I recently talked with someone who worked around the early North Sea oil policy era, and it sent me down a rabbit hole comparing how different places handled resource wealth.

Norway structured things so a publicly managed fund effectively owned by the citizens kept a long-term stake in the revenue stream. The UK mostly relied on taxes and private development instead. Some analyses say that meant the benefits flowed through government spending priorities and market activity rather than direct public ownership/benefit. Decades later the outcomes look very different, and economists still argue over which approach actually serves the public better depending on whether you value long-term stability or immediate growth. The Norway fund accounts for 3% or global investments controlled by the citizens of Norway, not their politicians or the oil companies.

Closer to home, Alaska did something similar with oil revenue residents receive a dividend while development still happens. Different scale obviously, but it raises the same basic question.

When Texas helps enable a major industry energy, aerospace, infrastructure incentives should the public ever retain some ongoing ownership interest, or should benefits stay limited to taxes, jobs, and economic activity? We do historically with oil... why not with space?

Does one of those models fit Texas better than the others?

Alaska has badly mismanaged their PFD in the last decade. FWIW.

techno-ag said:

---

Ever heard of the PUF?

---

You know why A&M only gets 1/3?

I feel like this is an important lesson from our Texas history. If we don't learn from history we repeat our darkest days unnecessarily. Shouldn't we be able to ask questions like this in America?

Questions like what? I'm not watching that.

You can never take back anything from a billionaire.

4 said:

---

Principal Uncertainty said:

---

If you've never spent time in Norway, then you probably don't see how their unique culture cannot be duplicated in the US and it's difficult to explain.

---

It's actually pretty easy to explain, but anyone that does will have their post removed, regardless of the truth

---

It's more than what you are implying. It includes other things like how they all consider each other. Example; anyone in Norway can look up the salary of everyone; from your boss, to coworkers, to competitors, neighbors, family, friends, even with private employers. The cultural reason we refuse to allow that here is one example of cultural differences that make Norway not a repeatable model.

Do you think the question I asked at the end might be why my X account got suspended?

Politicians who go after Billionaires, don't understand math.
Or if they do, then they are charlatans that assume, often correctly, that their voters don't get math.

The value of world internet is roughly $1.7 trillion per year. Once Starship is operational it can deploy the 42,000 Starlink satellites they have requested to put in orbit. With V3 Starlink satellites, that is enough bandwidth to service 5+ billion internet users. That kind of payout would make Texas go from 8th to 3rd largest economy in the world. But with the current plan, it will only go to ...One.

The datacenter in west Texas is supposed to be 25GW ... the same power used by Houston... and roughly the same amount of water as Houston uses. Once the cheap water all used up and the datacenter moves on... the cost of water will be orders of magnitude more to bring desalinated water from the Gulf which is not economical for farming.

The legislature says that we will clean the fracking water as a source for farming using expensive desalination... but that is not proven to remove the PFAS" forever chemical. The law HB 25-49 says gives the oil industry to pass to "treat" the water and use it on farmland. Ask the rancher in Johnson County how that worked for them. PFAS got onto their land and killed all their cattle. They had to shut down their ranch. The county is declared a disaster zone.

Maybe it's true... Texans can't take back Texas from Billionaires?

BobAchgill said:

---

The value of world internet is roughly $1.7 trillion per year. Once Starship is operational it can deploy the 42,000 Starlink satellites they have requested to put in orbit. With V3 Starlink satellites, that is enough bandwidth to service 5+ billion internet users. That kind of payout would make Texas go from 8th to 3rd largest economy in the world. But with the current plan, it will only go to ...One.

The datacenter in west Texas is supposed to be 25GW ... the same power used by Houston... and roughly the same amount of water as Houston uses. Once the cheap water all used up and the datacenter moves on... the cost of water will be orders of magnitude more to bring desalinated water from the Gulf which is not economical for farming.

The legislature says that we will clean the fracking water as a source for farming using expensive desalination... but that is not proven to remove the PFAS" forever chemical. The law HB 25-49 says gives the oil industry to pass to "treat" the water and use it on farmland. Ask the rancher in Johnson County how that worked for them. PFAS got onto their land and killed all their cattle. They had to shut down their ranch. The county is declared a disaster zone.

Maybe it's true... Texans can't take back Texas from Billionaires?

---

We don't want to, even if we could. We aren't marxists. Go earn your own damn money.

Those billionaires who take huge risks, pump billions into the economy, create entire industries, employ millions, etc are such bad guys.

Politicians talk of taking from billionaires, but when elected,,they cozy up to billionaires who feed their bank account and egos, then go after middle class for money. It's happening right before our eyes in NYC.

BobAchgill said:

---

I recently talked with someone who worked around the early North Sea oil policy era, and it sent me down a rabbit hole comparing how different places handled resource wealth.

Norway structured things so a publicly managed fund effectively owned by the citizens kept a long-term stake in the revenue stream. The UK mostly relied on taxes and private development instead. Some analyses say that meant the benefits flowed through government spending priorities and market activity rather than direct public ownership/benefit. Decades later the outcomes look very different, and economists still argue over which approach actually serves the public better depending on whether you value long-term stability or immediate growth. The Norway fund accounts for 3% or global investments controlled by the citizens of Norway, not their politicians or the oil companies.

Closer to home, Alaska did something similar with oil revenue residents receive a dividend while development still happens. Different scale obviously, but it raises the same basic question.

When Texas helps enable a major industry energy, aerospace, infrastructure incentives should the public ever retain some ongoing ownership interest, or should benefits stay limited to taxes, jobs, and economic activity? We do historically with oil... why not with space?

Does one of those models fit Texas better than the others?

---

You might want to learn a bit more on this subject before making comparison to other countries or states. It all starts with who owns the minerals.

In Texas, for the most part, the minerals are owned by private landowners. When Texas joined the US, it retained its public lands. So, in Texas, when you trace land ownership, you trace it back to the State, the Republic of Mexico, or the Kingdom of Spain; never to the United States. Pretty much everywhere else west of the Apalachins, you trace ownership back to the United States government.

Up until the late 19th century, when the state sold public land (which was largely how it financed state government for the first 50 or so years), it did not reserve the mineral rights. This accounts for the bulk of land in Texas. Even for the land sold after they started reserving minerals, the state delegated development to the owners of the surface, giving them a share of the royalties for leasing their land. There are university lands where the state owns and controls the minerals, but this is rather small in proportion to the total area of mineral activity (but part of that is in the Permian, so it's not unimportant). But, even for minerals not owned by the state, we do collect severance tax.

The state of Alaska doesn't own any minerals to speak of, as the US government owns the vast majority of land in Alaska (and probably all the land where there is oil and gas development), but, like Texas, they collect severance taxes. Given their low population, that revenue stream has produced large surpluses. If Alaska had Texas's population, that would not be the case.

Norway recognized that mineral are a depleting resource, so they didn't treat that revenue like ordinary income, but, rather, put it in a sovereign wealth fund. Texas does the same thing with university lands, as the royalties are put into a fund managed by UTIMCO, the income of which is paid out to the PUF fund.

BobAchgill said:

---

I recently talked with someone who worked around the early North Sea oil policy era, and it sent me down a rabbit hole comparing how different places handled resource wealth.

Norway structured things so a publicly managed fund effectively owned by the citizens kept a long-term stake in the revenue stream. The UK mostly relied on taxes and private development instead. Some analyses say that meant the benefits flowed through government spending priorities and market activity rather than direct public ownership/benefit. Decades later the outcomes look very different, and economists still argue over which approach actually serves the public better depending on whether you value long-term stability or immediate growth. The Norway fund accounts for 3% or global investments controlled by the citizens of Norway, not their politicians or the oil companies.

Closer to home, Alaska did something similar with oil revenue residents receive a dividend while development still happens. Different scale obviously, but it raises the same basic question.

When Texas helps enable a major industry energy, aerospace, infrastructure incentives should the public ever retain some ongoing ownership interest, or should benefits stay limited to taxes, jobs, and economic activity? We do historically with oil... why not with space?

Does one of those models fit Texas better than the others?

---

If the state of Texas accepts the risk associated with these enterprises, then the answer would be yes.

BobAchgill said:

---

The value of world internet is roughly $1.7 trillion per year. Once Starship is operational it can deploy the 42,000 Starlink satellites they have requested to put in orbit. With V3 Starlink satellites, that is enough bandwidth to service 5+ billion internet users. That kind of payout would make Texas go from 8th to 3rd largest economy in the world. But with the current plan, it will only go to ...One.

The datacenter in west Texas is supposed to be 25GW ... the same power used by Houston... and roughly the same amount of water as Houston uses. Once the cheap water all used up and the datacenter moves on... the cost of water will be orders of magnitude more to bring desalinated water from the Gulf which is not economical for farming.

The legislature says that we will clean the fracking water as a source for farming using expensive desalination... but that is not proven to remove the PFAS" forever chemical. The law HB 25-49 says gives the oil industry to pass to "treat" the water and use it on farmland. Ask the rancher in Johnson County how that worked for them. PFAS got onto their land and killed all their cattle. They had to shut down their ranch. The county is declared a disaster zone.

Maybe it's true... Texans can't take back Texas from Billionaires?

---

Maybe you should find a better source of talking points.

OP....are you the Bob Achgill from Bryan running for governor in the republican primary?

infinity ag said:

---

You can never take back anything from a billionaire.

---

You don't get there by being patriotic.

4 said:

---

Principal Uncertainty said:

---

If you've never spent time in Norway, then you probably don't see how their unique culture cannot be duplicated in the US and it's difficult to explain.

---

It's actually pretty easy to explain, but anyone that does will have their post removed, regardless of the truth

---

Let's just say their culture is ethnically and religiously homogeneous, and values are commonly shared. Is that PC enough.

BobAchgill said:

---

The value of world internet is roughly $1.7 trillion per year. Once Starship is operational it can deploy the 42,000 Starlink satellites they have requested to put in orbit. With V3 Starlink satellites, that is enough bandwidth to service 5+ billion internet users. That kind of payout would make Texas go from 8th to 3rd largest economy in the world. But with the current plan, it will only go to ...One.

---

What do you mean Starlink only goes to one? Literally billions of people will see increased access to the internet and the global economy. Every rural Texan and global citizen now has access to high speed internet at a fraction of the cost and with speeds that dwarf the Internet radio co-op they had been paying for.

How do you calculate the savings those 10s or hundreds of millions of people are receiving with his service? Are you suggesting we tax those savings too so the internet radio co-op stays in business?

Elon invested his own money in SpaceX. He put his last dollar into making payroll right before getting his first contract. Most people would have held on to a couple million and let that venture fail before it ever completed a Falcon 1 launch. Should the state use your billionaire tax to bail out every bankrupt entrepreneur who almost made it big as well?

Elon isn't really that wealthy. He just has large ownership shares in several successful businesses. I bet he has far less money in his personal bank accounts than you would suspect. From the accounts I've read Trump was worth about $4b yet only kept around $10m in liquid assets.

Your belief that you or the state somehow deserve a share of Elon's companies is ridiculous. He is far more qualified to run his companies than you or the governor.

Cannot hold billionaires accountable for trafficking young women but by golly we will hold them fiscally responsible!

Billionaires have resources to prevent bad things from happening to their wealth, power and reputation.

Doesn't make it right, but it being wrong doesn't mean it's not happening.

The key is to start taxing the heck out of the poor. They need to understand their free handouts are not really free.

4 said:

---

Principal Uncertainty said:

---

If you've never spent time in Norway, then you probably don't see how their unique culture cannot be duplicated in the US and it's difficult to explain.

---

It's actually pretty easy to explain, but anyone that does will have their post removed, regardless of the truth

---

Correct. Small, mono-ethnic cultures that aren't the Global South and all swimming the same direction culturally tend to be able to pull things off that most others can't.

BobAchgill said:

---

I recently talked with someone who worked around the early North Sea oil policy era, and it sent me down a rabbit hole comparing how different places handled resource wealth.

Norway structured things so a publicly managed fund effectively owned by the citizens kept a long-term stake in the revenue stream. The UK mostly relied on taxes and private development instead. Some analyses say that meant the benefits flowed through government spending priorities and market activity rather than direct public ownership/benefit. Decades later the outcomes look very different, and economists still argue over which approach actually serves the public better depending on whether you value long-term stability or immediate growth. The Norway fund accounts for 3% or global investments controlled by the citizens of Norway, not their politicians or the oil companies.

Closer to home, Alaska did something similar with oil revenue residents receive a dividend while development still happens. Different scale obviously, but it raises the same basic question.

When Texas helps enable a major industry energy, aerospace, infrastructure incentives should the public ever retain some ongoing ownership interest, or should benefits stay limited to taxes, jobs, and economic activity? We do historically with oil... why not with space?

Does one of those models fit Texas better than the others?

---

Norway is always a bad comparison because it is resource rich, very homogenous, is a very high trust society, and has strong immigration rules with a low population. Unless you have all those factors their system doesn't work elsewhere.

If the oil and gas reserves had been distributed equally among Russians, it would have put about $1,000 in each citizen's pocket at a time when the average person was earning only $1 a day. Instead, the oligarchs seized the nation's natural resources.

With the 2012 "Space Tourism Law," Texas granted companies freedom from liability if a rocket injures someone. Then the state allowed the launch of a rocket twice the size of the Apollo rocket in the middle of a protected game reserve. The company only had to purchase a few hundred acres, even though the launch pad is just six miles from South Padre Island.

The Army Corps of Engineers conducted the environmental review. I asked both them and the FAA whether they had analyzed the effects of a launch-pad explosion. The Army Corps did not respond. The FAA replied and basically said no.

Would it help to change the framing from "billionaires" to "Taking Back Texas from Oligarchs"?

Then there are the Big Tech data centers. Most Texas water comes from fossil aquifers. Data centers are on track to use as much water as Texans themselves use. Once the water is gone, the data centers can simply relocate to the coast they don't do so now because desalinated water would increase their costs.

San Antonio is already pumping water from more than five off-site locations. Houston depends on the Trinity River downstream. When I spoke in Fairfield this week, residents said data centers are being planned there. A proposed West Texas data center alone would use 25 GW of power roughly the same as Houston. The natural gas fueling that power will come from the same wellheads Texans rely on for electricity.

Yes, they will use local aquifer water to cool the power systems and chips, but once the aquifer is depleted, no farming or city could exist in that region of Texas for 1,000 years.

These Hi Tech California billionaires are exploiting Texas natural resources until nothing remains. They should use their own desal water that is 10x more costly rather than use the water that poor people like us drink and dirt farmers need to feed us.

https://www.hishandsreader.org/bob.html

Yes, you guessed it.

Nuclear powered desalinization plants and boom, no more water issues.

Plus I don't think data centers consume that much water do they? Do they use open loop cooling? Seems like that would kill the blind sewage salamanders.

Norway had a total population of only around 4 million people throughout the 80s-00s and still today only has about 5-6 million people. In the 90s and 00s in peak North Sea oil development and production, they were the world's 2nd or 3rd largest exporter of oil in the world behind Saudi Arabia - with that few people. It's why they're so wealthy and why socialism can work there. But the intrinsic demotivation and laziness derived from that much wealth and free everything from government cannot work here.

Quote:

---

Nuclear powered desalinization plants and boom, no more water issues.

---

Those actually exist?