That’s right, but even when they are combined, you can still get your separate list if you search “natural resources”, “intangible” or “fixed assets.”
The reason why I brought this up is because of your idea to Extend Custom Fields to Intangibles which had me thinking yes it is a legitimate request but didn’t Lubos already do that for fixed assets? Why do it again?
My point is, yes we should’ve had custom fields for intangibles when custom fields were introduced to fixed assets. The developer shouldn’t repeat the same work he does on fixed assets again on intangibles and possibly a third time on a future natural resources tab (I hope we don’t get to three separate tabs for capital assets) as this would be wasted time by the developer he could have used developing straight line depreciation, units of production depreciation or any other open idea such as this one for example 
Or many other basic functions like api, status for different tabs and so on.
What does this cost the user? The user would have to click on one tab and search for the list (i.e. fixed asset, intangible, or natural resources) which is one more step compared to going directly to the intangibles tabs.
How do we benefit from less tabs? Less time spent by the developer repeating tasks, uniformity in structure of capital assets, automatic inclusion of natural resources without having to open a separate tab and less tabs to separately maintain by the end user.
I really hope this can get you on board with this 