3 ms·

A couple observations: > “So rather than wait for that to happen, we thought, ‘Well, let’s step in now and let’s put in place a bill that acts as a deterrent t

A couple observations: > “So rather than wait for that to happen, we thought, ‘Well, let’s step in now and let’s put in place a bill that acts as a deterrent to doing that,” Petroleum Association of Wyoming President Pete Obermueller told WyoFile. First, I know it is common practice for the language of bills to be written by industry groups, but I still think it's alarming, and annoying, that they're so open about having a direct channel to lawmakers that got this bill into law so quickly. I hardly think someone making an oil and gas company pay slightly more for a lease is the kind of work we want our legislators to prioritize. Second, it just sounds like the kind of blatant protectionism that's often derided around here. If a lease has value to me remaining undeveloped, and it has value to them being developed, then shouldn't we be able to compete to see how much the market values those priorities? I think it's funny that they're afraid of a conservationist billionaire bidding on petroleum leases when there are probably way more petroleum billionaires who could bid if there was any sort of bidding war. Heck, the lease was sold for $19/acre, something like $13,000, and the winner complained about the "inflated" price. I can't say that I know much about the startup costs for a drilling operation, but is $13,000 really a significant consideration?

Jiro 2y ago
>If a lease has value to me remaining undeveloped, and it has value to them being developed, then shouldn't we be able to compete to see how much the market values those priorities? No, because the actual amount the lessee is paying is the $19/acre, plus the taxes on the oil they extract. The fact that the $19 is a separate transaction is just an accounting convenience. The state could say "place bids of price per acre plus taxes. Highest bidder wins. We'll refund taxes up to the amount you paid in the bid." It would be inconvenient for multiple reasons, but it would average to the same thing, and it would stop the conservationists cold. The fact that the state doesn't do it that way and so the conservationists can pay the price per acre by itself is just a loophole.

Jiro 2y ago

>If a lease has value to me remaining undeveloped, and it has value to them being developed, then shouldn't we be able to compete to see how much the market values those priorities? No, because the actual amount the lessee is paying is the $19/acre, plus the taxes on the oil they extract. The fact that the $19 is a separate transaction is just an accounting convenience. The state could say "place bids of price per acre plus taxes. Highest bidder wins. We'll refund taxes up to the amount you paid in the bid." It would be inconvenient for multiple reasons, but it would average to the same thing, and it would stop the conservationists cold. The fact that the state doesn't do it that way and so the conservationists can pay the price per acre by itself is just a loophole.