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 ...
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.
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-533.html
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.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-12/las-vegas-water-pipeline-plan-challenged-in-u-s-court.html
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.
Not likely.
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?
Bump...
“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 Nevada’s “Open Range” statute excuses Bundy’s 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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.