UW Superbowl Ad

[doreno5]

Federal royalties are 18.75%. State royalties are 16.666667%. Not a big difference. Wyoming receives 1/2 the federal royalty directly for all oil and gas produced on federal minerals (9.375%).

Personally - I don’t believe it makes sense to have a once size fits all royalty. Some great areas of the Powder River Basin should be 20% and much of Wyoming should be closer to 12.5% where the economics aren’t as good.

The vast majority of all mineral leases are acquired for some type of ‘speculation .’ That’s the nature of subsurface resources; you don’t really know what you got until there has been significant development. But some areas become much less speculative when the resource has been proven (ie large swaths of the area covered by the Rock Springs RMP).

Thanks for the clarification, I read your comment to be the federal royalty rate was 9.375% and the state royalty rate 16.6667%. My other point was that if the leaseholder does not perform due diligence in attempting to develop the leased tract the lease should be cancelled. While I am not in the industry, I am aware that sometimes leases of private mineral rights do have some sort of incentive requiring timely development or forfeiture. I would argue federal leases should too. The point being that you should not be able to inhibit competition by leasing vast tracts of mineral rights and not develop them,. Others who might be willing to take the risk should be given the opportunity to develop the resource.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

Thanks for the clarification, I read your comment to be the federal royalty rate was 9.375% and the state royalty rate 16.6667%. My other point was that if the leaseholder does not perform due diligence in attempting to develop the leased tract the lease should be cancelled. While I am not in the industry, I am aware that sometimes leases of private mineral rights do have some sort of incentive requiring timely development or forfeiture. I would argue federal leases should too.

Federal leases require a small annual payment (which increases) if they are not developed and terminate after 10 years if there is no production. State leases don’t require annual payments but state leases require drilling within 5 years or they terminate.

 

[doreno5]

Federal leases require a small annual payment (which increases) if they are not developed and terminate after 10 years if there is no production. State leases don’t require annual payments but state leases require drilling within 5 years or they terminate.

The feds should have the same requirement .Basically use it or lose it.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

The feds should have the same requirement .Basically use it or lose it.

We make more money for the state when companies bid on leases that would otherwise go unbid. Maybe the feds could change to a 5 year primary term like the state but that’s it IMO.

The ridiculousness is the requirement that there be a renewable lease for every oil and gas lease issued (this came from the ‘inflation reduction act’). There should be no such requirement and the two should be leased independently.

BtW - the state of wyoming makes ZERO dollars in royalties from renewable leases on federal lands. The feds keep it all (unlike oil and gas).

 

[laxwyo]

I asked what he meant by locked out.

If you can't drill on lands in your own state. you're locked out. Glad i could help.

you didn't answer the question about how much land is too much land for Wyoming to manage? Should we sell all of our State land because its just too much for wittle ole Wyoming to manage? Sure, Wyoming has sold acreage, but I also have some bad news about the BLM. Do you know that they also sell land?

 

[laxwyo]

The point you were arguing about how we should have the final in how the federal lands within our states borders even though we're a tiny ass fraction of the public land trustees is akin to me telling my out of state neighbors whose land is in a trust that I should have the ultimate say in how their land is managed, cause I actually live closer. It's just not right unless you think we should throw away every concept of property rights we claim to hold dear.

Wyoming should always have the final say about what happens within its border. Wyoming regulates what private landowners can and can't do with their property. The federal land in wyoming is public land so de facto Wyoming's.
Maybe Oredigger or someone else knows this, but what kind of money does wyoming get for PILT and how would it compare to property tax revenue. Pretty sweet gig for a landowner. The feds literally get to decide how much property tax they pay and then everyone acts like it's charity.

 

[doreno5]

Wyoming should always have the final say about what happens within its border. Wyoming regulates what private landowners can and can't do with their property. The federal land in wyoming is public land so de facto Wyoming's.
Maybe Oredigger or someone else knows this, but what kind of money does wyoming get for PILT and how would it compare to property tax revenue. Pretty sweet gig for a landowner. The feds literally get to decide how much property tax they pay and then everyone acts like it's charity.

Don't look now but PILT means Payment in Lieu of Taxes. If the state owned the lands there would be zero amount received in tax revenue, There would be no taxes if not sold off, if sold off there is no public access to to the land.
By the way do not be shocked if Musk decides the PILT program is waste, fraud or abuse.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

Wyoming should always have the final say about what happens within its border. Wyoming regulates what private landowners can and can't do with their property. The federal land in wyoming is public land so de facto Wyoming's.
Maybe Oredigger or someone else knows this, but what kind of money does wyoming get for PILT and how would it compare to property tax revenue. Pretty sweet gig for a landowner. The feds literally get to decide how much property tax they pay and then everyone acts like it's charity.

Wyoming receives about $35 million annually in PILT funds from interior. Not insignificant but magnitudes less than what we receive in mineral production revenues from federal lands and minerals.

I don’t understand the argument that federal land in Wyoming is de facto Wyoming’s land. Kleppe v New Mexico establishes quite clearly that the property clause of the US constitution vests control over the public lands with Congress. Wyoming can regulate matters on federal lands so long as they are not preempted by federal laws. But the executive has gone way beyond the bounds of what Congress intended in some of its orders/regulations, most notably including the Rock Springs RMP and prior oil and gas lease pause (which was a clear violation of the Mineral Leasing Act).

 

[Brew_Poke]

What if education becomes more efficient, lower cost, and improved student performance?

What if we figure out perpetual motion? LOL.

 

[Brew_Poke]

Does closing its doors count as ‘decimated’? If so - I will gladly take that bet

Literally one out of ten students will be executed.

 

[Brew_Poke]

Ha ha. Make a statement and then walk away. So I am assuming you won’t be reading any response but here goes anyway. Everything you’re complaining about is exactly what happened in the past from the other side of these issues. We’ve experienced the forcing of values regarding immigration and LGBT issues among others. What you are seeing now is the reaction to that.

What has the Wyoming Legislature ever done to force values of immigration and LGBT issues? I'm confused.

 

[Brew_Poke]

It's a perfect example of how the fed overreaches and there is merit to more power to the states. All states. WYO voters shouldn't have input on urban issues in CA either.

Are you willing to say that Wyoming voters shouldn't have a say in how the public lands are managed in California?

 

[Brew_Poke]

Article 1 Section 32 of the Wyoming Constitution guarantees anyone with a landlocked parcel the right to develop it through ‘ways of necessity.’ There is absolutely no requirement of majority. The federal government just ignores the founding principles of this state.

And the federal government isn’t the ‘majority’ in the checkerboard as you state. The federal government owns typically 16 out of every 36 square miles in each township. Private owners own every odd section and the state typically owns every section 16 and 36. But the checkerboard setup absolutely requires one to traverse federal land for development despite the federal government’s minority interest.

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not that they ignore it, it's just that the Supremacy Clause is a thing, right? Wyoming's Constitution is superseded?

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Are you willing to say that Wyoming voters shouldn't have a say in how the public lands are managed in California?

Actually yes. I don't have a problem with that if the land is turned over to the states and the states are managing it.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

What if we figure out perpetual motion? LOL.

Meh, usually shortly after an election, the losing side screams of the pending apocalypse. I'll wait and see if you chicken Littles are right this time. I guess at some point you might be right or figured out perpetual motion

 

[laxwyo]

Don't look now but PILT means Payment in Lieu of Taxes. If the state owned the lands there would be zero amount received in tax revenue, There would be no taxes if not sold off, if sold off there is no public access to to the land.
By the way do not be shocked if Musk decides the PILT program is waste, fraud or abuse.

The feds can either pay property tax or if its state land, we get all the mineral royalties. Do you think royalties on all that land (with the near double royalty rate as the feds) would result in more than $36million? I would think so. What do you think Wyoming does with all of its state land right now? Just sell it off to pay bills? What amount of acreage is too much for wyoming to manage? no one has answered this question. Should wyoming sell off all our state land now? Sell it do the feds maybe? It's a simple thought experiment that no one can grapple with.

I prefer the status quo but BLM was hell bent against it releasing their Rock Spring RMP. Luckily Trump saved us. I prefer federal agencies that don't just make up regulations (de facto laws). Thank God the Supreme Court ended Chevron deference in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Although this probably makes them less agile in changing times, I'd prefer deference to status quo than some asswipe just reinterpreting laws each year. ATF was king of doing this shit.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not that they ignore it, it's just that the Supremacy Clause is a thing, right? Wyoming's Constitution is superseded?

You are correct that the supremacy clause generally means that federal laws supersede conflicting state law.

But to allow federal lands to be managed in a way that prevents state and private lands to be developed clearly was outside the scope of what Congress intended when Wyoming became a state and when the lands were first conveyed and settled (and arguably raises interesting equal footing doctrine questions). It’s like someone selling you a car and then later informing you that you can’t actually drive it; that’s generally not considered good faith at a minimum.

 

[doreno5]

The feds can either pay property tax or if its state land, we get all the mineral royalties. Do you think royalties on all that land (with the near double royalty rate as the feds) would result in more than $36million? I would think so. What do you think Wyoming does with all of its state land right now? Just sell it off to pay bills? What amount of acreage is too much for wyoming to manage? no one has answered this question. Should wyoming sell off all our state land now? Sell it do the feds maybe? It's a simple thought experiment that no one can grapple with.

I prefer the status quo but BLM was hell bent against it releasing their Rock Spring RMP. Luckily Trump saved us. I prefer federal agencies that don't just make up regulations (de facto laws). Thank God the Supreme Court ended Chevron deference in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Although this probably makes them less agile in changing times, I'd prefer deference to status quo than some asswipe just reinterpreting laws each year. ATF was king of doing this shit.

Wyoming is allowed to sell the sections granted in the the Act of Admission only at a public sale, the proceeds to be used to establish a permanent school fund, any interest earned to be used in support of schools. Those same sections can be leased for other purposes including mineral development but the money is still supposed to be used to support education.

 

[Brew_Poke]

But to allow federal lands to be managed in a way that prevents state and private lands to be developed clearly was outside the scope of what Congress intended when Wyoming became a state and when the lands were first conveyed and settled (and arguably raises interesting equal footing doctrine questions).

Is that the case law, or is that your opinion? Not sure if I should accept that as true.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

Is that the case law, or is that your opinion. Not sure if I should accept that as true.

That’s the well documented history. At the time, all federal public lands were available for purchase by private parties under the Land Ordinance of 1785 and subsequent legislation. The United States sought to raise money to pay down its debts. The whole checkerboard idea was created with the presumption that the establishment of the railroad would create value allowing the federal government to make significant money by selling off the even section public lands in the west near the railroad (expecting that the existence of the railroad itself would create land value). It turned out, people did purchase lands near the railroad in areas of Nebraska where stuff could grow but were largely uninterested in purchasing lands near the red desert of Wyoming where nothing grows and thus the lands there were not sold off and remained in the federal domain.

The equal footing doctrine provides that all states were to be admitted on equal footing as the 13 original states. In the leading case of Pollard v Hagen, the Supreme Court stated that at statehood the states were to acquire the same sovereignty over its land at statehood as the original 13 states and concluding that the states were to own and retain jurisdiction over the beds and banks of navigable waters.