OIL FRACKING LEASES Reason For Bundy Ranch Fiasco in Nevada NOT 'Desert Tortoise!

The Survival Place Blog ^ | Aprol 11, 2014 | kackikat

[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. "

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Public land? He is part of that public. It is public, not federal land...the government has no right to claim it.

---

What you obviously have not been following this. Thanks to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo or the ‘Divine Right of Kings’ or God's grant of dominion over the earth; every square inch of the US belongs to the government to use and charge for at their pleasure, even if they sold the rights to said land ect. What are you some kind of Robin Hood?/sarc

[BuckeyeTexan]

My first impression when I heard about this was that the Bundy family were encroaching on federal land but that’s not the case.

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.

[vette6387]

“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.

[bereanway]

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.

[Kackikat]

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’...

[Georgia Girl 2]

So true. Mr. Bundy is running 900 head of cattle on 600,000 acres. They hardly make an imprint.

[ckilmer]

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.

[Milton Miteybad]

The version of the story I've heard is that Bundy was paying his grazing fees, per his lease, to the BLM until 1993. In 1993, the BLM reduced his grazing allotment, i.e., the total amount of acreage he could use for grazing, as part of an effort to preserve habitat for this desert tortoise. So Bundy quits paying the BLM altogether because he figures he needs all the acreage he originally had to graze his herd.

Now, I don't think it's unreasonable for Bundy to be miffed because out in southern Nevada, it takes about 320 acres to sustain a single head of cattle. Less acreage for grazing means raising fewer cattle, unless you're feeding them at your own expense. But he still owed grazing fees on the acreage he was able to retain, and he didn't pay those to the BLM. Says he tried to pay the grazing fees to Clark County and the State of Nevada, but since he's leasing federal lands for his cattle, not state or county lands, he was paying his rental to the wrong agencies.

Why Bundy didn't reduce his herd back in 1993 or try to find rangeland that didn't have other wildlife issues is something that Bundy hasn't explained. If he had taken either action, he probably wouldn't have the BLM rounding up his cattle today.

I don't want to see this guy go out of business, but he *is* grazing his cattle on federal lands, after all, and if he is doing that, he's subjecting himself to federal rules. Gotta play by the rules. Like one poster stated above...if you don't pay your grazing fees, the owner of the land is likely to tell you to move your cattle somewhere else.

[crazydad]

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.

[Kackikat]

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.

[cizinec]

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.

[crazydad]

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.

[Georgia Girl 2]

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

[roofgoat]

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.

[bert]

precedent.....

Grand Staircase Escalante to stop coal mining

[Hostage]

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.

[crazydad]

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/water-environment/collins-manages-insult-offend-utahns-comments-bundy-roundup
This just in threats against Americans for supporting the Bundys. Funny how ballsy these people get when Fedzilla is on their side.

[Kit cat]

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!!!

[bert]

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.

[BuckeyeTexan]

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.

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.