WOW WYOMING LAND GRAB

[SAJ-99]

The OG market is in the tank currently and they can get this for a song.

It all comes down to price. I hope they can find a way to make it work.

 

[rwc101]

...ask me how I know.

 

[ImBillT]

Honestly I hate the consolidation idea. I would rather have a bunch of chunks of land all over the place to spread out use.

I’m talking about consolidating pieces with no public access into a piece that actually has public access. In this case, a big piece spreads people out more than a little piece. You only have a bunch of little pieces if you can actually access them all.

 

[ImBillT]

Yes...consolidation ends up with a situation you have to slug it out with the State Land Board over...ask me how I know.

I can definitely see how it would be nearly impossible for everyone to agree.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

It all comes down to price. I hope they can find a way to make it work.

I can't post the price diff chart we use internally... but this one gets the message across.

The price is the BEP - Break Even Point

EFS = Eagle Ford Shale

Obviously this was created before all the new OG rules in CO so the Wattenberg/ DJ is not as profitable... or at least far riskier.

Currently, pad drilling in the Powder works, but step out wells are uneconomic. The mineral rights in the fairway Anadarko is selling are worthless in this market.

And per the RBC market report... I highly doubt someone is going to take on 500 million of dept to purchase that asset. What we don't know is the PDP value of the portion of that asset in the DJ, or if it includes the wind farms.

Those assets might make it reasonable for an operator to do a cashflow deal.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I’m talking about consolidating pieces with no public access into a piece that actually has public access. In this case, a big piece spreads people out more than a little piece. You only have a bunch of little pieces if you can actually access them all.

What am I missing? Looks to me like you basically solve the corner crossing access problem for a huge portion of the state.

 

[88man]

Maybe the state can just buy a conservation/access easement and let occidental keep OG rights or Partner to sell the OG rights

 

[BuzzH]

I’m talking about consolidating pieces with no public access into a piece that actually has public access. In this case, a big piece spreads people out more than a little piece. You only have a bunch of little pieces if you can actually access them all.

This is the kind of short sighted thinking that most people have.

Access changes all the time and what is viewed as a "useless" inaccessible piece of ground today, could change tomorrow. I can point out dozens and dozens of areas where access has been gained to State ground through all kinds of different situations.

Also, there are land locked portions that have other value to the State other than just your convenience for access. There are wildlife values, resource values, etc. that go well beyond some tenderfoot whining from a couple states away that Wyoming needs to consolidate our land holdings. Your access convenience is a personal problem...mind your business, and Wyoming Residents will do the same.

 

[ShootsManyBullets]

Guess I'll be selling my white truck and orange flag if this goes through. Won't need it to access my private hunting grounds any longer.

 

[TheJason]

It appears this land will be managed separately from trust lands.

That's interesting. The devil is in the details.

 

[ImBillT]

What am I missing? Looks to me like you basically solve the corner crossing access problem for a huge portion of the state.
View attachment 128522

You said that rather than consolidate, you would prefer to have land spread out to spread use. My point is that use doesn’t get spread to chunks that are inaccessible. You seemed against consolidating in the first post that I quoted and for it now. What am I missing?

 

[BuzzH]

You said that rather than consolidate, you would prefer to have land spread out to spread use. My point is that use doesn’t get spread to chunks that are inaccessible. You seemed against consolidating in the first post that I quoted and for it now. What am I missing?

You're missing a lot. Having a big chunk of consolidated ground in one hunting area is great, for ONE hunting area.

When you have state ground spread across the state, there is value in all those lands for wide variety of reasons, only ONE of which is your needs for access to it for hunting/recreation.

There are wayyyyyy more reasons to NOT consolidate than there are for it...economic gain to the State trust, resource development, wildlife values, future potential value for a multitude of reasons.

Think long game...if you dare.

 

[ImBillT]

This is the kind of short sighted thinking that most people have.

Access changes all the time and what is viewed as a "useless" inaccessible piece of ground today, could change tomorrow. I can point out dozens and dozens of areas where access has been gained to State ground through all kinds of different situations.

Also, there are land locked portions that have other value to the State other than just your convenience for access. There are wildlife values, resource values, etc. that go well beyond some tenderfoot whining from a couple states away that Wyoming needs to consolidate our land holdings. Your access convenience is a personal problem...mind your business, and Wyoming Residents will do the same.

A) If you want WY residents to mind their own business, then stop posting about it on a public forum.


B) You taken the post that you have issue with completely out of context. It was in response to someone who said that they wanted lots of small chunks to spread use. I commented that use isn’t spread when the land is in accessible.

 

[ImBillT]

You're missing a lot. Having a big chunk of consolidated ground in one hunting area is great, for ONE hunting area.

When you have state ground spread across the state, there is value in all those lands for wide variety of reasons, only ONE of which is your needs for access to it for hunting/recreation.

There are wayyyyyy more reasons to NOT consolidate than there are for it...economic gain to the State trust, resource development, wildlife values, future potential value for a multitude of reasons.

Think long game...if you dare.

What do any of your points have to do with spreading out land holdings to spread use?

Perhaps I misinterpreted it as public use, when I should not have.

 

[BuzzH]

A) If you want WY residents to mind their own business, then stop posting about it on a public forum.


B) You taken the post that you have issue with completely out of context. It was in response to someone who said that they wanted lots of small chunks to spread use. I commented that use isn’t spread when the land is in accessible.

Its Wyoming State trust lands...we'll figure it out without you just fine.

You look at a map and trumpet "consolidate, its inaccessible and worthless!" without having ever done ANYTHING more than look at a map. Wyoming Residents are very familiar with our state lands, we'll make the important decisions, not you.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

B) You taken the post that you have issue with completely out of context. It was in response to someone who said that they wanted lots of small chunks to spread use. I commented that use isn’t spread when the land is in accessible.

When I think consolidation I think: State gives 12 sections that are spread out to a landowner for his 10 sections that are all together. This is what I don't like.

This project is fixing the checkerboard over most of south Wyoming. It covers a massive massive area, it will still be checker board just state, BLM not BLM and private with no access.

Oak, made a good point. Just because Anadarko hasn't tried to enforce trespassing, doesn't mean that trespassing wasn't illegal nor does it mean that if EOG bought the property they wouldn't shut down all access.

Bill have you looked at the maps I posted and are you familiar with this particular asset?

 

[BuzzH]

What do any of your points have to do with spreading out land holdings to spread use?

Perhaps I misinterpreted it as public use, when I should not have.

The mandate for State trust lands is to raise revenue for the state trust...not provide public use.

Having dealt with the State Land Board, public access and recreation is NOT a very high priority for State Lands. To the point that you essentially have to beg the Land Board to even consider how a "consolidation" will benefit public access, or more importantly, how "consolidation" will take away public access.

You obviously don't understand the mandate or process, or what the priorities are for the land board.

Consolidating state lands where appropriate may make sense in some cases, but in a vast majority it doesn't make sense.

 

[ImBillT]

Its Wyoming State trust lands...we'll figure it out without you just fine.

You look at a map and trumpet "consolidate, its inaccessible and worthless!" without having ever done ANYTHING more than look at a map. Wyoming Residents are very familiar with our state lands, we'll make the important decisions, not you.

Show me where I said that. You can’t.

Again, if you think it’s WY’s business and no one else should have an opinion, then quit posting about it publicly.

 

[BuzzH]

Show me where I said that. You can’t.

Again, if you think it’s WY’s business and no one else should have an opinion, then quit posting about it publicly.

Oh heck no, its fun watching you spout off and spin circles...

 

[ImBillT]

The mandate for State trust lands is to raise revenue for the state trust...not provide public use.

Having dealt with the State Land Board, public access and recreation is NOT a very high priority for State Lands. To the point that you essentially have to beg the Land Board to even consider how a "consolidation" will benefit public access, or more importantly, how "consolidation" will take away public access.

You obviously don't understand the mandate or process, or what the priorities are for the land board.

Consolidating state lands where appropriate may make sense in some cases, but in a vast majority it doesn't make sense.

You obviously don’t understand that when I respond to a SPECIFIC POST SIGHTING USE, that that’s as far as any of comments should be applied.