It depends upon whether you own a particular contract for use or the whole enchilada. Both are property.
My understanding of property rights is that they are rights the individual with respect to his property to acquire, use and dispose of his property as he sees fit.
Those freedoms are limited to the property that one owns. If one owns the development rights, that's one thing. If it's the mineral rights that's another. If one owns both, then there is yet more control. Nothing is infinite. For example, one doesn't typically own the air space whether for transportation or for the distribution of electromagnetic signals; above a certain altitude is a socialized commons. I would argue that such is ultimately a bad thing, but that's how it is.
That is true; it is a socialized commons. There is a certain logic to the other side's designation as such. An airplane traversing over your airspace is a temporary thing - wait 30 seconds and it is gone. Transmission of electronic signals is similar - if the TV station stops broadcasting, the atmosphere remains in place.
Extraction of minerals, oil, natural gas, or even water, is extraction of a physical thing (entity) which has a monetary value associated with it. I don't believe the same logic can be used to justify mineral or oil rights to be a socialized commons, or pieces of property whose exploitation rights can be given/sold to companies.