From what I've looked up It seems like BLM land is cheaper than private land. The current fee of $1.35 per animal unit month for 2021 is the minimum that was set in 1981. So to me it looks like we are giving the farmers cheap land. [1] [2]
However, I also read an article [3] that seems to indicate that the complete opposite was true as farmers who use BLM land have to maintain it which made public land cost $1.20 more than private (2011). However, I don't really trust this that much as the guy who wrote it was a farmer and on the "Public Lands Council" which is a pro ranching organization. [4]
BLM grazing fees for 2017 are $1.87 per "animal unit" per month. An AU is a cow and calf, a horse, or five sheep or goats. That is roughly 1 acre in terms of area.
Sorry I don't really understand what your saying. I simply found some interesting links that I thought people would find useful. The first two links are trying to show that the farmers are getting really cheap land (AKA government giving subsidies to them) as the current price is the minimum set in 1981.
The third link is just a counter argument to that says although the land looks cheap in reality its more expensive because of land maintenance.
However, I don't trust that article a lot as it was written by a rancher that is in a pro ranching organization so there is a big bias.
This seems akin to livestock grazing on 155 million acres of BLM land in the United States, by 18,000 ranchers. They generally get 10 year leases. It's a win for the economy, the ecology, the food system, and the public treasury.
I wrote "The cost of farm land seems to be around $9000/acre, and certainly under $20,000/acre."
If you're talking about oil land, then that's not really farm land, is it? It's obvious that land with good mineral/oil rights can be worth a lot more.
In any case, oil doesn't seem like a good example. A derrick and pump don't need much in the way of land, and slant drilling means that any really expensive land can be avoided. I see prices in North Dakota of 'certainly under $20,000', even in that oil boom state:
"Linda Fisher, a Land Department leasing coordinator, said the three quarterly sales [in 2010] have fetched a record $269.2 million for about 135,000 acres, compared with about $103 million for 137,800 acres for all of 2009." (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700059300/ND-oil-lease-au... ). That's an average of about $2,000/acre, though the boom has continued since then.
"At about the same time, records and interviews show, other companies were purchasing drilling rights to land on and near the reservation for $300 to $1,000 per acre plus royalties as high as 22.5 percent.... Two lawsuits allege that by buying Dakota-3, Williams effectively paid more than $10,000 per acre for those rights." (http://www.opb.org/news/article/land-grab-cheats-north-dakot...; )
I haven't found anything which says that $9,000/acre for oil land is "really a low figure these days." If anything, that seems to be only somewhat below the going rate.
On the other hand, it is high compared to non-irrigated farm land, which goes for no more than $3,000/acre for the most expensive county average in North Dakota. (The value in most counties is usually under $1,000/acre.)
So, where is this $20,000+/acre land you're talking about?
A)11.36 million acres refers to the land leased for either fuel or non-fuel minerals. So if you wanted to compare the size of the royalties to the annual fees for the land, you would need to figure out what percentage of the land was used for fuel versus non-fuel mining.
B) The $165 is per 20 acres, not per acre. "In FY 2022, the BLM collected a total of almost
$94 million in fees associated with nearly 489,100 active mining claims on Federal lands"
I've found that undeveloped land in low-demand, rural areas tends to go for about $2,000/acre. It jumped out at me in the headline that the donation was about the same rate.
It is high, but typical. With rent around $200 an acre, land only generates around 3% annual cash flow at that price. And even that rate is killing farmers right now.
$4,200 per acre seems absurdly expensive to me for land out that deep in the boonies without electricity or roads. For $4,200 an acre I can buy rural land around me with road access, guaranteed electrical access, and within the last 2 and upcoming 5 years, fiber connections (just got mine 2 weeks ago).
Assuming this is pure farm land (no premium for possible annexation or commercial development), is that not an absolutely batshit insane price? I'm no expert but that seems at least 4x what is reasonable.
> This land by the way will cost you approximately $7,183 per acre.
That's surprisingly cheap. A farm near me, with similar production capabilities, recently sold for $25,000/acre. Around here, you won't find anything really worth farming for much under $15,000/acre on the low end these days.
Absolutely. I know someone who bought 5 (I think, it might have been a bit more) acres of land about 90 miles north of Minneapolis for $15,000 back around 2009. It went cheap because it's too rocky for farming and would cost too much to get utilities put in.
I also know some other people who bought cheap land in the same area. They have a trailer home up there for a weekend getaway.
Agreed it's not particularly cheap at all. Average cropland per-acre cost is $4k per acre, which prices 122 acres at under $500k. If you want cheap acerage in the woods you can get it for around $1k/acre - expect to spend around $150k in total.
Hell, for $1,700/ac you can buy a 160 acre plot within driving distance of Silicon Valley out by Mt. Hamilton: https://www.redfin.com/CA/Newman/5-W-of-Hwy-95360/home/22910... These old 160ac homestead plots come up for sale periodically out there and they're quite cheap. Much, much less than a three hour drive from say, Palo Alto.
Yes, some oil land is farm land. Some oil wells are on urban land, including in a shopping mall in L.A. Some are on grazing land. Some are in desert. Some are on the tundra. Not much farming goes on at the edge of the Beaufort Sea.
Compared to the price of the data center, where the building alone costs $2 million to construct, $30K/acre is dirt cheap.
And I still don't believe you about the price of land. It must have been an extreme outlier, since I can't find any advertisements, any government reports, or anything else which agrees with you.
However, I also read an article [3] that seems to indicate that the complete opposite was true as farmers who use BLM land have to maintain it which made public land cost $1.20 more than private (2011). However, I don't really trust this that much as the guy who wrote it was a farmer and on the "Public Lands Council" which is a pro ranching organization. [4]
[1] https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-and-forest-service-ann... [2] https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RS21232.pdf [3] https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/27344... [4] https://publiclandscouncil.org/
(I didn't spent a lot of time researching but I found those articles interesting so hopefully you will as well!)
reply