corrected. A major effort to raise money to tie up Federal minerals would likely create enough noise to where the BLM might try to deny leases.
Well now I'm even more intrigued. Online petitions and donations for "green" movements can routinely generate hundreds of thousands in donations.
It doesn't seem like it would be difficult (for the right person) to 1) create a non-profit 2) collect donations designated for the preservation of land 3) bid on key parcels, or even just strategic parcels. Imagine a 10,000 acre parcel where every other acre is owned by a non-profit (if it works that way).
It doesn't seem like it would be difficult (for the right person) to 1) create a non-profit 2) collect donations designated for the preservation of land 3) bid on key parcels, or even just strategic parcels. Imagine a 10,000 acre parcel where every other acre is owned by a non-profit (if it works that way).
> Imagine a 10,000 acre parcel where every other acre is owned by a non-profit (if it works that way)
This starts to get complicated and varies state to state. You don't have to (and often won't) control 100% of the minerals under a well you want to drill. Sometimes you will have partner companies (hostile or friendly), mineral rights owners who refuse to lease, or mineral rights whose ownership is undetermined. So just because a non-profit had a chunk of minerals tied up, a company could petition to the State's board of oil and gas to have the non-participant "forced-pooled" and the well could be drilled. This process involves hearings, oil and gas attorneys, and your typical bureaucratic processes. That said, if the non-profit owned a large enough interest it could very well force the economics of the potential well into unprofitable zones, despite the fact the oil and gas company could force a well.
This starts to get complicated and varies state to state. You don't have to (and often won't) control 100% of the minerals under a well you want to drill. Sometimes you will have partner companies (hostile or friendly), mineral rights owners who refuse to lease, or mineral rights whose ownership is undetermined. So just because a non-profit had a chunk of minerals tied up, a company could petition to the State's board of oil and gas to have the non-participant "forced-pooled" and the well could be drilled. This process involves hearings, oil and gas attorneys, and your typical bureaucratic processes. That said, if the non-profit owned a large enough interest it could very well force the economics of the potential well into unprofitable zones, despite the fact the oil and gas company could force a well.
"My straw reaches across the room, and I drink your milkshake"
The vast majority of my mining/drilling knowledge comes from There Will Be Blood, which if (big if) is accurate would mean this plan wouldn't work.
If some person with actual knowledge said this was a valid strategy I'd certainly be willing to donate though.
The vast majority of my mining/drilling knowledge comes from There Will Be Blood, which if (big if) is accurate would mean this plan wouldn't work.
If some person with actual knowledge said this was a valid strategy I'd certainly be willing to donate though.
This feels like something Cards Against Humanity would do. I would definitely buy a deck of cards that comes with an acre of land that can’t be touched for ten years.
I once suggested an idea like this to them. Their reply was, simply:
> Why do we have to do everything?
Custom-printed decks of cards are insanely cheap. You should take your idea and run with it!
> Why do we have to do everything?
Custom-printed decks of cards are insanely cheap. You should take your idea and run with it!
Hey Elliekelly - I'll help you get it funded, either with individuals or via kickstarter.
I very much appreciate the offer but I’m already a bit in over my head with one company so I don’t think I can manage a second. Anyone who is interested can definitely count me as a customer though :)
i read a there was groups working on this with a strategy to buy the cheap plots making it more difficult to access and mine on other plots.
> Yes you could!
That seems to be up for debate as the article discusses people who did exactly this and had their lease denied.
That seems to be up for debate as the article discusses people who did exactly this and had their lease denied.
Interesting! A quick Google search shows the BLM did deny the lease stating their lack of intent to drill. I did not know they had the ability to do that. I am inclined to believe now that a big effort to tie up Federal minerals would make too much noise and fail.
Is it possible to win the lease and just live on the land for 10 years?
Considering you don't have surface rights, I doubt it. I do wonder if you could live in an underground bunker though?
Wouldn't you still have to have surface rights because you need an entrance to the bunker? The headline seems quite misleading then, a guy named Craig will only have control over the mineral rights of the land. Can oil companies drill without also having surface rights? Generally they need to build a structure to collect the oil.
The owner or lessee for mineral rights has the right to access them. So they can build structures, roads, etc. This is one reason why landowners typically work with mining/oil companies, because the company could just choose to put their well in your backyard if you won't work with them.
No these are leases for mineral rights, the surface rights are an entirely different issue.
I looked into buying over a square mile of Utah desert just south of Duschesne a couple of years ago. I hiked all over it and it was beautiful. I found out that the mineral rights had been split off, and started to look into what that meant for me. It basically meant that I couldn't stop them from drilling. I had to let them enter, build roads, and drill basically as much as they wanted. (there were already survey markers for future roads and at least 4 drill sites). It also meant that I wouldn't be able to dig a hole more than 3 inches deep without their permission, and if I found anything, it belonged to them.
The price was very low but I decided against that headache.
The price was very low but I decided against that headache.
I am quite familiar with Duchesne County from my work. But yes, the right of ingress and egress applies to holders of mineral rights. I am sure there are bad apples, but the clients I've worked with have been very accommodating to surface owners when it comes time to drill. They want everyone to be happy and to get compensated for what occurs.
I only have experience in the Western states, but this it is very frequent to find the the mineral rights have been long severed from the surface rights. Typically it is when the original patentee of the tract sells the surface they end up reserving the mineral rights.
I only have experience in the Western states, but this it is very frequent to find the the mineral rights have been long severed from the surface rights. Typically it is when the original patentee of the tract sells the surface they end up reserving the mineral rights.
What odds do any given leased acres actually have for getting produced on?
It GREATLY depends on the area. Just because someone nominated Federal acreage up for leasing doesn't mean there is anything worthwhile to drill on. That said, if a lease receives bids from different companies, you can assume there is some potential for economic recovery of hydrocarbons.
It sounds like these are just open auctions, aren't they? Couldn't a well-funded NGO just bid on these auctions in order to prevent drilling? It would of course take a lot of money to do what the government was supposed to do.
They are open auctions, yes, but it appears from the article that the BLM has taken steps in the past to cancel leases that have been purchased explicitly to prevent drilling from occurring.
Regardless of how you feel about that, you could make a point that the BLM and ONRR (Office of Natural Resources and Revenue, the department of the Feds who collects revenue from hydrocarbon production) have a fiduciary duty to seek the highest revenue from the mineral rights they own. Canceling leases which will never be drilled would follow this goal.
Now, any environmental damage being more than the revenue derived in the end is another point altogether...
Regardless of how you feel about that, you could make a point that the BLM and ONRR (Office of Natural Resources and Revenue, the department of the Feds who collects revenue from hydrocarbon production) have a fiduciary duty to seek the highest revenue from the mineral rights they own. Canceling leases which will never be drilled would follow this goal.
Now, any environmental damage being more than the revenue derived in the end is another point altogether...
Why would they have that duty? I'd prefer to make the point that they have a duty to manage the land the best they can, and that could include refusing drilling in cases where it is harmful. BLM is a government agency, isn't it? They have other concerns than mere profit. And even for companies, focusing only on profit above everything else is very harmful.
Some guy Craig may soon have a 10 year mineral rights lease on some small lot in Utah…
The author of this ad “is a founder of the grassroots climate campaign”, doesn’t even mention the size of this “large swath”, so I’m left to wonder if it is even similar in size to the 1,100 acre example he gives, which itself would be 0.002% of Utah; that’s not a large swath. I have multiple friends with larger farms than this in a single town.
If I stake a claim to pan for gold in Montana, I wonder if he will write an article about me.
The author of this ad “is a founder of the grassroots climate campaign”, doesn’t even mention the size of this “large swath”, so I’m left to wonder if it is even similar in size to the 1,100 acre example he gives, which itself would be 0.002% of Utah; that’s not a large swath. I have multiple friends with larger farms than this in a single town.
If I stake a claim to pan for gold in Montana, I wonder if he will write an article about me.
If this happens I do hope he includes another riveting interview where you say "no comment" several different ways.
Further, the author wants us to be outraged of "how entirely simple and legal this is".
However, why should the Federal government get this land at all? We used to have allodial title many years ago...but then it became common-law precedent that we effectively "rent" our land from the government and pay perpetual property taxes for that right.
The lack of allodial title is what ultimately creates an inescapable "head tax" on every citizen.
However, why should the Federal government get this land at all? We used to have allodial title many years ago...but then it became common-law precedent that we effectively "rent" our land from the government and pay perpetual property taxes for that right.
The lack of allodial title is what ultimately creates an inescapable "head tax" on every citizen.
Unless “we” are the people who were here before the Europeans came in looking for plunder and land, why should “we” lay claim to it at all?
How far back do we go? First humans were african? Earth is theirs?
The author also talks about how land (actually mineral rights, but who's keeping track?) can be had for a few dollars which implies that the government is giving away land essentially for free to oil companies. Sure it could be, but pretty much all mineral rights that sell for the minimum bid will have no oil or value. The majority of bids that will actually be drilled on with likely sell for a very large amount. Only useless land is going to be sold for nothing act auction.
sigh Such a shame that the author decided to use deceptive tactics which really water down what the message should be: that the government should preserve the land and not sell mineral rights unless there's a very compelling reason. I mean, here I am defending the government when I agree with the overall sentiment that nature should be preserved!
sigh Such a shame that the author decided to use deceptive tactics which really water down what the message should be: that the government should preserve the land and not sell mineral rights unless there's a very compelling reason. I mean, here I am defending the government when I agree with the overall sentiment that nature should be preserved!
You are correct. In my experience, government lots that go for the minimum bid at auction are VERY wildcat in nature. Federal mineral rights with proven reserves can go for thousands of dollars an acre at auction.
It’s like a weird kind of long-form submarine campaign ad with a click bait title.
The title makes it sound like an individual will get control of a couple percent of the land in Utah.
Reading the article, it seems more like an oil & gas company is purchasing (EDIT: leasing) some land in Utah, and the article doesn't even make it clear how much (unless I missed it).
How is this really different from what we already know? There's a lot of cheap land out there, the country is big, and the federal government makes various kinds of deals with people who want to develop it. The article says that it's $2 an acre, which sounds like little, but it doesn't provide a point of comparison.
Reading the article, it seems more like an oil & gas company is purchasing (EDIT: leasing) some land in Utah, and the article doesn't even make it clear how much (unless I missed it).
How is this really different from what we already know? There's a lot of cheap land out there, the country is big, and the federal government makes various kinds of deals with people who want to develop it. The article says that it's $2 an acre, which sounds like little, but it doesn't provide a point of comparison.
> How is this really different from what we already know?
I actually didn't know that public land could pass into private ownership so easily.
As it says in the article: "The law itself is the crime — a gift to the oil and gas businesses."
I actually didn't know that public land could pass into private ownership so easily.
As it says in the article: "The law itself is the crime — a gift to the oil and gas businesses."
As someone else pointed out, it's not ownership, it's a 10-year lease.
This all sounds pretty routine; "a feature, not a bug", designed to promote economic development and be accommodating in general.
If you don't like development in general, or Oil & Gas development in particular, you won't be happy with this arrangement. But I would think there would be more outrageous examples than this one.
This all sounds pretty routine; "a feature, not a bug", designed to promote economic development and be accommodating in general.
If you don't like development in general, or Oil & Gas development in particular, you won't be happy with this arrangement. But I would think there would be more outrageous examples than this one.
It's not ownership, but it does permanently alters the land and permanently removes value in both terms of both recreation and mineral value. So while they technically don't own it, they get to forever change it and extract a lot of money from our public land at rock bottom rates.
It permanently alters the land, but often all that means is travel infrastructure like roads or trails. These end up increasing the potential recreation value in a place that would be otherwise inaccessible.
Whether humanity ought to recreate in these areas or not is another question (we are currently experiencing numerous wildfires in Arizona and the Southwest in general). But it’s not necessarily a clear case of destroying the land permanently. Rain alters land permanently as well, but few are motivated to stop that process on this type of land.
Whether humanity ought to recreate in these areas or not is another question (we are currently experiencing numerous wildfires in Arizona and the Southwest in general). But it’s not necessarily a clear case of destroying the land permanently. Rain alters land permanently as well, but few are motivated to stop that process on this type of land.
Please See this other thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23553446
And please look up the Converse Basic Grove of Sequoias. The whole place was destroyed to make fence posts. Oh, my bad I suppose "lease" is the current euphemism for destroying the land like that. But hey! cutting down all those giant sequoias improved the recreation opportunities, right?
That's an extreme example but any natural resource extraction irreparably damages land. Even grazing or roads have significant impacts that take hundreds or thousands of years to recover.
Roads dramatically change the landscape and cause huge impacts. And the roads usually serve some purpose, i.e. more damaging activities. Crisscrossing the landscape with roads has a huge impact on the land and does not enhance the recreational opportunities other than the ability to take instagram pics from your car.
And please look up the Converse Basic Grove of Sequoias. The whole place was destroyed to make fence posts. Oh, my bad I suppose "lease" is the current euphemism for destroying the land like that. But hey! cutting down all those giant sequoias improved the recreation opportunities, right?
That's an extreme example but any natural resource extraction irreparably damages land. Even grazing or roads have significant impacts that take hundreds or thousands of years to recover.
Roads dramatically change the landscape and cause huge impacts. And the roads usually serve some purpose, i.e. more damaging activities. Crisscrossing the landscape with roads has a huge impact on the land and does not enhance the recreational opportunities other than the ability to take instagram pics from your car.
I don’t think you’re arguing in good faith. There are obviously numerous activities that take place via wilderness access. Given my chosen username on here I’m quite familiar with the concept. Implying that Instagram photos are the goal is a strawman, and not even a good one. My hope was to suggest that the world is a complex place and nuance is warranted.
Just replied to parent, but you don't actually own the land. You are given certain mineral lights. You actually, explicitly, can't block the public from accessing the land. There are a lot of rules and regulations. You don't own the land in any real sense, just certain mineral rights.
But drilling fundamentally and permanently alters the land, even if it is a lease rather than a purchase.
That’s why companies are required to return the land to the way they found it.
Unless there is some sort of a spill there, the land is most certainly not “fundamentally and permanently” altered.
Unless there is some sort of a spill there, the land is most certainly not “fundamentally and permanently” altered.
But they often don't.
Drilling for oil and gas doesn’t actually change the surface much. It doesn’t change the contour of the land or result in much subsidence. Mining is a different story.
Until there's a spill (or, even better, an unnoticed leak) and the water supply is contaminated. Aw shucks, just an act of God. What can you do?
You might enjoy CGP Grey's "What is federal land?" [0]. Making resources available to American industry is one of the government's purposes in owning it. There are certainly disagreements over how well that's balanced against other goals, or against the long term future. But it's not like it's inherently corrupt that federal land is fed into the economy. That's what it's for.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LruaD7XhQ50
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LruaD7XhQ50
It isn't passing into private ownership, though. It is for a 10 year lease on the mineral rights; you still need to make a separate deal to get access through the surface to get to the minerals.
Using the 8% rule of thumb, a $2 annual lease is about $25 to buy. About $16K per square mile. I'm willing to bet you could buy surface rights to someplace inaccessible and inarable for that price. Mineral rights for places with low prospects of minerals are generally worth significantly less than surface rights.
I have looked into this a few years ago. The leases only give you some limited rights. It isn't like you can go live there. There are a lot of rules about how the land can be used. You still have to permit public access to the land, etc.
Well there is probably more to the story then just this. For example there are places in France where you can buy a house and a small piece of land for 1 euro. While this may sound strange the reason the government does this is because those houses where left abandoned. So when you buy it you sign a contract with special rules that say that you need to refurbish it or rebuild it within a few years.
Source? I'd be willing to fix up house in Europe.
Googling "france acheter maison 1 eur" find for example this: https://www.18h39.fr/articles/maison-a-1-euro-vraiment-une-b...) (use Google Translate etc.)
The above Is true also in Italy. Google "Italia case ad un euro".
The federal government owns a ton of land in the west when compared to the rest of the United States. The federal government owns 64.9% of Utah, but owns 0.3% of New York, 4.4% of South Carolina, and 13.2% of Florida.[0] We should auction off more land in the west, instead of leasing it.
[0] https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_land_ownership_by_state
[0] https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_land_ownership_by_state
This is a terrible idea. Why is making public land into private land a benefit to the nation when it can be used and enjoyed by the entire public, preserve wildlife, and be sustainably managed? Why would auctioning it off be good, getting far below it's worth for a single one time gain, and then stopping all of us from benefiting from recreational opportunities and further degrading the small amounts of relatively pristine land.
I'm not sure why that's wanted?
If the goal is to equalize the amount of land owned by the federal government in each state, why not do the opposite and have the government gain control of more land in the east?
If the goal is to equalize the amount of land owned by the federal government in each state, why not do the opposite and have the government gain control of more land in the east?
Who said that was the goal? That doesn't make any sense. It would cost billions to buy up land on the east coast and only inflate the value of the remaining land.
Outside of monuments and parks most of the land the gov owns in western states is undesirable. You can already buy very cheap land in the middle of nowhere UT, NM, NV, and AZ. The market for off grid desert land with no water is small.
Outside of monuments and parks most of the land the gov owns in western states is undesirable. You can already buy very cheap land in the middle of nowhere UT, NM, NV, and AZ. The market for off grid desert land with no water is small.
Pretty hard. The feds can’t just gain property. They have it in the west by having reserved it in the first place. That is, federal land in the west never belonged to the state.
Now what we should have done over the last twenty years is just buy Canada. It works have only cost a few trillion dollars (non-urban areas only) and would have radically expanded federal holdings.
Now what we should have done over the last twenty years is just buy Canada. It works have only cost a few trillion dollars (non-urban areas only) and would have radically expanded federal holdings.
Nevada is 2/3 federal land as well, I think, but a lot of it is radioactive...
Given the challenges we face with climate change, it should be going the other way. The government should be buying more land back east and slowing down on leasing. We need to give more land back to nature, and the Fed has the resources and longevity to oversee that type of project.
Government leased land tends to contribute far more to climate change. Landowners tend to be better stewards of their property than renters or bureaucrats.
Examples include cattle overgrazing on BLM land, fracking on leased land, military activities (the worst offender of them all) and really any mineral/oil/gas/water exploitation in which the user has no incentive to keep the land in good quality (e.g. maintaining a resale value).
It's counterintuitive, but unless you make it all a National Park, pretty much every other government land use will cause more harm than privatization.
Examples include cattle overgrazing on BLM land, fracking on leased land, military activities (the worst offender of them all) and really any mineral/oil/gas/water exploitation in which the user has no incentive to keep the land in good quality (e.g. maintaining a resale value).
It's counterintuitive, but unless you make it all a National Park, pretty much every other government land use will cause more harm than privatization.
Not only climate change but even just restoring wildlife habitats. I'd love to see an effort to minimize land used or modified by humans.
An unknown amount of otherwise unwanted land is being leased by Craig for what is, at this point, an unknown reason? Neat.
Why assume oil? Isn't it more likely, given the oil economics right now, that it is gold, or something else?
Given that the "Guy Named Craig" owns a company specifically around oil and gas extraction, one of those two seems probable unless someone outbids him.
The leases mentioned in the article as specifically for oil and gas development as are handled by the "National Fluids Lease Sale System": https://nflss.blm.gov/
Mining gold on federal lands seems to go through a different (and easier) process (involving staking a mining claim as opposed to nominating land and then bidding on it in an auction): https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-minerals/mining-and-...
Mining gold on federal lands seems to go through a different (and easier) process (involving staking a mining claim as opposed to nominating land and then bidding on it in an auction): https://www.blm.gov/programs/energy-and-minerals/mining-and-...
Yes! I worked in precious metals exploration and the staking process seemed kinda crazy to me---racing up and down the hills in prospective areas, carrying the paperwork and bottles to put it them in (you can't use regular glass because the sun will eventually set the paper on fire). Guess it still is, at least in some states.
Given low (present) oil demand, if you have capital now might be a good time to try and gain access to potential oil reserves for when the demand is restored (which will happen as nations start opening up more, especially for travel). Oil demand may even see a boost as travel reopens.
Airlines may have to reduce passenger capacity to maintain social distancing rules (legal or just customer demand), potentially increasing the total number of flights along various routes. And more people will probably be traveling by car than by air for domestic/regional travel, which (in aggregate) would be less fuel efficient than mass transit.
Airlines may have to reduce passenger capacity to maintain social distancing rules (legal or just customer demand), potentially increasing the total number of flights along various routes. And more people will probably be traveling by car than by air for domestic/regional travel, which (in aggregate) would be less fuel efficient than mass transit.
Gold is under old mountains, and at rivers below them. These are very young and light sand rocks. You cannot expect any gold, oil or gas there. But lot of tourism.
How about uranium? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moab_uranium_mill_tailings_pil...)
This seems like such a preposterous idea to me. You can buy an acre of land for $2 and just... just own it? I don't mean land ownership in general but rather a situation like this. So some company can just buy up the prairie and then anyone who'd want to use this for something productive (personally wouldn't consider drilling for oil productive) has to go and deal with them. That seems a bit backward, I'd rather see that land in the hands of Native Americans or, since the other option is a pipe dream, controlled by the government.
It's a mineral right, not a surface right. They can't do anything on the surface (including building the well) unless they obtain surface rights (a separate process). Mineral rights are there so they can investigate if there is oil and if they find it they can claim it without having to worry about other people claiming it. If you only lease when you know there is oil then this disincetivises prospecting, this way you lease first then prospect. If there is nothing underground then the lease is useless to you (you can't do anything with the surface and there is nothing underground).
https://bwab.com/surface-rights-vs-mineral-rights-whats-the-...
https://bwab.com/surface-rights-vs-mineral-rights-whats-the-...
It's a lease: "The lease has a term of ten years, and, after the gavel comes down, the annual rental fee per acre would be a dollar and a half for the first five years, and two dollars for the second."
That's so ridiculously insanely cheap....is the land really that worthless?
Well, it's one of the most famous places in the world, with tons of tourists every year. But when you start destroying this, it's worthless for sure.
Can you elaborate? What does the map look like, where do the tourists go, and what part of it will be defiled with oil & gas development?
You might be right. But based on the information in the article, it might also be true that tourists don't ever notice that any of this happened.
You might be right. But based on the information in the article, it might also be true that tourists don't ever notice that any of this happened.
This only gives mineral rights on a 10 year lease. The government then gets 12.5% of whatever minerals are taken.
Over $1000 per square mile per year is a lot of money if there aren't any minerals worth exploiting on that square mile.
Well, there will be a lease auction, so you can feel free to bid $2.50 per acre per year.
But basically, almost nobody is willing to even go to this land even if they did own it. Even environmental charities would probably set their sights elsewhere: jungles and waterways are almost certainly more environmentally significant.
But basically, almost nobody is willing to even go to this land even if they did own it. Even environmental charities would probably set their sights elsewhere: jungles and waterways are almost certainly more environmentally significant.
It's worth whatever the market will pay. You can totally be "that guy" who drops 10 mil on a 2 dollar acre of land. You'd probably get in the local paper.
Yes that is what they teach american kids: you pay the fee, you own the stuff.
It often turns out to be more complicated, because most of the land in the United States is stolen land. In the Hawaiian Kingdom, King Kamehameha III "invented" private property because the kingdom was starting to open up to the global world and he wanted to make sure the lands which the people occupied could not be stolen by way of foreign military invasion. Which is impressive considering that a foreign military invasion did indeed come, and those lands could not legally be seized by the invading forces. The land would need to be stolen by other means. Up until then, land was not property it was a responsibility, to the family, the community, and by extension, the nation as a whole. Land could not be owned, only stewarded. Land could not be sold for profit. A friend of mine put it nicely, he said that, to him, the buying and selling of land is like prostituting a family member, who is also an elder.
It just doesnt make sense, so try not to think about it. You get too many people thinking about it at the same time, the whole system is liable to fall apart.
It often turns out to be more complicated, because most of the land in the United States is stolen land. In the Hawaiian Kingdom, King Kamehameha III "invented" private property because the kingdom was starting to open up to the global world and he wanted to make sure the lands which the people occupied could not be stolen by way of foreign military invasion. Which is impressive considering that a foreign military invasion did indeed come, and those lands could not legally be seized by the invading forces. The land would need to be stolen by other means. Up until then, land was not property it was a responsibility, to the family, the community, and by extension, the nation as a whole. Land could not be owned, only stewarded. Land could not be sold for profit. A friend of mine put it nicely, he said that, to him, the buying and selling of land is like prostituting a family member, who is also an elder.
It just doesnt make sense, so try not to think about it. You get too many people thinking about it at the same time, the whole system is liable to fall apart.
To use land for something productive, you usually have to have exclusive rights to it. That's exactly what this process does - gives exclusive access to whoever wants to do something productive with it. Selling land at auction is a good way to ensure it goes to whoever expects to make the most productive use of it. If an oil company gets it cheap and then makes a profit charging someone else to use it, good for them - that means they correctly predicted future demand, which is better than what anyone else did.
But it's especially not a problem here because desert land in America is extremely plentiful and unwanted. It's effectively an unlimited resource. Do you know of any native Americans who want to use some remote desert but can't because they don't own it? Give them $2 to lease some. The government won't use it any more than they're already not using it so it's no use in their hands. They've already blasted big areas of desert with nuclear bombs and left it permanently radioactive so it's not even clear that the government is a good steward of land anyway.
But it's especially not a problem here because desert land in America is extremely plentiful and unwanted. It's effectively an unlimited resource. Do you know of any native Americans who want to use some remote desert but can't because they don't own it? Give them $2 to lease some. The government won't use it any more than they're already not using it so it's no use in their hands. They've already blasted big areas of desert with nuclear bombs and left it permanently radioactive so it's not even clear that the government is a good steward of land anyway.
> That's exactly what this process does - gives exclusive access to whoever wants to do something productive with it.
No, that’s not at all what this process does. It provides limited mineral rights for the land. That is all. No surface rights and definitely not exclusive rights to the land.
No, that’s not at all what this process does. It provides limited mineral rights for the land. That is all. No surface rights and definitely not exclusive rights to the land.
It's just mineral rights lease, right? You can still go build a home there since and you'll own that land, just not the mineral rights. I think in most cases when you own land, you don't own mineral rights.
Indeed, this is meaning of “real estate”.
As long as we still need oil and we're not in some final strerch where we're certain we can just use the last of our reserves, I'd consider drilling productive.
[deleted]
Am I the only one who read the headline and thought this was going to be something about Craigslist?
Spent a few minutes trying to figure out why Black Lives Matter owned so much of Utah...
Alas! Its a different Craig.
May have control... Over mineral exploration licences. And.. it looks like guys like Craig bid in to prevent exploration by determining not to explore. So they are bidding to preserve federal land against the predations of exploration in a time of declining markets for oil and gas
I don't think this is a correct reading of the article. Craig Larson is the owner of Prairie Hills Oil & Gas. Nothing in the article suggests that he nominated the land in order to prevent oil and gas exploration.
I think you are confusing Larson with Terry Tempest Williams, who is mentioned later in the article as trying to lease land in order to prevent it from being leased by oil and gas companies. The article doesn't suggest that Williams and her husband plan to bid on rights in the upcoming auction, so it seems likely that Larson (or another oil and gas company) will win that auction.
I think you are confusing Larson with Terry Tempest Williams, who is mentioned later in the article as trying to lease land in order to prevent it from being leased by oil and gas companies. The article doesn't suggest that Williams and her husband plan to bid on rights in the upcoming auction, so it seems likely that Larson (or another oil and gas company) will win that auction.
In particular, Larsen is the one who nominated the land for being able to be leased. If he wanted to protect the land from being leased, the obvious way to do so was to simply not nominate it, so it wouldn't be up for auction, so nobody could bid on it. The fact that he nominated it at all means that he wants to bid on it.
(I should say it means he means to bid on at least some of it. I could see wanting to bid on something specific, and nominating much more than that, so that anybody who wants to swipe the piece you're interested in doesn't know which piece to bid on.)
(I should say it means he means to bid on at least some of it. I could see wanting to bid on something specific, and nominating much more than that, so that anybody who wants to swipe the piece you're interested in doesn't know which piece to bid on.)
I think you are confusing Larson with Terry Tempest Williams, who is mentioned later in the article as trying to lease land in order to prevent it from being leased by oil and gas companies
Yes. That's precisely my mistake. Thanks for the correction.
Yes. That's precisely my mistake. Thanks for the correction.
He never stated his motivations so it’s impossible to tell what he wants to do. Also neither in the article nor any of the links could I find information regarding the actual size of the land to be leased. 100 acres? 10,000? Who knows
Here's a link from the BLM's website about the sale, which is to take place September 2020:
https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2000028/510
https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2000028/510
I'd be surprised if it was less than 100k acres. If you haven't been in that part of the US the scale of nothingness is hard to put in words.
Gotta raise those royalty rates!
The Federal Government, as you can imagine, controls vast amounts of mineral acreage and the nomination process is how these plots of mineral rights are brought up to auction. The auctions used to be done in person, but now they are done online at www.energynet.com.
Federal Oil and Gas leases are all standardized. Like the article states, the term is for 10 years. You pay an initial bonus consideration payment up front (whose price is determined by auction), and then afterwards you pay an annual rental payment. Any production on a Federal lease is subject to a 12.5% royalty rate, which generally is very cheap compared to a lease from a private mineral owner.
The article doesn't make the distinction very clear, but this is for the leasing of the mineral rights only; surface rights are separate and distinct and might not even be owned by the Federal Government. If a well was to be drilled, there would be a separate surface use agreement between the oil and gas company and the surface owner.
If anyone has any questions about the general process of Federal leasing I can try to answer them as best as I can!