266 P.3d 944
Wyo.2011Background
- Exxon argues the LaBarge Field wellhead meters are custody transfer meters, determining Exxon’s point of valuation for its gas production.
- Wyoming Amoco decisions define custody transfer meter and guide valuation Point; Amoco (2004) clarifies meter transfer concepts.
- Board held the meters are not custody transfer meters for Exxon, since Exxon retains custody before and after measurement at the meters.
- Board held the meters are custody transfer meters for Howell and Yates because their gas is transferred to Exxon for processing at the meters.
- Howell and Yates were not parties to the action and did not appeal the Department’s valuation; issues regarding their gas were not properly before the Board.
- Court ultimately affirms the Board on Exxon’s gas but reverses on Howell and Yates due to lack of party status and proper Board authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the wellhead meters custody transfer meters for Exxon’s gas? | Exxon contends meters transfer custody and control at the meters. | Board held meters are not custody transfer meters for Exxon. | Meters are not Exxon custody transfer meters. |
| Did the Board have authority to decide the valuation point for Howell and Yates' gas? | Board can determine valuation points for all gas in LaBarge. | Howell and Yates were not parties and issues were not properly before Board. | Board authority over non-parties was lacking; Howell and Yates issues reversed. |
| Was Howell and Yates' gas properly before the Board as aggrieved parties? | Howell and Yates should be considered for their gas valuation. | Howell and Yates were not aggrieved parties appealing; Board lacked jurisdiction over them. | Howell and Yates were not aggrieved parties; issues not properly before Board. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amoco Prod. Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 94 P.3d 430 (Wyo. 2004) (defined custody transfer meter; elements of custody, transfer, and meter as official measurer)
- Amoco Prod. Co. v. Wyo. State Bd. of Equalization, 12 P.3d 668 (Wyo. 2000) (agency valuation definitions and authority)
- Northfork Citizens For Responsible Dev. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Park County, 228 P.3d 838 (Wyo. 2010) (adversely affected party standard for standing)
- Amax Coal West, Inc. v. Wyo. State Bd. of Equalization, 896 P.2d 1329 (Wyo. 1995) (agency jurisdiction and statutory authority principles)