You make the government, which some but not all of the potential claimants commission, a necessary player in property distribution. That is wrong philosophically, -- because we can easily imagine an ungoverned society which has property rights, -- and it is surely illibertarian. Now, let us recall what the argument is about. You say that Peikoff deviates from the libertarian philosophy and I say he doesn't. If your point is that the government is a necessary element in any system of property rights, then you are debating the core libertarian principle of minimal government; but you are already wrong on whether Peikoff's views are in conformance with libertarianism.
Yes lets. Piekoff says go steal the oil. I say it's stealing you say its libertarian.
And, without government there is no real property ownership. You do not find that in nature. Thus "property rights" which aren't attached to personal belongings do not exist outside of governed borders.
I suppose we agree on the matter of foreign and domestic property owners. I say that you're correct in one sense but it's about who does and who doesn't have the property rights regardless of their status.
Perhaps this is more of a value disagreement. You seem to think that all resources in the ground are for the taking by whomever gets their first.
I don't agree with that stance and I say that you are talking less about libertarian principle and more about a certain mindset which says 'if it's there we can go get it and use it to "create wealth."' And you are trying to fit that within a political philosophy where it just doesn't really belong.
I don't agree with that mindset. I do believe that a sovereign nation may refuse to allow people to willy nilly make claims on the resources within their borders and that there is nothing illibertarian about that in the slightest.