Should Alberta privatize its mineral rights?

[KinAlberta]

Just wondering what people think about the idea of selling off most of Alberta's mineral rights. I'm guessing that it would eliminate a lot of issues and just leave the government to regulate access and reasonable extraction, etc.

[CNP]

Mineral rights include oil and gas.......the province aint' givin' those up and nor should they

[Sundancefisher]

http://www.energy.alberta.ca/About_Us/2564.asp

Current value today with current commodity prices would be about $70 billion maybe even as high as $225 billion is oil can go to $65/billion and gas steady at $3/mcf . So the question is would the government take $70 billion today...invest it well for the future?

Oil companies are doing it. There is a benefit to up front payment if you invest properly.

[schmedlap]

Originally Posted by KinAlberta

Just wondering what people think about the idea of selling off most of Alberta's mineral rights. I'm guessing that it would eliminate a lot of issues and just leave the government to regulate access and reasonable extraction, etc.

The legal regime is that most AB land title ownership does not include mineral rights - they are retained by the Province and can be licensed to qualified extractors - with compensation to the public (owners) and any relevant private owners of the surface title in terms of access, damages, and interference with surface access.

Some AB land titles include mineral rights - mostly those lands granted and titled before AB became a province. An example is much of downtown Edmonton - though one is unlikely to get the permits to frac next to Scotia Place (?). There is some of this in the "boonies", and many pure separate mineral titles held and leased and/or with royalties (or not) by private owners.

They are "sold off" in the sense that any qualified private enterprise that meets the regulatory requirements (most commonly oil and gas companies) can, and does, acquire surface leases or mining rights and leases via the legal processes in place, with compensation to the private surface title owners or the public (crown land, lease payments, royalties), via the regulatory processes in place. That is how it now works.

So, what are you talking about? Are you just ignorant of the way it now works, or are you raising some different legal regime?

[qwert]

Please confirm that I have understood this correctly,

You are proposing we should sell our resources of minerals, oil, gas etc.
in exchange for fiat money that the Banksters create ex nihilo (out of nothing)
and then re-invest it with Banksters?

What could go wrong?
How can we lose?

Isn't this what is commonly called 'selling the farm'?

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confes...onomic_Hit_Man

[jstubbs]

Absolutely not. Tax extraction. Besides, foreign buyers would likely be the ones who the mineral rights end up with. I'm sick of Canada selling out.

[Bushmaster]

Our govt. would have that money ****ed away by the weekend !!

[Bitumen Bullet]

Originally Posted by qwert

Please confirm that I have understood this correctly,

You are proposing we should sell our resources of minerals, oil, gas etc.
in exchange for fiat money that the Banksters create ex nihilo (out of nothing)
and then re-invest it with Banksters?

What could go wrong?
How can we lose?

Isn't this what is commonly called 'selling the farm'?

Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confes...onomic_Hit_Man

It is indeed selling the farm, the land, and all the livestock for magic beans.

Resources is what Alberta and Canada, has. It is what makes Canadians more wealthy per capita than almost anyone else. A nation as resource rich as Canada can become "a Nation of Note" as John A would say.

But not if we continue to give it away, sell it by accepting equity investment rather than capital investment for us, Canadians, to develop, use to give our industry advantage and to sell final products to the world.

[oilngas]

I have no idea what you are talking about, every two weeks there is a closed, sealed bid for Crown Mineral Rights. Some blocks Companies post other the Crown posts on it's own. Crown Rights are divided as to Oil and or Gas, or both etc. All crown leases are subject to specific Crown Royalties.

Different Horizons are posted separately, different zones are sold, some surface to basement, seismic exploration Licenses, different shelve life's of zones, some parcels have restriction as to access, some are not complete DSU's, etc. all are sold as I stated in sealed Public bid process.

So go and be your own Oil n Gas Co. just buy a few parcels and drill a well or two!!! Any Land agent will buy it on your behalf, oh you just need to pay the fee's and bid price up front, enclosed with the bid.

[coastalhunter]

As a free miner, NO.

[amosfella]

They should go back to the landowners...

[Ken H]

Very radical thinking, I personally do not think that would be a good idea. There has not been a government in history that is responsible enough to do what would be best for the people. A one time payment would be detrimental to the yearly budget.

[WHITIEY]

Who actually ownes the gas and oil rights in Alberta

[Bitumen Bullet]

Originally Posted by WHITIEY

Who actually ownes the gas and oil rights in Alberta

Under the Constitution Act, 1867, the original provinces of Confederation retained ownership of crown lands and resources within their boundaries. When BC and PEI joined Confederation in 1871 and 1873, they too retained ownership of natural resources. But when the Prairie provinces were created (Manitoba in 1870, Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1905) a new and controversial policy emerged. In these provinces, ownership of natural resources was retained by the federal government to provide funds for colonization and railway building. Not until 1930, after a sometimes bitter political struggle, were natural-resource rights transferred by the federal government to the Prairie provinces. By this time, most of the agricultural lands had been transferred into private ownership; but because the federal government had reserved mineral rights when disposing of land in the prairies and had granted restricted tenures, the provincial governments inherited a rich treasure house of resource rights under the 1930 transfer. It is as a consequence of these rights that Alberta grants oil and gas leases and receives oil and gas royalties; that Manitoba can develop vast hydroelectric power resources to sell in the US; and that Saskatchewan controls uranium and potash reserves of worldwide significance. Link

So the provinces, but of course it isn't quite as clear as that because they have in many ways sold off or out such ownership.

That is if you think anyone actually "owns" anything in Canada, some argue only the Federal Government owns anything.

[KinAlberta]

Originally Posted by schmedlap

The legal regime is that most AB land title ownership does not include mineral rights - they are retained by the Province and can be licensed to qualified extractors - with compensation to the public (owners) and any relevant private owners of the surface title in terms of access, damages, and interference with surface access.

Some AB land titles include mineral rights - mostly those lands granted and titled before AB became a province. An example is much of downtown Edmonton - though one is unlikely to get the permits to frac next to Scotia Place (?). There is some of this in the "boonies", and many pure separate mineral titles held and leased and/or with royalties (or not) by private owners.

They are "sold off" in the sense that any qualified private enterprise that meets the regulatory requirements (most commonly oil and gas companies) can, and does, acquire surface leases or mining rights and leases via the legal processes in place, with compensation to the private surface title owners or the public (crown land, lease payments, royalties), via the regulatory processes in place. That is how it now works.

So, what are you talking about? Are you just ignorant of the way it now works, or are you raising some different legal regime?

Originally Posted by oilngas

I have no idea what you are talking about, every two weeks there is a closed, sealed bid for Crown Mineral Rights. Some blocks Companies post other the Crown posts on it's own. Crown Rights are divided as to Oil and or Gas, or both etc. All crown leases are subject to specific Crown Royalties.

Different Horizons are posted separately, different zones are sold, some surface to basement, seismic exploration Licenses, different shelve life's of zones, some parcels have restriction as to access, some are not complete DSU's, etc. all are sold as I stated in sealed Public bid process.

So go and be your own Oil n Gas Co. just buy a few parcels and drill a well or two!!! Any Land agent will buy it on your behalf, oh you just need to pay the fee's and bid price up front, enclosed with the bid.

Well, I thought I knew what I was talking about, but I'm often wrong. Thanks for all the input. I'd always heard that the province owned 80% or so of the mineral rights excluding what was owned early on by the railroads and early settlers (mostly in the southern part of Alberta) and subsequent land owners. So I knew about some of the land in Edmonton having both surface and mineral rights and ow the old Alberta Energy and companies like Freehold Royalties had vast amounts of mineral rights ownership - but just what was left after rate provinces 80% or so.

I also understood that in the states they don't have nationalized / socialized ownership of mineral rights like we do in most of Canada. I think most of it is straight out private ownership down there. (Regulated regarding extraction of course - recall the Texas drilling disaster with over producing and the regulations that had to be put in place.)

However, I always thought that the lands to the north, like the oil sands lands etc were owned by the province and that's why the province receives royalties on extracted minerals.

I was totally unaware that I could just apply to buy some mineral rights from the province and as the property owner dig up whatever I can find under the surface such as gold, silver, gravel, oil, gas or whatever is there (in agreement with the surface rights owner and environmental and whatever pooled resource regulations may be there of course.) Or just sit on it and pass it on to my children and children's children just like a farm property or the old mineral rights that preexist the socializing of it all a century ago.

[Okotokian]

What do I think? I think it's a bad idea. It's as bad an idea as selling agricultural lease land to potato farmers.

[KinAlberta]

Originally Posted by Okotokian

Why would ...

sorry Okotokian

I see you've edited your post. Anyway here's my previous comment:

Not give away but sell it all off and privatize the whole ownership of Alberta's land base except for the minimum the government needs for parks, roads, etc.

So if you own a farm, you could maybe buy the mineral rights for it from the province so you'd own both.

However, read my post above - a couple posters may be indicating that I'm right out to lunch and you can already do this now.

[Okotokian]

Originally Posted by KinAlberta

sorry Okotokian

I see you've edited your post. Anyway here's my previous comment:

Not give away but sell it all off and privatize the whole ownership of Alberta's land base except for the minimum the government needs for parks, roads, etc.

So if you own a farm, you could maybe buy the mineral rights for it from the province so you'd own both.

However, read my post above - a couple posters may be indicating that I'm right out to lunch and you can already do this now.

I edited it because I realized I misinterpreted your original post. The fault is mine.

[JustMe]

So, how much would you charge for those mineral rights? Land that they find gold on would be worth a lot more (mineral rights) than land with nothing..... One of life's little problems! LOL

Originally Posted by KinAlberta

sorry Okotokian

I see you've edited your post. Anyway here's my previous comment:

Not give away but sell it all off and privatize the whole ownership of Alberta's land base except for the minimum the government needs for parks, roads, etc.

So if you own a farm, you could maybe buy the mineral rights for it from the province so you'd own both.

However, read my post above - a couple posters may be indicating that I'm right out to lunch and you can already do this now.

[KinAlberta]

Originally Posted by JustMe

So, how much would you charge for those mineral rights? Land that they find gold on would be worth a lot more (mineral rights) than land with nothing..... One of life's little problems! LOL

You sell it all off for what ever the market figures its worth. Maybe do so over a few years. I'd guess it would be pretty much like the government unloading anything else

They sold off Alberta Energy years ago. It was a producer etc. but with it went mineral rights I believe. I imagine there's all kinds of ways they could slice and dice the problem - if it is a problem.

Alberta Energy Company Ltd
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.c...y-company-ltd/

[KinAlberta]

Found this on the US private ownership system.

Mineral rights ownership – what is it and why is it so unique in the USA?

Mineral rights ownership refers to who owns the rights to extract minerals – that is, oil, gas, gold, coal and other metals and minerals – from lands located in that country. This ownership is very important, since the rights confer considerable potential for profit from the extraction of these minerals.

In virtually all countries around the world, the owner of the surface land – be it a house or farmland – has absolutely no rights with regards to mineral ownership. Indeed, it is the central governments or monarchs who own such rights. For example, in the United Kingdom, the Queen in theory owns all the rights to extract minerals from all lands in the country, including those lands located offshore. In practice, of course, this ownership is actually governed by the central government.

In the USA, however, the owner of the surface land can ALSO have the rights to extract minerals from underneath that land. In other words, private individuals own much of the mineral rights across the USA, as opposed to governmental or state organizations.

http://www.ieneurope.com/pdf/Mineral.pdf

This article shows how in the USA surface and subsurface/mineral rights can be owned separately.

Depending on the area of the country, it can be normal for ownership (legally referred to as “fee simple”) to include rights to everything – the surface, the minerals, pore space, the water, the sky, etc. – and the executive power that goes with their rights. In other words, nothing has been severed, thus all rights remain joined with the property and thus “transfer with” the property. However, in other parts of the U.S. where drilling, mining or wind energy operations are common, it is not unusual to see ownership rights that are segregated (ie, severed). States where minerals (the mineral estate)are often severed from the surface estate include: Texas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Colorado, New Mexico and others where oil and gas has been produced for decades.

http://www.mineralweb.com/surface-ri...l-gas-leasing/

[WHITIEY]

So if the mineral, gas, and oil rights were sold in Alberta and the money went to that province, what would the process of exporting those said goods across the other provinces look like.ie pipe line

[waterninja]

I think AB should do more then simply privatize its mineral rights. How about becoming its own country? I bet BC and Sask would join us. Even the threat of separating would get us a better say on how we want to be governed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KinAlberta]

I've always thought that it would be interesting if Ft McMurray and the oil sands territory separated from Alberta. The rest of Alberta is just a huge leach on the production and value added they generate. :-)

[220 Swift]

Working in SESask with both crown and private mineral holders, trust me its usually easier to deal with the govt rather than the private mineral right owner.

The govt sees it as progression, where the private ones, especially when they have cheques rolling in already are hard to deal with as the greed factor is set in and want more.

The govt as much as it pains me to say this, have their rates set and dont need to waste time negotiating, are more efficient.

[70fastback]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

http://www.energy.alberta.ca/About_Us/2564.asp

Current value today with current commodity prices would be about $70 billion maybe even as high as $225 billion is oil can go to $65/billion and gas steady at $3/mcf . So the question is would the government take $70 billion today...invest it well for the future?

Oil companies are doing it. There is a benefit to up front payment if you invest properly.

you talking this government save money ?????

[CNP]

Originally Posted by KinAlberta

I've always thought that it would be interesting if Ft McMurray and the oil sands territory separated from Alberta. The rest of Alberta is just a huge leach on the production and value added they generate. :-)

I think it would be more interesting if aliens took over the world...

[KinAlberta]

Originally Posted by WHITIEY

So if the mineral, gas, and oil rights were sold in Alberta and the money went to that province, what would the process of exporting those said goods across the other provinces look like.ie pipe line

Not much different than it is now. A small proportion of Alberta's mineral rights are in personal and corporate hands and have been from the start of property rights and land ownership in Alberta.

I guess the thing is that we have a socialist system with government ownership and I'm curious what people think about the idea of dumping this socialism in exchange for some other form of outright individual and corporate ownership of the subsurface resources. Royalties would go to individuals and corporations just as they do now for freeholder mineral rights owners and not to the government.

[Bitumen Bullet]

Originally Posted by KinAlberta

... I'm curious what people think about the idea of dumping this socialism in exchange for some other form of outright individual and corporate ownership of the subsurface resources....

Capitalism has failed (as have most political ideas from the past). We now know that such a capitalistic system would concentrate the wealth into the hands of the few at the cost of the many but at least it's an idea.

In the 1800's when it was clear the old systems were failing and not meeting the needs of the people there was considerable discussion of the options. Today we seem to lack that discussion at the levels it is needed. (Or do we really have to have another Jun 28/14?)

I think resources are still needed to be used to build a "nation of note" and enable all to pursue liberty and happiness. That cannot happen if they are not being used by the nation. A benevolent dictatorship could do that but darn hard to build such a system.

But the new system, whatever it is, will have to take into account huge segments of the population that will not be working traditional jobs, will not have income from traditional sources, or maybe no income at all. We can ignore them as current capitalists would like (cheaper labour pool) and spend ever increasing money on dealing with the effects and keeping the peasants inline but that is getting very expensive very quickly. At the same time the systems have to give people hope, hope that those wanting to do better will have a chance, will have opportunity. It will also have to be equal, more equal, fewer special status groups consuming ever large amounts of cash (better yet no special status).

The direction will depend on basic ideas. Is the purpose of a Nation to advance the interests and desires of it's citizens or to enrich the few?

A persons answer to that will help direct them to a system they would like.

[HoytCRX32]

Originally Posted by Bitumen Bullet

Capitalism has failed (as have most political ideas from the past). We now know that such a capitalistic system would concentrate the wealth into the hands of the few at the cost of the many but at least it's an idea.

In the 1800's when it was clear the old systems were failing and not meeting the needs of the people there was considerable discussion of the options. Today we seem to lack that discussion at the levels it is needed. (Or do we really have to have another Jun 28/14?)

I think resources are still needed to be used to build a "nation of note" and enable all to pursue liberty and happiness. That cannot happen if they are not being used by the nation. A benevolent dictatorship could do that but darn hard to build such a system.

But the new system, whatever it is, will have to take into account huge segments of the population that will not be working traditional jobs, will not have income from traditional sources, or maybe no income at all. We can ignore them as current capitalists would like (cheaper labour pool) and spend ever increasing money on dealing with the effects and keeping the peasants inline but that is getting very expensive very quickly. At the same time the systems have to give people hope, hope that those wanting to do better will have a chance, will have opportunity. It will also have to be equal, more equal, fewer special status groups consuming ever large amounts of cash (better yet no special status).

The direction will depend on basic ideas. Is the purpose of a Nation to advance the interests and desires of it's citizens or to enrich the few?

A persons answer to that will help direct them to a system they would like.

Simplistic and naive
Your idea has been tried and failed each time, with the "leaders" of the movement eventually becoming the new elite, keeping the masses down to stay in power.
Do you honestly believe Stalin, Castro or Chavez ate the same food and lived in the same conditions as their so-called "comrades"?