WOW WYOMING LAND GRAB

[BuzzH]

A) Some land swapping is going to cost more than the proposed purchase?

B) There’s a big difference between what I THINK the government SHOULD do, and what the government actually does.

Nearly all land swaps only happen if there is a net gain in revenue to the State trust...the big dead elephant in the room you're missing is that access and recreation is very low on the priority list for the State Land Board.

They don't care if a swap is convenient for you as a hunter, hiker, bird watcher...it has to make sense in terms of $$$$ return to the State Trust.

Its why your ideas on land exchanges for access make NO sense....the State Land Board does not make that a priority (access). Further, we have to fight like hell when there's a proposed exchange that would decrease public access.

Check this:

Easement doesn’t satisfy Bonander critics - WyoFile

Critics of an eastern Wyoming land exchange say a proposed access easement wouldn't resolve worries about losing hundreds of acres of public property.

www.wyofile.com

 

[Deleted member 20812]

The land swap is a red herring. It's not relevant to this issue.

 

[ImBillT]

A) How do you land swap yourself into a million more acres? If you think there should be less public land, then I get why you don't like the idea. If you want more public land then the only way that happens is to purchase it.

You wouldn’t swap yourself into more total acres, you’d swap yourself into more legally accessible acres.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Backtracking a bit, someone mentioned these lands might be managed differently than state trust land (that is apparently capped at 3.1 million acres). I could not find an answer in the articles.

I take it OP is selling because prices are too low? So the thought is buy it cheap now in the hope that old prices improve? Is that correct wllm? Is this a smart move?

Sounds like recreation benefits would be only incidental, not the intent.

Depends on where the minerals are... it's unclear to me at this time if there is a huge amount of interest in the DJ or if its mostly in the green river.

The DJ is currently profitable, though there isn't a lot of capital out there to drill with current pricing, and mostly its profitable because operators are pad drilling and have gathering systems in place. They aren't stepping out and drilling parent wells in new areas.

The green river just isn't great rock, it's probably an area that no one gives a hard look at until we hit $80+ oil and $4 gas (the commodity, natural gas, not gasoline). Also per above it would be a step out basin so risk would be high.

Further complicating the issue is the fact that a lot of democrats are talking about banning fracking. I'm not sure they could ever do that on private land but you could do it with the stroke of a pen on federal lands through executive order.
The fact that this is check-board means that if the state purchased it, and if the state decided to lease it for drilling, the operator would be stuck drilling 1 mile laterals which have a lower rate of return.

Private equity and public companies are already pulling back from the powder and DJ.

Anything can happen, but these are the factors I'm thinking of when I say I don't see the value or a operator grabbing it.

 

[ImBillT]

Nearly all land swaps only happen if there is a net gain in revenue to the State trust...the big dead elephant in the room you're missing is that access and recreation is very low on the priority list for the State Land Board.

They don't care if a swap is convenient for you as a hunter, hiker, bird watcher...it has to make sense in terms of $$$$ return to the State Trust.

Its why your ideas on land exchanges for access make NO sense....the State Land Board does not make that a priority (access). Further, we have to fight like hell when there's a proposed exchange that would decrease public access.

Check this:

Easement doesn’t satisfy Bonander critics - WyoFile

Critics of an eastern Wyoming land exchange say a proposed access easement wouldn't resolve worries about losing hundreds of acres of public property.

www.wyofile.com

Isn’t all the checker board in question BLM anyway? What would the state land board have to do with any of that?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

You wouldn’t swap yourself into more total acres, you’d swap yourself into more legally accessible acres.

Where? The only place in the state has inaccessible acreage is the powder, which is in the heart of the mineral and OG development and that land is very lucrative.

 

[Irrelevant]

If it’s a business deal, then I’d prefer that my state stayed out of it. They have no business doing business.

Basically the entire west funds schools as a business, they own an asset (land) and lease it out for private use or sell off the extractable resources from it, or in the case of some, flat out sell the asset.

Would you prefer to see NY level income tax?

 

[JM77]

The proposed legislation, SF138 covers possible management of the newly aquired land.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

The proposed legislation, SF138 covers possible management of the newly aquired land.

I tried to pull up the text and all I get is a blank screen. Hopefully that's not an omen

 

[beginnerhunter]

The HB 249 is available. Didnt read it yet. Too in the weeds for a NR like me.

https://www.wyoleg.gov/Legislation/2020/HB0249

 

[Deleted member 28227]

 

[VikingsGuy]

I bet you never sleep...the government does exactly that, every single day.

Govt track record playing in the free market are spotty at best. I prefer govt govern, not try to run a business concern.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Basically the entire west funds schools as a business, they own an asset (land) and lease it out for private use or sell off the extractable resources from it, or in the case of some, flat out sell the asset.

Would you prefer to see NY level income tax?

Have their returns exceeded the market, or is it just the way it’s alway been done?

 

[Irrelevant]

Govt track record playing in the free market are spotty at best. I prefer govt govern, not try to run a business concern.

You mean like auctioning timber sales? Or establishing grazing leases at similar rate to the free market? Or leasing land to ag for say tree fruit or winter wheat? Because that's what the land trusts do, and they seems to do it quite well.

 

[Irrelevant]

Have their returns exceeded the market, or is it just the way it’s alway been done?

Oh gotcha, you want them to sell their land and invest in the stock market.

 

[VikingsGuy]

You mean like auctioning timber sales? Or establishing grazing leases at similar rate to the free market? Or leasing land to ag for say tree fruit or winter wheat? Because that's what the land trusts do, and they seems to do it quite well.

Metrics?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Govt track record playing in the free market are spotty at best. I prefer govt govern, not try to run a business concern.

Most of COs agencies are business...

It doesn’t mean CPW is for profit, just that it has a mandate to generate its enough revenue to cover operating expenses.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Oh gotcha, you want them to sell their land and invest in the stock market.

I see why they keep the land they have, but don’t think that they should raise taxes to then invest in more land to manage the same way and call it an “income” source. But if WY folks are OK with it then so be it.

 

[BuzzH]

Govt track record playing in the free market are spotty at best. I prefer govt govern, not try to run a business concern.

The government meddles in markets and keeps them from being anything close to "free markets"...every single day.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Most of COs agencies are business...

If this is the case, then you and I have very different definitions of business.