Coming to a property near you.
 

I take it most people on here are not from or associated with rural property issues but this is a huge issue. Here are two examples of recent event which highlight the problems. As we search for greater energy independence there needs to be a balance struck.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/28/us/28wind.html?_r=1

If there's a place for wind power in Wyoming, Wheatland is it. Damned place gets hurricane force winds up in the mountains that barrel down into town providing a near steady 20 mph wind most days. Got stuck in a snow storm in those mountains overnight in May, not real fun digging out a high-centered F550 with 70-80 mph winds.

Energy opportunities abound out west, but people are pretty divided about it. Many long time ranchers don't take too kindly to the natural gas companies. One rancher I met said that he carries his rifle with him to shoot two things: coyotes and methaners. There's a real mentality of independence out there and little desire for "outsiders" coming in and screwing with the way things have been for years. That said, the potential profits from natural gas, wind power, etc. have been tempting enough for some ranchers, typically the younger ones.
The gas companies pay well too. Girl I met out there gets paid $15/hr to power wash gas company vehicles all day everyday. The methane boys' trucks are all brand new full size pickups with custom fabrication for their gas well checking instruments. Rumor had it these guys get upwards of $60K a year to maintain these gas wells, basically just driving around making sure each well that is about the size of a Suburban is still functioning. There's a lot of land out there, and as diesel becomes more expensive I would bet more ranchers turn to allowing gas wells and wind farms on their land.

There's a whole heap of traditional farming land in southeast central Qld (darling downs) that's about to be exploited for its natural gas.

The farmers are not going to be happy.

Around here the farmers are generally supportive of gas production. Most folks own the gas under their property at least until they sign a lease, which generally comes with a significant signing bonus and something over the state minimum for royalty payments.

I think that is the big difference. I believe that in Australia, owning the surface of the land does not mean you own the minerals beneath it. I believe that in the USA, it does.

Usually yes but not always. You have land rights and mineral rights and you can sell one and keep the other. Example: my grandfather sold some land years ago in Texas but kept the mineral rights. Last year oil was discovered on the property and wells were installed. Now our family shares revenue from that well with my dad's cousins who also inherited a piece of the mineral rights on that tract of land. The company that runs the wells sends us a monthly check, but the actual property owner doesn't get anything besides the initial payment from the oil extractors to build and work on his land.

Thanks to Kelo vs. New London, you don't have any rights over your own property. This is a lot easier to claim to be in the public interest than the higher tax revenues from fancier houses.

That's right Zen. So that means that as a 'speculater', you can put a mining lease on any land either privately and even sometimes government owned and the legal owner can't do jack shit about it. The only things on the land that are safe and not allowed to be disturbed are existing constructions an a small amount of land around said structures. The problem arrises when your lease needs access roads etc. There's no law saying how much the land owner can or cannot charge you to access your mine.

Generally though, because it's in the best interest of the mine to keep locals on side, they'll compensate land owners.

Can't the land owner just file for the mineral rights on their land? Is it expensive to do that?

Mineral rights can or cannot be a part of a sale of real property. It all depends. Same for timber rights.

I mean if there is a concern, can the homeowner file after or while buying the property? Do you know if someone else already has the mineral rights when you buy it? How does all that work in Aussieland?

Not after. Only before the sale.

I dunno.

I saw on TV once that if you claim prospecting or mining rights you have to do a certain amount of those activities on a regular basis or the rights lapse.

Is oil a mineral? Natural gas?

"Mineral" has two different definitions. From first year geology:
A solid substance occurring in earth with a fixed range of chemical composition (the last bit even rules out coal).

To the gubbmint:
anything valuable extracted from the ground. Except maybe water.

So; no, and yes, depending. It is a bit like fruit.

Yeah, water rights are separate, but I guess anything else of value comes under mineral rights... maybe even fossils.

Generally if you're smart and have a good solicitor, they'll do searches which include checking on any mining claims on the land.

I'm not sure about this, but I also think the seller has a duty of disclosure to tell you of any such mining leases although now that i think about it, maybe not.

Both of those fall under the usual heading of a mining lease or claim. It's interesting that the value of the lease or claim is paid to the government and not the landowner in Australia.

From the looks of this thread, we have very different systems in place in Australia.

Sorry to quote myself, but it made me think of a relevant situation here at the moment.

You may have heard of the 'Wildlife Warriors' run by the Irwin family.

Well, a few years ago, the government gave them a chunk of land on Cape York to do with as they pleased, only they forgot to mention that a company called 'Cape Alumina' held a mining lease over the land in question.

Now Terry Irwin is fighting tooth and nail to stop the mine from going ahead, but she's not going to be successful. She lost the first round. Now they have to appeal, and it's really not going to be worth it. It's only a short term mine which is proposed, and they've got the capital to go ahead. There's no way the government's going to knock it back.

Wow, that sucks. A friend of mine was asking me why the State of Pennsylvania doesn't own the mineral rights under my place. He said it as a joke since he knows my... uh, tendency toward full property rights. The Irwin story is a unfortunate warning.:thepain: There must be some kind of environmental push back coming?

The land has no particular value to anyone. It's over run with ferral pigs which are harmful in just about every way you can imagine, and yet the Irwin group used the pigs as their reason for protecting the area. No wonder they lost.

The lease is for a bauxite mine which will only run for about 10 to 20 years, so in terms of mining, it's a very short project.

In Australia, you'll find the Irwins don't have anywhere near the profile they do overseas because we have to live with the consequences of some of their actions. While I agree that conservation is a good idea in theory, we must consider the notion of sustainable development if we're to ever get anywhere as a race. Unfortunately the Irwins are against development in general, even in areas where the environmental impacts will be minimal.

I wonder if they considered that when they chopped down heaps of trees etc to build 'Australia Zoo' and the carpark.

ETA: Dazza was one of the environmental scientists who worked on the study for the land on Cape York on behalf of the mining company so the info I'm giving you is first hand.

Is he proud of the fact that he crushed the dreams of the grieving widow and sweet, innocent, fatherless child?

Tyrannosaurus Sue was declared a "mineral", if I recall correctly, and was therefore awarded to someone other than the ones who discovered and recovered it, in another example of illogical legal convolutions about property. I was living in Connecticut when the New London story was unfolding and nobody I knew agreed with the court's decision.

I can't imagine any logical person agreeing with that travesty.:mad:

I don't think pride has much to do with it really. He provided environmental data which proved that their argument was not logical or particularly environmentally friendly either.

People need to use these resources. The mine is on a small portion of the land they've been given by the government.

Perhaps they should have considered the fact that there was an existing mining lease on the land before they stuck their hands out and accepted the gift.

BTW, I'd love it if the government gave me a nice big block of land to look at and supposedly do nothing with other than watch wildlife.