7 ms·

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 comp

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.

Ajedi32 6y ago
Per the article they're not even purchasing the land, just bidding on a 10-year lease.
- metrokoi 6y ago
  Not even a lease on the land, a lease on the mineral rights!
xenocyon 6y ago
> 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."
- cortesoft 6y ago
  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.
- jeffdavis 6y ago
  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.
  - icedistilled 6y ago
    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.
    - ultrarunner 6y ago
      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.
      - icedistilled 6y ago
        Please See this other thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23553446 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.
        ultrarunner 6y ago
        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.
- bitexploder 6y ago
  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.
  - xenocyon 6y ago
    But drilling fundamentally and permanently alters the land, even if it is a lease rather than a purchase.
    - refurb 6y ago
      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.
      - icedistilled 6y ago
        But they often don't.
    - barney54 6y ago
      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.
      - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
        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?
- closeparen 6y ago
  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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LruaD7XhQ50
bryanlarsen 6y ago
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.
bitexploder 6y ago
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.

Ajedi32 6y ago

Per the article they're not even purchasing the land, just bidding on a 10-year lease.

metrokoi 6y ago
Not even a lease on the land, a lease on the mineral rights!

xenocyon 6y ago

> 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."

cortesoft 6y ago
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.
jeffdavis 6y ago
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.
- icedistilled 6y ago
  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.
  - ultrarunner 6y ago
    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.
    - icedistilled 6y ago
      Please See this other thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23553446 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.
      - ultrarunner 6y ago
        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.
bitexploder 6y ago
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.
- xenocyon 6y ago
  But drilling fundamentally and permanently alters the land, even if it is a lease rather than a purchase.
  - refurb 6y ago
    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.
    - icedistilled 6y ago
      But they often don't.
  - barney54 6y ago
    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.
    - kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
      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?
closeparen 6y ago
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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LruaD7XhQ50

bryanlarsen 6y ago

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.

bitexploder 6y ago

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.