Who owns the natural resources of the US ? Help

[Penelope]

I have read where private companies in the US own the oil and NG resources and also pipelines whereas in most other countries most of the natural resources are owned by the government (where I think they should be owned- which in my mind would mean the citizens own them).

I understand private corps are hired to work on pipelines and that, same as hi ways, but from what I have been reading is most of this is owned by private corps, and also some hi ways which charge tolls then.

So which is it?

 

[irosie91]

I have read where private companies in the US own the oil and NG resources and also pipelines whereas in most other countries most of the natural resources are owned by the government (where I think they should be owned- which in my mind would mean the citizens own them).

I understand private corps are hired to work on pipelines and that, same as hi ways, but from what I have been reading is most of this is owned by private corps, and also some hi ways which charge tolls then.

So which is it?

take a deep breath and try to express your ideas in standard english

 

[BULLDOG]

A lease with the right to drill on public lands is sold to oil companies, and they pay a few cents per barrel of oil they harvest.

 

[Pogo]

I have read where private companies in the US own the oil and NG resources and also pipelines whereas in most other countries most of the natural resources are owned by the government (where I think they should be owned- which in my mind would mean the citizens own them).

I understand private corps are hired to work on pipelines and that, same as hi ways, but from what I have been reading is most of this is owned by private corps, and also some hi ways which charge tolls then.

So which is it?

take a deep breath and try to express your ideas in standard english

Ironic advice from Mrs. Emdash ------------- it's perfectly comprehensible to me --------- and FWIW "standard English" generally includes uppercase initial words/proper nouns and something called a period at the end.

I agree with the OP, the natural resources belong to The People. They cannot be sold. We can arrange contracts for who gets to mine them and how, and having done that those enterprises own the material they mine, but the mine itself whence the materials came, is ours.

 

[Ringel05]

A lease with the right to drill on public lands is sold to oil companies, and they pay a few cents per barrel of oil they harvest.

In many areas you, I or anyone else can get a permit to stake a small, private mining claim on public lands. The permit is usually free and any ore/crystal/gems we extract are ours to keep or sell.

 

[BULLDOG]

Try that with an oil lease. The big oil companies are the only ones who get a shot at those.

 

[RGR]

So which is it?

The mineral right owners.

 

[RGR]

I agree with the OP, the natural resources belong to The People. They cannot be sold.

My mineral rights belong to me. And I can assure you, I did sell them. And then they were produced, and sold by both the coal company and natural gas company, and they paid me my cut of those proceeds. This is quite common in America, not so much around the rest of the world where keeping people from owning something of value, or protecting something of value (such as their lives, and gun laws) is not near as common.

 

[HenryBHough]

In Communist-leaning states land ownership is limited to the surface and all below it belongs to "the people". That's why some California communities have set out to outlaw private water wells unless they are metered and "the people" get paid for every drop "extracted".

Rancher wars are back...over California water

 

[Moonglow]

It's owned by public and private...

 

[Penelope]

In Communist-leaning states land ownership is limited to the surface and all below it belongs to "the people". That's why some California communities have set out to outlaw private water wells unless they are metered and "the people" get paid for every drop "extracted".

Rancher wars are back...over California water

Good article, and yes I did read about the wells going dry in California. I think its good idea to meter the water leaving wells.

As private landowners, your land is well, your land. But sourcing groundwater ownership can be trickier. And it depends on who you ask. When you drill down, say 1,000 feet, and pump up water, you're also potentially tapping your neighbors' groundwater from peripheral lands.

Such drilling activity is not illegal. And landowners argue they own the land and the water underneath, period. Full stop.

See it comes down to who has the money to drill down, and what runs underground does not necessarily belong to those who live on top of it.

 

[Penelope]

Yes farmland is becoming a huge commodity, or water actually, this needs to end, the US doesn't even own the US anymore.


Saudi Arabia buying up farmland in US Southwest

However, the issue of land rights comes into play. As the owners of the land, the Saudis appear to be playing by the rules. The area of the Arizona desert where the Saudis bought land is a region with little or no regulation on groundwater use. That's in contrast to most of the state, 85 percent of which has strict groundwater rules.

Local development and groundwater pumping have contributed to the groundwater table falling since 2010 by more than 50 feet in parts of La Paz County, 130 miles west of Phoenix. State documents show there are at least 23 water wells on the lands controlled by Alamarai's subsidiary, Fondomonte Arizona. Each of the wells is capable of pumping more than 100,000 gallons daily.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/15/saudi-arabia-buying-up-farmland-in-us-southwest.html


Keith Murfield, CEO of United Dairymen of Arizona, "The alfalfa exports are tantamount to exporting water, because in Saudi Arabia, they have decided that it's better to bring feed in rather than to empty their water reserves." Murfield believes that this trend will continue unless there will be certain rules and regulations intended for it.

Saudi Arabia Buys Farmlands in US Southwest

 

[anotherlife]

Who owns the natural resources of the us? Those entities who get legal support to shoot you for it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes farmland is becoming a huge commodity, or water actually, this needs to end, the US doesn't even own the US anymore.


Saudi Arabia buying up farmland in US Southwest

However, the issue of land rights comes into play. As the owners of the land, the Saudis appear to be playing by the rules. The area of the Arizona desert where the Saudis bought land is a region with little or no regulation on groundwater use. That's in contrast to most of the state, 85 percent of which has strict groundwater rules.

Local development and groundwater pumping have contributed to the groundwater table falling since 2010 by more than 50 feet in parts of La Paz County, 130 miles west of Phoenix. State documents show there are at least 23 water wells on the lands controlled by Alamarai's subsidiary, Fondomonte Arizona. Each of the wells is capable of pumping more than 100,000 gallons daily.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/15/saudi-arabia-buying-up-farmland-in-us-southwest.html


Keith Murfield, CEO of United Dairymen of Arizona, "The alfalfa exports are tantamount to exporting water, because in Saudi Arabia, they have decided that it's better to bring feed in rather than to empty their water reserves." Murfield believes that this trend will continue unless there will be certain rules and regulations intended for it.

Saudi Arabia Buys Farmlands in US Southwest

Penelope, you are addressing a subject dear to my heart. Here in the West we have vast stretches of BLM and National Forest. As well as Monuments, National Parks, and Wildlife refuges. All of which we, as citizens are free to use within reasonable limits.

Now, there is a movement to sell off these lands to private individuals and corporations. It is behind the mask of 'Ranchers' movement, but that is just a mask. And it is supported by only one party, the GOP. What is really at stake here is the fact that alternative energy, wind, solar, and geothermal, are coming into their own. The cost for the first two is already very competitive with coal, gas, and nuclear. But they both require a lot of land.

Now most of the BLM land is land on which the homesteaders simply could not survive. So it is mostly used for grazing land for ranchers and for recreation. However, vast tracts of it are prime areas for wind and solar, as well as geothermal. And, if developed as the land presently stands, the royalties would go to the government, and could be used to fund National Park improvements, recreation areas, and even for the national debt.

But, if the land is sold to private individuals and corporations, that money will go to them. And the present grazing fees for the ranchers will go from $1.63 per unit, to market value, presently about $20. That will put the present ranchers out of business, and the owners of the land will then take over the ranches for pennies on the dollar. And we will pay a lot more for the beef we eat. At the same time, the hunting rights on the land will be sold to the highest bidder, foreign or domestic. And when the states sell the land, they will do so in chunks that the local ranchers will not have the finances to be able to buy.

So now we see an effort to sell off the public lands. For the benefit of the already very wealthy. As usual, using stooges who have not the intellect to see what the result will be.

 

[elektra]

Yes farmland is becoming a huge commodity, or water actually, this needs to end, the US doesn't even own the US anymore.


Saudi Arabia buying up farmland in US Southwest

However, the issue of land rights comes into play. As the owners of the land, the Saudis appear to be playing by the rules. The area of the Arizona desert where the Saudis bought land is a region with little or no regulation on groundwater use. That's in contrast to most of the state, 85 percent of which has strict groundwater rules.

Local development and groundwater pumping have contributed to the groundwater table falling since 2010 by more than 50 feet in parts of La Paz County, 130 miles west of Phoenix. State documents show there are at least 23 water wells on the lands controlled by Alamarai's subsidiary, Fondomonte Arizona. Each of the wells is capable of pumping more than 100,000 gallons daily.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/15/saudi-arabia-buying-up-farmland-in-us-southwest.html


Keith Murfield, CEO of United Dairymen of Arizona, "The alfalfa exports are tantamount to exporting water, because in Saudi Arabia, they have decided that it's better to bring feed in rather than to empty their water reserves." Murfield believes that this trend will continue unless there will be certain rules and regulations intended for it.

Saudi Arabia Buys Farmlands in US Southwest

Penelope, you are addressing a subject dear to my heart. Here in the West we have vast stretches of BLM and National Forest. As well as Monuments, National Parks, and Wildlife refuges. All of which we, as citizens are free to use within reasonable limits.

Now, there is a movement to sell off these lands to private individuals and corporations. It is behind the mask of 'Ranchers' movement, but that is just a mask. And it is supported by only one party, the GOP. What is really at stake here is the fact that alternative energy, wind, solar, and geothermal, are coming into their own. The cost for the first two is already very competitive with coal, gas, and nuclear. But they both require a lot of land.

Now most of the BLM land is land on which the homesteaders simply could not survive. So it is mostly used for grazing land for ranchers and for recreation. However, vast tracts of it are prime areas for wind and solar, as well as geothermal. And, if developed as the land presently stands, the royalties would go to the government, and could be used to fund National Park improvements, recreation areas, and even for the national debt.

But, if the land is sold to private individuals and corporations, that money will go to them. And the present grazing fees for the ranchers will go from $1.63 per unit, to market value, presently about $20. That will put the present ranchers out of business, and the owners of the land will then take over the ranches for pennies on the dollar. And we will pay a lot more for the beef we eat. At the same time, the hunting rights on the land will be sold to the highest bidder, foreign or domestic. And when the states sell the land, they will do so in chunks that the local ranchers will not have the finances to be able to buy.

So now we see an effort to sell off the public lands. For the benefit of the already very wealthy. As usual, using stooges who have not the intellect to see what the result will be.

But Old Crock, you want to take more of the Public Land and give it to corporations to use for Wind Mills and Solar, which is nothing but crony capitalism for rich?

Hypocrite, not good to produce food, but perfectly fine to turn into an Industrial zone to make Old Crock's chosen rich, well soaking the poor citizens for the cost, we lose wilderness and gain higher taxes, extreme electric bills, well the Democrats get rich.

 

[Old Rocks]

Idiot. Are you incapable of understanding English?

Do the farmers that have the mills on their land cease owning that land? No, they still own the land, and they get about $5000 per mill royalties per year. And they do nothing for that money. The utility install the mills and grid for them. And the farmers still grow wheat right up to the base of the mills. The same arrangement would be made for the present BLM lands. And it would not affect the hiking, hunting, and other recreational activities on that land, nor the grazing. Sell that land to private corportaions, and all these activities will be at the will of the corporation.

 

[elektra]

Idiot. Are you incapable of understanding English?

Do the farmers that have the mills on their land cease owning that land? No, they still own the land, and they get about $5000 per mill royalties per year. And they do nothing for that money. The utility install the mills and grid for them. And the farmers still grow wheat right up to the base of the mills. The same arrangement would be made for the present BLM lands. And it would not affect the hiking, hunting, and other recreational activities on that land, nor the grazing. Sell that land to private corportaions, and all these activities will be at the will of the corporation.

Please Old Crock, calm down, in Iowa, from a first hand source I have gathered it is 13,500.

But it does have an affect, it destroys the views, it kills the birds, it destroys the ridge lines. There are also access roads that have to be built so you can fill them up with 300 gallons of oil every few months. Access roads so that you can install them, Old Crock do you have any idea the type of road that is needed to move a 60 ton nacelle?

But, other than that, industrializing wild lands is exactly that, destruction. Further you can not hike near them, they require a mile easement at the least for safety, you know for when they burn up and crash to the ground.

 

[elektra]

Hey, Old Crock, you figure out what 1 x 12 is? It is as easy as pie

 

[Old Rocks]

Sheesh. I have stood under the big mills in many places in Eastern Oregon. You, Elektra, are a baldfaced liar. There are no restrictions on being near the mills. And the many times I have passed hundreds of them East and Southeast of The Dalles, I have yet to see one in failure mode. Of course, that does happen. But not that often. Certainly at a lessor rate than pipeline failures.

 

[elektra]

Sheesh. I have stood under the big mills in many places in Eastern Oregon. You, Elektra, are a baldfaced liar. There are no restrictions on being near the mills. And the many times I have passed hundreds of them East and Southeast of The Dalles, I have yet to see one in failure mode. Of course, that does happen. But not that often. Certainly at a lessor rate than pipeline failures.

I have not noticed the pictures you took Old Crock, you should post some of you standing under them.

Industry: Setback changes will end new wind farms in Ohio

Industry: Setback changes will end new wind farms in Ohio