Skip to comments.OIL FRACKING LEASES Reason For Bundy Ranch Fiasco in Nevada NOT 'Desert Tortoise!
Posted on 04/11/2014 8:34:41 AM PDT by Kackikat
"The Bureau of Land Management has just cashed in with $1.27 million in oil and gas leases in Nevada. This was just reported two weeks ago in ShaleReporter.com, which states:
U.S. Bureau of Land Management geologist Lorenzo Trimble tells the Las Vegas Review-Journal the Elko County oil and gas leases sold
Tuesday for $1.27 million to six different companies. The auction took place in Reno. The leases are near where Houston-based Noble Energy Inc. wants to drill for oil and natural gas on 40,000 acres of public and private land near the town of Wells. The Review-Journal reports the project would be the first in Nevada to use hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to extract oil and gas from shale deposits.
The way this works, of course, is that BLM runs land theft operations by claiming they are managing the land and thereby kicking everyone else off it. "
(Excerpt) Read more at thesurvivalplaceblog.com ...
I don’t. I have cows and understand the business. I have to pay my lease fees on the land I don’t own.
I know carbon dioxide is put under pressure down the well that is also horizontal in two directions at the bottom of the well, where the carbon dioxide combusts and releases the oil/gas from the shale. I wouldn't call carbon dioxide a toxic chemical in a well as the author does. He should list the toxic chemicals if he says there are some.
There is also no proof fracking causes earthquakes. Underground geology is considered before a fracking well is drilled.
These drilling companies strive for safety as they don't want anything to happen to destroy the well they are drilling. They are investing millions of dollars to bring in that well and lose millions if the well is compromised. They also have to abide by OSHA safety rules while drilling these wells.
You hit the nail on the head, and I see it in courthouse deeds or contracts all the time, and the democrat leftist control freaks have even gone so far as to hide those facts.
That sounds plausible.
We get the government we deserve, and we deserve what we tolerate. Bundy seems to be done tolerating what the rest of us have put up with.
I doubt he paid his lease after his permit was denied, due to the tortoise.
Interesting how the Feds voted themselves control of state lands. The states need to start evicting the blm, EPA, NSF, ect.
Government control and greed anyway, and the real fact being more lies from the BLM, to hide ‘whatever’.
I’m not saying ‘everything’ Mike Adams wrote is accurate, but in reviewing the Natural News and the Map, I’m considering the lying involved.... it was the best source available and the article I found this morning.
However, I think now that these solar damage issues and the oil leases are surfacing, we will find more facts that have been hidden under the guise of the ‘Desert Tortoise”. And exposure of a cover up to make money, when all the BLM had to do was take Bundy’s money he tried to pay for the leasing in prior years....instead this refusal and saying he did not pay shows premeditation to eventually do exactly what they are doing now.
Only if they get production. Otherwise, no.
Early leases let in the Bakken play were going for from $0.25 to 0.50 an acre. Much of the area had been drilled conventionally (vertical wells) and the usual producing formations had little to no porosity development. Keep in mind it was all highly experimental, and at that point, considered pure risk for the oil companies involved.
Still, Oil drilling/production has never really interfered with grazing. The Blackburn field north of Eureka was discovered partly because of natural oil seeps in stock (water) tanks.
That would be the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, which was passed in response to overgrazing on public lands managed by the federal government. The reason the BLM has a grazing lease system in place is for the protection of the public lands by limiting erosion and degradation of these rangelands which can be caused by overgrazing.
I perceive you are quite understanding of the core problems.
Reid is on record as opposing oil leases on federal property. That is easily searched. Some of Bundy’s STATE water rights are from the Virgin River. Nevada water law says you have to use the water or loose it, reverts back to the State.
Las Vegas ahs already applied and won Federal approval for a pipeline that runs clean through the disputed area and involves the Virgin River water shed.
Study the Owens Valley in Kalifornia, same mechanism.
They even refer to rail transported Bakken oil as 'fracked' as if that made it more dangerous, not realizing it is the rock around the wellbore which gets fracked, not the oil.
Any other companies bidding for the lease that didn’t get the lease even though they had a higher bid, would have a record of what they bid and could blow the whole thing out of the water.
If that is all they paid for that amount of acreage, then it is a completely untested much less unproven area and other companies didn’t think it was worth the trouble.
The winners of the bid might end up making out like a bandit.
Oh, noes! Not “fracked” oil! “Fracked” oil is much, much worse than any other kind of oil! “Fracked” oil means we’re all gonna die! ;-)
Thanks for those links. And this link is about the solar use damage in So Nevada, and the dry lake....?
You are starting to make a lot of sense, so keep it up.
The lies about the tortoise is what shows us that there is more to this than protecting a reptile the BLM was destroying a year ago, and it’s between oil leases, solar issue and dry lake, and now your links showing water as a goal or maybe all of it....bringing all this info together shows that BLM has a lot to hide from public.
It sounds like this rancher's original beef (pun intended) was that he felt his grazing fees weren't being used to his benefit. His mistake was diverging from that legal argument and going down a path of challenging BLM's statutory authority to administer those lands. That is a losing argument.
The family has done a good job of framing the argument as the poor rancher trying to fight the evil government, but that will only last so long.
One question, does that mean if Bundy loses the use of the public grazing rights on government land, that he may lose water rights on his ranch as well?
On TV did I see BLM idiots pointing pistols at the pro-rancher crowd?
“it could get really hairy down there.”
I don’t think anything would get him down there.
Read Post #63, as it addresses some of the water rights that may be lost by Bundy Ranch...??
The conspiracy, in my view, is the government not taking Bundy’s payments years ago, as a plan to get him off the land completely.... eventually, and not about the oil leases. The state would not take the payments, so he did the maintenance the BLM would not do. The BLM waited until the lease money owed had accumulated to a large enough sum to warrant doing away with his grazing agreement.
Who knows what is in the mind of environmentalists, government control freaks, or BLM officials.
In other news>>>>>>>>
What the hell is the Federal Guv in far away Washington DC doing owning so much land in Nevada? The state of Nevada and various counties should be owning and administering this land. The huge Fed Guv percentage of ownership of Alaskan and Western states lands is thievery
The truth falls victim to hysterical silliness, but, unfortunately, combined with the 'Captain Planet' meme of eeeevil "Big Oil", people who don't think just lap it up.
Then begins the tedium of trying to educate the hysterical and clear up other misconceptions.
IMHO, I do not believe any government should own the land, because it promotes greed and manipulation.
Bundy family has grazing rights with the state. The state of Nevada has a governor that should be pushing back against the feds. Some congressional reps are getting behind Bundy.
Land was always open for hundreds of years and only recently came under federal ‘administration’. The state of Nevada has granted grazing rights to ranchers for much longer and has sovereignty.
My first impression when I heard about this was that the Bundy family were encroaching on federal land but that’s not the case.
Bundy principally opposes the United States motion for summary judgment on the ground that this court lacks jurisdiction because the United States does not own the public lands in question. As this court previously ruled in United States v. Bundy, Case No. CV-S- 98-531-JBR (RJJ) (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 1998), the public lands in Nevada are the property of the United States because the United States has held title to those public lands since 1848, when Mexico ceded the land to the United States. CV-S-98-531 at 8 (citing United States v. Gardner, 107 F.3d 1314, 1318 (9th Cir. 1997)).While I think Bundy is legally in the wrong here, I think it abhorrent that the federal government thinks it's appropriate to mount a small-scale, armed invasion of BLM agents to remove cattle when it won't lift a finger to remove 12 million illegal aliens who are also trespassing and doing exponentially more damage to the land and the economy than grazing cattle.
Moreover, Bundy is incorrect in claiming
- that the Disclaimer Clause of the Nevada Constitution carries no legal force, see Gardner, 107 F.3d at 1320;
- that the Property Clause of the United States Constitution applies only to federal lands outside the borders of states, see id. at 1320;
- that the United States exercise of ownership over federal lands violates the Equal Footing Doctrine, see id. at 1319;
- that the United States is basing its authority to sanction Bundy for his unauthorized use of federal lands on the Endangered Species Act as opposed to trespass, see Compl. at ¶¶ 1,3, 26-39; and that Nevadas Open Range statute excuses Bundys trespass. See e.g., Gardner, 107 F.3d at 1320 (under Supremacy Clause state statute in conflict with federal law requiring permit to graze would be trumped).
“IMHO, I do not believe any government should own the land, because it promotes greed and manipulation.”
That’s right, we’ve been here before.
The Teapot Dome scandal was a bribery incident that took place in the United States from 1920 to 1923 during the administration of President Warren G. Harding. Secretary of the Interior Albert B. Fall leased Navy petroleum reserves at Teapot Dome in Wyoming and two other locations in California to private oil companies at low rates without competitive bidding. In 1922 and 1923, the leases became the subject of a sensational investigation by Senator Thomas J. Walsh. Fall was later convicted of accepting bribes from the oil companies.
As we’ve seen demonstrated time and again, corruption sticks to this `transparent’ administration like snot on a suede jacket.
Drilling and grazing happen together on public land all the time. One does not preclude the other. This story is BS, as anyone in oil country will know.
It is the case. Nevada cannot grant grazing access to public land that it doesn't own. The U.S. owns that land and has since 1848, which was 16 years before Nevada became a state. Nevada disclaimed all right and title to that land when it became a state.
There is a valid argument to be made that Nevada's disclaim was unconstitutional, but that is a separate discussion. Under the supreme law of the land right now, Nevada doesn't own the land.
“Go buy you some cows and see if you can graze on BLM land without paying.”
The larger issue here is just why does the Federal Government “own” 85% of Nevada? The land was basically “a bribe” taken by the Federal Government when most of the Western States “were allowed” to join the Union. With the mountain of debt the Fed’s have today, seems to me that they should be divesting themselves of most all of it, and disbanding the BLM.
This control of massive swaths of land in the west by the feds is unconstitutional. Lands have to be sold by the states to the feds and are limited to usage such as post offices, postal roads, forts, dock yards etc.
As Article One, Section 8, Clause 17 states, Congress has the power:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.
BLM has also refused to round up about 2,000 wild horses on this ground which by their grazing habits cause much more damage than cattle.
This is about control beginning with the land in the western states and unless its checked will continjue to spread like a cancer.
These county sheriffs and states need to man up here and begin kicking the BLM off state lands.
I did read several places that Nevada Gov outspokenly opposed BLM attack on Bundy Ranch, stating ‘the Feds were over reaching and violating Constitutional rights’...
So true. Mr. Bundy is running 900 head of cattle on 600,000 acres. They hardly make an imprint.
The only way this administration would allow fracking on fed lands is if there was no oil or gas there.
the amazing thing here is that the feds have even allowed any test drilling to happen given how biased the feds are against oil.
for years nevadans have talked about how the ground in those counties just stinks of oil.
A lot of wells were poked in the ground in previous decades before fracking but nothing much came up.
But for one exception.
One of the biggest producing wells in US history produced in volume for more than a decade back in the 1980’s in one of those counties in Nevada. Oil people talk about how there had to be a lot more oil locked in shale— feeding that oil pool from below.
Its very very possible imho that the size of the shale oil deposits in Nevada will rival those in the eagle ford and the baaken. In that case, being owners of the land — some serious revenues would accrue to federal accounts.
Agree with the note above that Las Vegas is trying to do a water grab for water under upstate counties similar to what Los Angeles did 100 years ago to Owens Valley. imho it would be wiser for 6 southwestern states to lobby the feds to pipe spring (March-June) flood Mississippi river water over the south pass in Wyoming. That would lower the Mississippi by 10 feet, prevent flooding and inundate the southwest with new water.
It doesn’t look like either water or oil have much to do with the Rancher issue. That just looks like the BLM being the BLM. That is, a bunch of knuckleheads. If the rationale for the whole deal is the tortoise—then the tortoise needs to go. Its just impossible that tortoises and cows can’t be friends or inhabit the same ground.
He stopped paying the fees when the BLM stopped maintaining the land that was agreed upon. And he has kept up maintaining the property on his own dime. I wish more freepers would get the whole story. This is just like the kid who had his flag flying upside down and had the Marines take it. The freepers had no Idea what the protests were about, yet they were quick to judge. This is the same kind of thing. I can’t believe freepers are believing anything the Government is reporting. And why is his cattle being killed and buried? That is good ole fashion cattle rustling by the BLM. I AM CLIVE BUNDY.
I just remembered that the UN has been pushing to get control of USA water for the past ten years, and this bunch of government employees are all UN followers.
I’ll read the links you provided and see what I can glean from Nevada law and CA issue for this situation.
The question is:
“Shoul local public land currently being used and historically being used for the good of the local community be taken from the local community for the claimed benefit of the national community?”
I’m not asking this question legally, I’m asking morally.
Bingo and also the BLM stopped maintaining the land that was agreed upon. So Mr Bundy stopped paying. He has maintained the land out of his own pocket.
The US govt is not supposed to be holding ownership of land in the states except for a very precise set of reasons. Grazing cattle isn’t one of them nor is oil and gas leasing. So Bundy has more of an argument than the govt
I know in 2002 when I was camping on BLM land in Utah, out in the middle of nowhere, cattle were all around our site grazing.
I should have been a good citizen and got the Fed involved to stop this atrocity.
Grand Staircase Escalante to stop coal mining
The original agreement between Nevada (or any state) and the federal government bestows certain rights the state retains.
The federal government cannot ‘own’ land in a territory that is not a state. It can ‘administer’ and claim legal or territorial jurisdiction over a territory; but never ownership. When a state is incorporated the land jurisdiction is made a negotiated part of the agreement between the state and the federal government.
Your argument that the federal government ‘owned’ land in Nevada falls flat. The land was never bought from anyone and there was never any title to it.
The ranchers grazing on that land for generations were never encroaching on it. The federal land grabs came later and many of the grabs were driven by special interests.
We will see if the governor of Nevada decides to assert state rights and if he doesn’t, we will see what Congress does about it when the Nevada caucus gets revved up.
This just in threats against Americans for supporting the Bundys. Funny how ballsy these people get when Fedzilla is on their side.
It seems that THIS admin BELIEVES that grazing cattle creates global
warming!!! Since the FEDS seem to OWN so much OPEN land around
ranchers WE as a nation are going to SEE ALOT MORE of this!!! MY
grocery bill is absolutely OUT OF CONTROL as it is right now!!! The
damage to this country is happening so QUICKLY somethings gotta give!!!
I have to tell you I HATE THIS SOB!!!
Actually, The USA won the war with Mexico and the treaty of guadelupe Hildago took the land including Nevada and paid Mexico $15 million for it. The government ownership of the land was the basis for the homestead policy where people were given land to occupy it.
The badlands were not homesteaded. I think the existing 150 acres actually owned night be land originally obtained by homesteading.
You are incorrect. The U.S. purchased that land from Mexico for $15 million in 1848 under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. (See my post up-thread.) The U.S. owned the land before Nevada was a territory or a state.