Wyoming bans conservation bidders from oil and gas lease sales

“Ultimately, the winning bidder in last year’s controversial auction was Casper-based Kirkwood Oil and Gas — the same company that had nominated the parcel — at $19 per acre for the 640-acre tract. When the company later learned that it had been competing against a conservation group, the owners cried foul and claimed they were duped into paying an artificially inflated price.”

The seller is upset they got a good deal? (Counterpoint: these are public leases being sold for the public good.)

Looks like the winning move is for conservation groups to start E&P arms. Snarling the process up in years of litigation might be as good as buying and sitting on it.

This doesn't seem like a workable standard. How will Wyoming distinguish between conservation bidders and commercial bidders that simply choose not to produce for economic reasons? Meaning, what happens if the prices of oil and gas crash, causing a non-conservation bidder not to drill or pump on one of these parcels? Will the state compel them to produce and sell at a loss?

Could be interesting if there was an alternative industry which could profit from the land and then the funds could be used for counter lobbying and offer an alternative source of tax revenue for the state.

I wonder if ecotourism would work. Like some sort of American safari to see these Pronghorn migrations.

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?

I mean, talk about being blatantly open:

> Rep. Cyrus Western (R-Big Horn) brought the bill on behalf of the Petroleum Association of Wyoming.

This feels like a ban on free speech... Given that money is speech, and this would be the gov't stepping in to chill that speech #justSayin.

That's far from the worst thing wrong with this, but if I were to make a court run with this case (IANAL) that's what I would do with it.