This section focuses primarily on the private-lands example of mineral rights acquisition in the US. In this are many examples of varying state policies that determine whether permitting is required or not. Conversely, in some areas even if the private landholder wishes to allow shale gas exploration on their lands, there are municipal or state-laws preventing that exploration to occur. It is understandable that jurisdictions wish to curb the hydraulic fracturing practices because of unintended consequences on the water and surrounding environment to the exploration activities. It is laudable that the pursuit for profits and severance taxes are balanced against the real impact that these extractive industries have on the surrounding environment. In China, the mineral rights below lands are held by the State. This is what results in the auction-bidding system for exploration rights throughout the nation. The interplay between the ease of mineral rights are highly correlated between whether it able to be acquired by the landowner, or the State. In the case of the privately held landowner distributing rights to an individual, there are significant downsides. One, is that the private landowner may not receive proper disclosure from the company that is completing resource exploration. Another downside to the privately-held example is that investments in protecting the environment are done by a separate impacted entity: the governmental agency concerned with water resource management and environmental protection. Because of this bifurcation of the “permitting” agency and the agency responsible for oversight, the impacts that could be otherwise anticipated in a proactive fashion are dealt with in a reactive fashion instead.
PDFPDFStay tuned for news on sustainable development, environment and climate change, international trade and human rights, Chinese issues and much more!
