DRAFT SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS 

TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT FOR 

THE JONAH INFILL DRILLING AND SOUTH 

PINEY PROJECTS ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT STATEMENTS 

Prepared for 

Bureau of Land Management

Wyoming State Office

Cheyenne, Wyoming 

Pinedale Field Office 

Pinedale, Wyoming 

and 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project Operators

South Piney Natural Gas Development Project Companies 

Prepared by 

TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 

Laramie, Wyoming 

January 2005 
DRAFT 

SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS

TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT FOR

THE JONAH INFILL DRILLING AND SOUTH PINEY PROJECTS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS

Prepared for 

Bureau of Land Management

Wyoming State Office

Cheyenne, Wyoming

and 

Pinedale Field Office

Pinedale, Wyoming

and 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project Operators

South Piney Natural Gas Development Project Companies

By 

TRC Mariah Associates Inc.

Laramie, Wyoming

MAI Projects 35982 and 36358

January 2005
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 

1.0 OVERVIEW......................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 METHODS........................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 ECONOMIC PROFILES ......................................................................................... 3

2.1.1 Resources .................................................................................................. 3

2.1.2 Socioeconomic Study Factors ................................................................... 4

2.1.2.1 Population and Demography...................................................... 4

2.1.2.2 Employment and Personal Income............................................. 5

2.1.2.3 Quality of Living........................................................................ 5

2.1.2.4 Industry and Economy ............................................................... 5

2.1.2.5 Taxes and Revenues................................................................... 6

2.1.2.6 Grazing....................................................................................... 6

2.1.2.7 Recreation .................................................................................. 7

2.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS.............................................................................................. 7

2.2.1 Natural Gas Activities............................................................................... 10

2.2.2 Grazing...................................................................................................... 11

2.2.3 Recreation ................................................................................................. 12

2.2.4 Social Impacts ......................................................................................... 14

2.2.5 Economic Justice....................................................................................... 14

3.0 SOCIOECONOMICS PROFILES AND EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ....................... 15

3.1 POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHY................................................................ 16

3.1.1 Geographic Study Area........................................................................... 16

3.1.1.1 JIDP Location........................................................................... 16

3.1.1.2 SPP Location ............................................................................ 16

3.1.1.3 Economic Study Area .............................................................. 16

3.1.2 Population ................................................................................................ 17

3.1.2.1 United States............................................................................. 19

3.1.2.2 Wyoming................................................................................... 19

3.1.2.3 Lincoln County......................................................................... 21

3.1.2.4 Sublette County ........................................................................ 22

3.1.2.5 Sweetwater County .................................................................. 23

3.1.3 Income, Poverty, and Unemployment.................................................... 23

3.1.3.1 United States............................................................................. 27

3.1.3.2 Wyoming................................................................................... 27

3.1.3.3 Lincoln County......................................................................... 28

3.1.3.4 Sublette County ........................................................................ 28

3.1.3.5 Sweetwater County .................................................................. 29

3.1.4 Workforce Age, Gender, and Disabilities ............................................. 30

3.1.4.1 United States............................................................................. 32

3.1.4.2 Wyoming................................................................................... 32

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
ii Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

Page 

3.1.4.3 Lincoln County......................................................................... 32

3.1.4.4 Sublette County ........................................................................ 33

3.1.4.5 Sweetwater County .................................................................. 33

3.1.5 Quality of Living..................................................................................... 33

3.1.5.1 Crime......................................................................................... 33

3.1.5.2 Infrastructure ............................................................................ 36

3.1.5.3 Housing ..................................................................................... 40

3.1.5.3.1 Wyoming ................................................................... 44

3.1.5.3.2 Lincoln County.......................................................... 44

3.1.5.3.3 Sublette County......................................................... 45

3.1.5.3.4 Sweetwater County ................................................... 47

3.1.5.4 Cost of Living and Inflation .................................................... 48

3.1.5.4.1 Lincoln County.......................................................... 50

3.1.5.4.2 Sublette County......................................................... 50

3.1.5.4.3 Sweetwater County ................................................... 50

3.1.5.5 Inflation..................................................................................... 50

3.1.6 Education ................................................................................................. 52

3.1.6.1 Primary and Secondary Education.......................................... 53

3.1.6.1.1 Wyoming ................................................................... 55

3.1.6.1.2 Lincoln County.......................................................... 55

3.1.6.1.3 Sublette County......................................................... 57

3.1.6.1.4 Sweetwater County ................................................... 58

3.1.6.2 Post-secondary Education ....................................................... 60

3.1.7 Social Traditions ..................................................................................... 60

3.2 PERSONAL INCOME TRENDS.......................................................................... 62

3.2.1 United States ............................................................................................. 67

3.2.2 Wyoming................................................................................................... 67

3.2.3 Lincoln County........................................................................................ 68

3.2.4 Sublette County ....................................................................................... 69

3.2.5 Sweetwater County ................................................................................. 69

3.3 INDUSTRY AND ECONOMY............................................................................. 70

3.3.1 Overview ................................................................................................... 70

3.3.2 Wyoming Industry..................................................................................... 71

3.3.3 Industry Employment................................................................................ 73

3.3.1.1 Wyoming.................................................................................... 73

3.3.1.2 Lincoln County........................................................................... 75

3.3.1.3 Sublette County.......................................................................... 76

3.3.1.4 Sweetwater County .................................................................... 76

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects iii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

Page 

3.3.4 Industry Earnings ...................................................................................... 77

3.3.4.1 Wyoming................................................................................... 77

3.3.4.2 Lincoln County........................................................................... 80

3.3.4.3 Sublette County.......................................................................... 81

3.3.4.4 Sweetwater County .................................................................. 82

3.4 TAXES AND REVENUES.................................................................................... 82

3.4.1 Wyoming Overview ................................................................................. 82

3.4.1.1 Severance Taxes....................................................................... 86

3.4.1.2 Royalties..................................................................................... 91

3.4.1.3 Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT).......................................... 93

3.4.1.4 Property Taxes (Ad Valorem Taxes) ......................................... 100

3.4.1.5 Sales and Use Tax ...................................................................... 103

3.4.1.6 Use Tax ...................................................................................... 104

3.4.1.7 Lodging Tax ............................................................................... 105

3.4.2 Study Area Overview.............................................................................. 105

3.4.2.1 Availability of Information ..................................................... 105

3.4.2.2 State Royalties.......................................................................... 106

3.4.3 Ad Valorem Valuation and Taxes Levied................................................. 119

3.4.3.1 Wyoming.................................................................................... 119

3.4.3.2 Lincoln County........................................................................... 119

3.4.3.3 Sublette County.......................................................................... 127

3.4.3.4 Sweetwater County .................................................................... 128

3.4.4 Sales Tax Collections................................................................................ 128

3.4.4.1 Wyoming.................................................................................... 128

3.4.4.2 Lincoln County........................................................................... 130

3.4.4.3 Sublette County.......................................................................... 130

3.4.4.4 Sweetwater County .................................................................... 131

3.4.5 Use Tax Collections .................................................................................. 131

3.4.5.1 Wyoming.................................................................................... 131

3.4.5.2 Lincoln County........................................................................... 133

3.4.5.3 Sublette County.......................................................................... 133

3.4.5.4 Sweetwater County .................................................................... 133

3.4.6 Lodging Tax Collections........................................................................... 134

3.4.6.1 Sublette County.......................................................................... 134

3.4.6.2 Sweetwater County .................................................................... 134

3.5 GRAZING ECONOMICS ....................................................................................... 134

3.5.1 Grazing Allotments ................................................................................... 134

3.5.1.1 JIDPA Grazing Allotments ........................................................ 136

3.5.1.2 SPPA Grazing Allotments.......................................................... 137

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
iv Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

Page 

3.5.2 Value of Grazing ....................................................................................... 137

3.6 RECREATION ECONOMICS................................................................................ 140

3.6.1 Nonconsumptive Recreation ..................................................................... 140

3.6.2 Hunting...................................................................................................... 141

3.6.3 Value of Recreational Use ........................................................................ 147

3.6.3.1 Value of Nonconsumptive Recreation ....................................... 148

3.6.3.2 Value of Hunting........................................................................ 148

4.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS.......................................................................................................... 153

4.1 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OVERVIEW ............................................................... 153

4.1.1 Methods of Economic Analysis ............................................................. 154

4.1.1.1 Time Series and Cross-Sectional Analysis............................. 154

4.1.1.2 Location Quotient .................................................................... 154

4.1.1.3 Shift-Share Analysis ................................................................ 155

4.1.1.4 Economic Modeling ................................................................. 156

4.2 IMPLAN MODELING SYSTEM ........................................................................... 157

4.2.1 Database Components............................................................................... 157

4.2.2 Multipliers................................................................................................. 158

4.2.3 Key Assumptions ...................................................................................... 159

4.2.4 Wyoming Data and Analysis Conventions ............................................... 159

4.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS.............................................................................................. 160

5.0 JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT IMPACT ANALYSIS......................................... 163

5.1 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS.......................... 163

5.2 PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................................................. 167

5.2.1 Labor ......................................................................................................... 167

5.2.2 Natural Gas Drilling and Completion Assumptions ................................. 167

5.2.3 Natural Gas Production Assumptions ....................................................... 167

5.3 NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION ECONOMIC

ACTIVITY.......................................................................................................... 171

5.3.1 Drilling and Completion ........................................................................... 171

5.3.1.1 No Action Alternative ................................................................ 181

5.3.1.2 Proposed Action ......................................................................... 181

5.3.1.3 Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) ......................................... 181

5.3.1.4 Alternative B .............................................................................. 182

5.3.1.5 Alternative C .............................................................................. 182

5.3.1.6 Alternative D.............................................................................. 183

5.3.1.7 Alternative E .............................................................................. 183

5.3.1.8 Alternative F............................................................................... 184

5.3.1.9 Alternative G.............................................................................. 184

5.3.1.10 Preferred Alternative................................................................ 185

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects v 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

Page 

5.3.2 Natural Gas Production Operation Impacts .............................................. 185

5.3.2.1 No Action Alternative ................................................................ 186

5.3.2.2 Proposed Action ......................................................................... 188

5.3.2.3 Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) ......................................... 188

5.3.2.4 Alternative B .............................................................................. 189

5.3.2.5 Alternative C .............................................................................. 189

5.3.2.6 Alternative D.............................................................................. 190

5.3.2.7 Alternative E .............................................................................. 190

5.3.2.8 Alternative F............................................................................... 191

5.3.2.9 Alternative G.............................................................................. 191

5.3.2.10 Preferred Alternative................................................................ 192

5.3.3 Government Revenues .............................................................................. 192

5.3.3.1 No Action Alternative ................................................................ 199

5.3.3.2 Proposed Action ......................................................................... 200

5.3.3.3 Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) ......................................... 200

5.3.3.4 Alternative B .............................................................................. 205

5.3.3.5 Alternative C .............................................................................. 206

5.3.3.6 Alternative D.............................................................................. 206

5.3.3.7 Alternative E .............................................................................. 207

5.3.3.8 Alternative F............................................................................... 208

5.3.3.9 Alternative G.............................................................................. 208

5.3.3.10 Preferred Alternative................................................................ 209

5.4 RECREATION IMPACTS ...................................................................................... 209

5.4.1 Nonconsumptive Recreation ..................................................................... 209

5.4.1.1 No Action Alternative ................................................................ 213

5.4.1.2 Proposed Action ......................................................................... 213

5.4.1.3 Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) ......................................... 213

5.4.1.4 Alternative B .............................................................................. 214

5.4.1.5 Alternative C .............................................................................. 214

5.4.1.6 Alternative D.............................................................................. 214

5.4.1.7 Alternative E .............................................................................. 215

5.4.1.8 Alternative F............................................................................... 215

5.4.1.9 Alternative G.............................................................................. 215

5.4.1.10 Preferred Alternative................................................................ 215

5.4.2 Hunting...................................................................................................... 215

5.4.2.1 No Action Alternative ................................................................ 219

5.4.2.2 Proposed Action ......................................................................... 219

5.4.2.3 Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) ......................................... 219

5.4.2.4 Alternative B .............................................................................. 220

5.4.2.5 Alternative C .............................................................................. 220

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
vi Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

Page 

5.4.2.6 Alternative D.............................................................................. 220

5.4.2.7 Alternative E .............................................................................. 220

5.4.2.8 Alternative F............................................................................... 221

5.4.2.9 Alternative G.............................................................................. 221

5.4.2.10 Preferred Alternative................................................................ 221

5.5 GRAZING IMPACTS.............................................................................................. 221

5.5.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................................... 223

5.5.2 Proposed Action ........................................................................................ 223

5.5.3 Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) ........................................................ 223

5.5.4 Alternative B ............................................................................................. 226

5.5.5 Alternative C ............................................................................................. 226

5.5.6 Alternative D............................................................................................. 227

5.5.7 Alternative E ............................................................................................. 227

5.5.8 Alternative F.............................................................................................. 227

5.5.9 Alternative G............................................................................................. 228

5.5.10 Preferred Alternative............................................................................... 228

5.6 POPULATION AND LABOR ACTIVITY............................................................. 228

5.6.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................................... 228

5.6.2 Proposed Action ........................................................................................ 229

5.6.3 Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) ........................................................ 230

5.6.4 Alternative B ............................................................................................. 230

5.6.5 Alternative C ............................................................................................. 230

5.6.6 Alternative D............................................................................................. 230

5.6.7 Alternative E ............................................................................................. 231

5.6.8 Alternative F.............................................................................................. 231

5.6.9 Alternative G............................................................................................. 231

5.6.10 Preferred Alternative............................................................................... 231

5.7 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY............................................................. 232

5.7.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................................... 232

5.7.2 Proposed Action ........................................................................................ 232

5.7.3 Alternative A............................................................................................. 235

5.7.4 Alternative B ............................................................................................. 235

5.7.5 Alternative C ............................................................................................. 235

5.7.6 Alternative D............................................................................................. 236

5.7.7 Alternative E ............................................................................................. 236

5.7.8 Alternative F.............................................................................................. 237

5.7.9 Alternative G............................................................................................. 237

5.7.10 Preferred Alternative............................................................................... 238

5.8 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ..................................................................................... 238

5.9 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS............................................................. 239

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects vii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

Page 

6.0 SOUTH PINEY IMPACT ANALYSIS............................................................................... 241

6.1 SPP PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS .................. 241

6.2 PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................................................. 242

6.2.1 Labor ......................................................................................................... 242

6.2.2 Natural Gas Drilling and Completion ....................................................... 242

6.2.3 Infinity Natural Gas Production................................................................ 244

6.3 PROPOSED ACTION IMPACTS (210 WELLS/WELL PADS)............................ 245

6.3.1 Infinity Impacts ......................................................................................... 245

6.3.1.1 Drilling and Completing ............................................................ 245

6.3.1.2 Production Operation Impacts.................................................... 245

6.3.1.3 Government Revenues ............................................................... 247

6.3.2 Williams Natural Gas Development Impacts............................................ 249

6.3.2.1 Drilling and Completing ............................................................ 249

6.3.2.2 Production Operation Impacts.................................................... 249

6.3.2.3 Government Revenues ............................................................... 249

6.3.3 Summary of Natural Gas Development Impacts....................................... 250

6.3.4 Recreation Impacts.................................................................................... 250

6.3.5 Agriculture/Rangeland Impacts ................................................................ 252

6.4 ALTERNATIVE A (420 WELLS/WELL PADS)................................................... 253

6.4.1 Natural Gas Development Impacts ........................................................... 253

6.4.2 Recreation Impacts.................................................................................... 253

6.4.3 Agriculture/Rangeland Impacts ................................................................ 254

6.5 ALTERNATIVE B (210 WELLS/160 WELL PADS) ............................................ 254

6.5.1 Natural Gas Development Impacts ........................................................... 254

6.5.2 Recreation ................................................................................................. 255

6.5.3 Agriculture/Rangeland .............................................................................. 255

6.6 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................... 255

6.6.1 Natural Gas Well Development and Production....................................... 255

6.6.2 Grazing...................................................................................................... 257

6.6.3 Recreation ................................................................................................. 257

6.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................................... 257

6.8 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS............................................................. 259

7.0 SOCIAL IMPACTS............................................................................................................ 261

7.1 POPULATION......................................................................................................... 261

7.2 INCOME, POVERTY, AND UNEMPLOYMENT................................................. 261

7.3 QUALITY OF LIVING ........................................................................................... 262

7.3.1 Crime......................................................................................................... 263

7.3.2 Health Care................................................................................................ 263

7.3.3 Housing ..................................................................................................... 264

7.3.4 Cost of Living and Inflation...................................................................... 264

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
viii Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

Page 

7.4 EDUCATION........................................................................................................... 264

8.0 ECONOMIC JUSTICE........................................................................................................ 267

8.1 DEFINING MINORITY AND/OR LOW-INCOME POPULATION .................... 269

8.1.1 Minority Communities .............................................................................. 269

8.1.2 Low-Income Population............................................................................ 270

8.1.3 Disproportionately High and Adverse Human Health Effects.................. 270

8.2 PROJECT STUDY AREA ..................................................................................... 271

5.2.1 Minority Communities .............................................................................. 271

8.2.2 Low-Income Population............................................................................ 271

8.2.3 Disproportionately High and Adverse Human Health Effects.................. 272

9.0 ACRONYM LIST AND GLOSSARY ................................................................................ 273

9.1 ACRONYM LIST.................................................................................................... 273

9.2 GLOSSARY............................................................................................................. 275

10.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 281

APPENDIX A: ASSUMED PRODUCTION RATES, DECLINE CURVES, AND

DISCOUNTING TABLES FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE ............................................. 1

LIST OF TABLES 

Page 

Table 3.1 Landownership of the JIDP/SPP Study Area...................................................... 18

Table 3.2 Historic and Projected Population .................................................................... 20

Table 3.3 Urban and Rural Population and Density, 2000 .............................................. 20

Table 3.4 Income, Poverty, and Unemployment................................................................. 24

Table 3.5 Population and Workforce, 2000 ...................................................................... 31

Table 3.8 Historic and Projected Housing Availability................................................... 41

Table 3.9a Average Rental Rates ........................................................................................ 42

Table 3.9b Housing Values and Percentage of Income Spent on Housing, 2000............ 43

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects ix 

LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) 

Page 

Table 3.10 Comparative Cost of Living Index ................................................................... 49

Table 3.11 Annual Inflation Rates in Wyoming by Category (Statewide Average)............. 51

Table 3.12 Annual Inflation Rates for the U.S., Wyoming, and Regions............................. 52

Table 3.13 Education Statistics, 2001-2002 ....................................................................... 53

Table 3.14 Results of WyCAS Testing, Categorized by Economically

Disadvantaged Category.................................................................................... 54

Table 3.15 CPI and Inflation Factors, 1980-2003................................................................. 63

Table 3.16 Wages and Job Numbers..................................................................................... 63

Table 3.17 Personal Income by Major Source ...................................................................... 64

Table 3.18 Wyoming Gross State Product.......................................................................... 72

Table 3.19 Compensation of Employees (Millions of Year 2000 dollars) ........................... 72

Table 3.20 Employment by Industry..................................................................................... 74

Table 3.21 Earnings by Industry ........................................................................................... 78

Table 3.22 Wyoming General Fund Revenues, Fiscal Year Collections by Source............. 85

Table 3.23 Statutory Distribution of Severance Taxes (W.S. 39-14-801) ............................ 87

Table 3.24 Summary of Mineral Severance Taxes Received by Wyoming and

Directly Distributed to All Counties and Cities and Project-Affected 

Counties and Cities ............................................................................................. 88

Table 3.25 Yearly Mineral Severance Taxes, Distributions by Account, Wyoming............ 89

Table 3.26 Proportion of Mineral Severance Taxes to All Wyoming Accounts by

Mineral ................................................................................................................ 92

Table 3.27 Statutory Distribution of Federal Mineral Royalties (W.S. 9-4-601) ................. 94

Table 3.28 Summary of Federal Mineral Royalties Received by Wyoming and

Directly Distributed to All Counties and Cities and Project-Affected 

Counties and Cities ............................................................................................. 96

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
x Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) 

Page 

Table 3.29 Summary of State of Wyoming Mineral Royalties............................................. 96

Table 3.30 Federal Mineral Royalties (Including Coal Lease Bonuses) - Fiscal Year

Distribution/Projection by Account .................................................................... 97

Table 3.31 Total PILT Payments and Total Acres ........................................................... 100

Table 3.32 Total State-Assessed Mineral Production Valuations....................................... 102

Table 3.33 Proportionate Taxable Valuation of Various Classes of Property in

Wyoming, 1998-2002 ...................................................................................... 102

Table 3.34 Sales, Use, and Lodging Tax Rates by County (Effective April 1, 2003) .......... 104

Table 3.35 Big Piney Example Budgets.............................................................................. 107

Table 3.36 Pinedale Example Budgets................................................................................ 110

Table 3.37 Sublette County Example Budgets ................................................................... 112

Table 3.38 Schedule of Natural Gas and Royalties from State Lands Received by

State and Counties, 1998-2002 ......................................................................... 118

Table 3.39 Assessed Property Valuations............................................................................. 120

Table 3.40 Total Ad Valorem Taxes Levied, State and Study Area..................................... 122

Table 3.41 Levies for K-12 Education, 2003 ....................................................................... 123

Table 3.42 Levies for Community Colleges, 2003 ............................................................... 123

Table 3.43 County Taxes Levied, 2003 ................................................................................ 124

Table 3.44 County and Statewide Average 2003 Mill Levies Applied to 2002 Mineral

Production and Taxes Assessed .......................................................................... 125

Table 3.45 Municipal Taxes Levied for the Year 2003 ........................................................ 125

Table 3.46 City and Town Assessed Valuation and Taxes Levied, 2003............................. 126

Table 3.47 Grand Total All Taxes Levied, 2003................................................................... 126

Table 3.48 Sales Tax Collections in State and Study Area................................................... 129

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects xi 

LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) 

Page 

Table 3.49 Use Tax Collections in the State and Study Area ............................................... 132

Table 3.50 Lodging Tax Collections By County And Local Entity, 2002............................ 135

Table 3.51 Grazing Allotments and AUMs, JIDPA and SPPA ............................................ 135

Table 3.52 Estimated Value of Cattle Grazing AUMs in Wyoming..................................... 138

Table 3.53 Estimated Value of Sheep Grazing AUMs in Wyoming .................................... 138

Table 3.54 Estimated Value of Grazing Activities on Project-Affected Lands.................... 139

Table 3.55 Percentage of Agricultural Sales Attributed to Grazing Project-Affected

Lands, 1997 ......................................................................................................... 139

Table 3.56 Estimated Annual Recreational Visitor Days, PFO ............................................ 142

Table 3.57 BLM-Estimated Big Game Hunter-Days, PFO Area.......................................... 142

Table 3.58 Herd Units and Landownership in the PFO Area ............................................... 143

Table 3.59 Summary of Hunters and Hunter-Days for Potentially Project-Affected

Big Game Species in the PFO Area, 2002 .......................................................... 144

Table 3.60 Summary of Potentially Project-Affected Small Game and Upland Bird

Hunters and Hunter-Days in the PFO Area, 2002............................................... 144

Table 3.61 Value of Recreation, PFO Area, 1997 ................................................................ 149

Table 3.62 Value of Hunting of Species Potentially Occurring on the Project Area,

Wyoming and Study Area,, 2002........................................................................ 149

Table 3.63 Contribution of JIDPA and SPPA to Hunting Revenues .................................... 151

Table 4.1 Location Quotients, 2000 .................................................................................. 156

Table 5.1 Estimated Years to Complete Project, All Alternatives...................................... 166

Table 5.2 Anticipated Gas and Condensate Recovery Volumes for Each Alternative,

Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005......................... 166

Table 5.3 Estimated Work Force Requirements, All Alternatives, Jonah Infill

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005............................................ 168

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
xii Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) 

Page 

Table 5.4 Average Per Well Drilling and Completion Costs of Natural Gas 

Development, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming ........... 169 

Table 5.5 Annual Cost of Natural Gas Production, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005....................................................................... 171 

Table 5.6 Per Well Economic Activity from Natural Gas Development, Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming...................................................... 172 

Table 5.7 Economic Activity Resulting from Natural Gas Development Under the 

Proposed Action, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2005................................................................................................... 173 

Table 5.8 Economic Activity Resulting from Natural Gas Development Under 

Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) and Alternative B, Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005............................................ 174 

Table 5.9 Economic Activity Resulting from Natural Gas Development Under 

Alternative C, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 

2005..................................................................................................................... 175 

Table 5.10 Economic Activity Resulting from Natural Gas Development Under 

Alternative D, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 

2005..................................................................................................................... 176 

Table 5.11 Economic Activity Resulting from Natural Gas Development Under 

Alternative E, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 

2005..................................................................................................................... 177 

Table 5.12 Economic Activity Resulting from Natural Gas Development Under 

Alternative F, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 

2005..................................................................................................................... 178 

Table 5.13 Economic Activity Resulting from Natural Gas Development Under 

Alternative G and the Preferred Alternative, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005....................................................................... 179 

Table 5.14 Summary of Economic Activity Resulting from Natural Gas Development 

Under Each Alternative Over the Life of Project, Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.......................................................... 180 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects xiii 

LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) 

Page 

Table 5.15 Gas Production Impacts from One MMCF of Natural Gas and One Barrel

of Condensate, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming,

2005..................................................................................................................... 186

Table 5.16 Summary of Economic Activity Resulting from Natural Gas Production

Over the Life of Project, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County,

2004..................................................................................................................... 187

Table 5.17 Government Taxes and Revenues Resulting from the Jonah Infill Drilling

Project (Life of Project), Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005............................... 193

Table 5.18 Taxes and Revenues Received by Governments from the Jonah Infill

Drilling Project (Life of Project), Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005................. 193

Table 5.19 Speculative Big Piney Budget in Year 10 under the Proposed Action............... 201

Table 5.20 Speculative Pinedale Budget in Year 10 under the Proposed Action ................. 202

Table 5.21 Speculative Sublette County Budget in Year 10 under the Proposed Action..... 203

Table 5.22 Economic Activity per RVD from Nonconsumptive Recreation Impacts,

Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005......................... 210

Table 5.23 Economic Activity from Nonconsumptive Recreation for the Life of

Project, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005 ........... 211

Table 5.24 Economic Activity per Hunter Day, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette

County, Wyoming, 2005 ..................................................................................... 216

Table 5.25 Economic Activity Resulting from Hunting Over the Life of Project,

Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005......................... 217

Table 5.26 Number of AUMs Potentially Affected under Each Alternative and

Cumulatively Including Existing Disturbance, Jonah Infill Drill Project,

2004..................................................................................................................... 222

Table 5.27 Economic Activity from Grazing per AUM, Jonah Infill Drilling

Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005 ...................................................... 222

Table 5.28 Economic Activity Resulting from Grazing Over the Life of Project, Jonah

Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005................................... 224

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
xiv Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) 

Page 

Table 5.29 Summary of Economic Activity Resulting from Natural Gas Development

and Production Over the Life of Project, Jonah Infill Drilling Project,

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005....................................................................... 233

Table 6.1 Estimated Effort Required to Develop and Operate the South Piney

Project ................................................................................................................. 243

Table 6.2 Direct Annual Operating Cost Assumptions....................................................... 244

Table 6.3 SPP Gas Drilling Impacts.................................................................................... 246

Table 6.4 Gas Production Impacts LOP--South Piney........................................................ 247

Table 6.5 Estimated Annual and LOP Revenues and Taxes Resulting From Infinity's 

149 Mesaverde Wells Producing an Average of 0.47 mmcfpd of Natural 

Gas and From Williams’ 47 Frontier Wells Producing an Average of 

0.17 mmcfd of Natural Gas ................................................................................. 248

Table 6.6 Cattle Grazing Impacts, SPP ............................................................................... 253

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

1.0 OVERVIEW

TRC Mariah Associates Inc. (TRC Mariah) developed the socioeconomic profiles of the study area 

and the University of W yoming, College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, 

Agricultural Economics Department (UWAED) performed the input/output analysis used as the 

basis for impact estimates provided in this technical support document for the Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project (JIDP) and South Piney Natural Gas Developm ent Project (SPP) environm ental impact 

statements (EISs). The analysis was performed according to the requirements of the socioeconomic 

analysis protocol developed for this project (TRC Mariah 2003). At the direction of the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) Wyoming State Office, the analysis utilized information from existing 

documents (as appropriate), documents currently in preparation (provided by the authors or analysts 

as necessary), the Sonoran Institute Econom ic Profile System (EPS) software (Sonoran Institute 

2003), and other extant data to develop econom ic profile baseline data. IMPLAN PRO 2.0 

(IMPLAN) software was used to conduct input/output analysis to determine potential impacts of the 

proposed projects and alternatives. UWAED has calibrated county-specific data sets for the study 

area under a contract with the State of W yoming (personal com munication, October 14 and 17, 

2003, with Roy Allen, Economist, BLM Wyoming State Office) and the protocol mandated that the 

calibrated county-specific datasets be used in place of the nationalized county data provided by 

MIG, Inc. (the m anufacturer of IMPLAN). Cumulative im pacts were estim ated based on the 

information developed for the JIDP and SPP Proposed Actions and alternatives and reasonable 

foreseeable development information. 

The proposed econom ic study area included the counties and com munities m ost likely to be 

impacted by the JIDP/SPP, including the following: 

• Lincoln County and the community of LaBarge; 

• Sublette County and the com munities of Pinedale, Big Piney, Marbleton, and 

Boulder; 

• Sweetwater County and the communities of Eden, Farson, and Rock Springs; 

• Wyoming, and 

• the U.S. (for selected items, as appropriate). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
2 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Existing documents and documents in preparation that were utilized to develop econom ic profile 

baseline data and to estim ate potential and cum ulative impacts for the study area included the 

following reports: 

• Southwest Wyoming Resource Evaluation Socio/Economic Evaluation (SWREE), 

Final Report, Parts I and II (UWAED 1997); 

• the economic effect analysis developed for the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated 

Activity Plan (JMHCAP) (UWAED 2003); 

• the JMHCAP supplemental draft EIS (BLM 2003a); 

• BLM's Socioeconomic Profile-Pinedale (BLM 2003b); 

• the economic impact analysis currently being prepared for the Pinedale Resource 

Management Plan (RMP) (UWAED [2004]); 

• Sublette County Comprehensive Plan: County Vision, Goals and Policies 

(Sublette County Board of Com missioners and Sublette County Planning 

Commission [SCBC and SCPC] 2003). 

The following socioeconomic factors were profiled using either the EPS or other sources mentioned 

above: 

• population and demography; 

• employment and personal income; 

• quality of living (i.e., the degree to which a person enjoys the important possibilities 

of his or her life); 

• industry and economy; 

• tax and revenue; 

• grazing; and 

• recreation. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 3 

2.0 METHODS 

2.1 ECONOMIC PROFILES 

TRC Mariah developed baseline profiles from selected statistics for the counties and affected 

communities in the JIDP/SPP study area for the 20-year study period (1980 to 2000). The baseline 

profiles were developed using existing docum ents, documents in preparation, the EPS, and data 

obtained from other extant sources. The baseline profiles developed from EPS provided the 

foundation from which social and econom ic impacts arising from the JIDP/SPP and alternatives 

were projected and compared. The EPS profiles, tables, and graphs used for this analysis are on file 

at TRC Mariah's Laramie, Wyoming, office under Project 35982. EPS software is available to the 

public at no charge from <www.sonoran.org>, where it may be downloaded and individual county 

profiles may be created. Additionally, the State of Wyoming has developed county profiles which 

may be viewed at <http://eadiv.state.wy.us/wef/eps.asp>. 

2.1.1 Resources 

The EPS was form ally adopted by the U.S. Departm ent of the Interior, BLM, W ashington, D.C. 

(Instruction Memorandum No. 2003-169, May 16, 2003) for use with all RMPs in the 14-state 

region covered by EPS. The BLM Wyoming State Office specified that EPS be used to profile 

affected counties and com munities in the JIDP/SPP EIS study area (personal com munication, 

October 14 and 17, 2003, with Roy Allen, Economist, BLM Wyoming State Office). 

The EPS was developed by the Sonoran Institute Socio/Economics Program, in partnership with the 

BLM, to provide analysts and planners with a way to efficiently and consistently produce detailed 

socioeconomic profiles at the state, regional, county, and multi-county level. Profiles produced from 

EPS contain narrative, tables, and figures that illustrate long-term trends: 

• in population; 

• in employment and personal income by industry; 

• in average earnings; 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
4 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

• in retirement and other non-labor income; 

• in business development; and 

• in agriculture. 

Additional or more-detailed information used to compile profile and baseline socioeconomic data 

may have been obtained from extant sources, including the following: 

• the U.S. Census Bureau; 

• the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA); 

• other U.S. departments and agencies; 

• various State of Wyoming departments and agencies; 

• local county and community governments; 

• UWAED; 

• BLM; 

• JIDP and SPP proponents (collectively referred to as Operators herein); and 

• personal interviews with individuals in affected areas (particularly on subjects where 

an apparent disconnect between published data and actual circumstances seemed to 

exist). 

2.1.2 Socioeconomic Study Factors 

TRC Mariah compiled baseline statistics for a 20-year study period (1980 to 2000) for the social and 

economic factors detailed in the sections below. 

2.1.2.1 Population and Demography 

Factors related to population and demography include the following: 

• population trends; 

• income, poverty, and unemployment; and 

• workforce age, gender, and disabilities. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 5 

2.1.2.2 Employment and Personal Income 

Factors related to employment and personal income include the following: 

• average wages by area; 

• median wages by job category; 

• total personal incom e (TPI) (adjusted for place of residence and place of work), 

including labor incom e (i.e., earnings from work; wages, salaries, and 

self-employment income), investment income (i.e., dividends, interest, and rent), and 

transfer payments (i.e., Social Security benefits, Medicare and Medicaid benefits, 

and other income support and assistance); and 

• per capita personal income (PCPI) 

2.1.2.3 Quality of Living 

Factors related to quality of life (e.g., the degree to which a person enjoys the important possibilities 

of his or her life) of residents in the econom ic study area were gathered and enum erated where 

possible. Baseline statistics were compiled on quality of life in the affected communities, counties, 

and the State of Wyoming. Quality of life factors include the following: 

• crime (including crimes against people and crimes against property); 

• health care (facilities and providers); 

• housing (type, quality, quantity, cost, assessed values, building permits issued); 

• cost of living; 

• inflation; and 

• education (primary, secondary, post-secondary). 

2.1.2.4 Industry and Economy 

Factors related to income and the economy include the following: 

• gross state product ("value added" or the gross output [sales, operating incom e] 

minus interm ediate inputs [purchased or im ported goods or services used in 

production]); 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
6 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

• industry compensation of em ployees (sum of em ployees wages and salaries plus 

supplements to wages and salaries); 

• industry employment and job growth trends; and 

• earnings by industry and industry growth trends. 

2.1.2.5 Taxes and Revenues 

Factors related to taxes and revenue include the following: 

• mineral severance taxes and federal m inerals royalties received by W yoming and 

directly distributed to counties, cities, and towns; 

• fiscal year general fund revenue collections by source; 

• fiscal year distribution of mineral severance taxes to all accounts by mineral; 

• royalties from state minerals received and distributed by the State of Wyoming; 

• payments in lieu of taxes (PILT); 

• state-assessed real and personal property valuations; 

• state-assessed production valuations; 

• proportionate taxable valuation of various classes of property in Wyoming; 

• locally assessed property valuations; 

• ad valorem taxes; 

• sales tax collections; 

• use tax collections; and 

• lodging tax collections. 

2.1.2.6 Grazing 

Factors related to grazing include the following: 

• historic cattle grazing use within JIDP area (JIDPA) and SPP area (SPPA) and 

• estimated direct fiscal revenues to local government from livestock grazing based on 

the proportion of production taxes and federal grazing fees received or returned to 

the JIDPA/SPPA . 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 7 

2.1.2.7 Recreation 

TRC Mariah compiled baseline statistics for consumptive (hunting) and nonconsumptive recreation 

in the JIDPA and SPPA, utilizing the m ethodology developed for the SW REE (UWAED 1997). 

Historical information was derived from previously listed sources (see Sections 1.0 and 2.2) and/or 

the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) and the Wyoming Division of Tourism. 

Where sufficient data were available, recreation activities in the JIDPA and SPPA were separated 

into nonresident and resident use. Nonresident use value was based on the economic impact from 

expenditures by nonresidents in the region. Direct fiscal revenues to local governm ents from 

recreation were estim ated based on the proportion of nonresident sales, lodging, and gas tax 

revenues returned to local governments in the study area. 

Recreation data included the following items: 

• BLM-recorded recreation visits; 

• BLM recreation days (visits split into 12-hour days); 

• net consumer value per day for outdoor recreation activities; 

• visitor expenditures; 

• hunter recreation days for appropriate herd units (obtained from WGFD); 

• number of hunters; and 

• surface ownership status of herd units. 

2.2 IMPACT ANALYSIS 

TRC Mariah developed the socioeconom ic impact analysis for the JIDP/SPP EISs utilizing the 

methods used for the SWREE (UWAED 1997) and the economic effect analysis developed for the 

JMHCAP (UWAED 2003; BLM 2003a). Additional information was obtained from the Operators, 

BLM, BLM's pertinent reasonable foreseeable developm ent documents, Wyoming Agricultural 

Statistics Service, WGFD, and other sources. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
8 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

The economic impacts of the JIDP/SPP and alternatives on the economic study area were analyzed 

using IMPLAN, which is an input/output (I/O) m odeling system (personal com munication, 

October 14 and 17, 2003, with Roy Allen, Economist, BLM Wyoming State Office). I/O modeling 

is a mathematical accounting of the flow of dollars and commodities through a region's economy. 

These types of models provide estimates of how a given amount of a particular economic activity 

translates into jobs and incom e in a region. The I/O analysis used coefficients calibrated by the 

UWAED specifically for the SWREE from a combination of primary and secondary data specific 

to Lincoln, Sublette, and Sweetwater Counties. These calibrated county-specific coefficients were 

updated for the JMHCAP (BLM 2003a) and the Pinedale RMP (UWAED 2004; BLM 2004a). The 

year 2000 was be used as the base year. 

The BLM provided estim ates of physical outputs for selected com modities associated with the 

various alternatives. TRC Mariah, in consultation with the Operators, BLM, and UW AED, 

determined the appropriate values for these commodities. UWAED then used the output and value 

data in IMPLAN to estimate the economic impacts of the JIDP and SPP on the economic study area. 

The JIDP/SPP analysis was based on a 20-year developm ent horizon (2003-2023) and a 47-year 

production horizon (2003-2050), with 2000 being used as the base year. Cumulative economic 

effects are expressed as both short term (2003-2012) and long term (2013-2050 for the SPP; 2013-up 

to 2085 for the JIDP). The economic analysis focused on three types of com modities, including 

natural gas infill developm ent, cattle grazing (sheep are approved for grazing on the Boundary 

allotment in the JIDPA; however, sheep have not been grazed in m ore than 5 years, and for the 

purposes of the analysis herein, it is assumed that sheep shall not be grazed on JIDP- or SPP-affected 

allotments), and recreation activities (hunting and nonconsumptive). 

Prior to modeling, input data used for the I/O model was adjusted for inflation and converted to 2000 

constant-dollars, as necessary. After modeling, impact dollar values were discounted using a 3.5% 

discount rate as recommended for projects exceeding 30 years by the Office of Managem ent and 

Budget (OMB) C ircular No. A-94 (OMB 2004). The OMB recom mendation for using a real 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 9 

discount rate of 3.5% for constant-dollar benefit-cost analysis approximates the marginal pretax rate 

of return on an average investment in the private sector in recent years (BLM 2003a). 

The OMB describes the discount rate policy in OMB (2004). To compute net present value, it is 

necessary to discount future benefits and costs. This discounting reflects the time value of money. 

Benefits and costs are worth m ore if they are experienced sooner. All future benefits and costs, 

including nonmonetized benefits and costs, should be discounted. The higher the discount rate, the 

lower is the present value of future cash flows. For typical investments, with costs concentrated in 

early periods and benefits following in later periods, raising the discount rate tends to reduce the net 

present value. On the other hand, when costs and revenues are both concentrated in early periods 

with lower benefits following in later periods, raising the discount rate tends to increase the net 

present value. 

Real versus Nom inal Discount Rates . The proper discount rate to use depends on whether the 

benefits and costs are measured in real or nominal terms. 

• A real discount rate that has been adjusted to elim inate the effect of expected 

inflation is used to discount constant-dollar or real benefits and costs. A real discount 

rate can be approximated by subtracting expected inflation from a nominal interest 

rate. 

• A nominal discount rate that reflects expected inflation is used to discount nominal 

benefits and costs. Market interest rates are nominal interest rates in this sense. 

As presented herein, the "nominal" value of project activities is the simple calculation of dollars with 

no adjustments. The "present value" is the value of those activities after the real discount rate has 

been applied over time. 

The discount factor is calculated as 1/(1+i)

t

 where i is the interest rate and t is the project year 

(OMB 2004). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
10 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

The I/O model required a series of assumptions and inputs specific to the study area. Assumptions 

included the value of production resulting from land uses within the JIDPA and SPPA under each 

alternative. BLM staff and cooperating agencies provided information on current uses in the JIDPA 

and SPPA and how those uses m ay change under each alternative. This information provided a 

physical quantitative measure of inputs necessary for the economic impact analysis (e.g., number 

of gas wells, animal unit months [AUMs] [an AUM is the amount of forage necessary to feed a cow 

and a calf for one month], recreational visitor days, etc.). Primary data and sources used to estimate 

physical inputs for the I/O model are summarized in Chapter 4.0. 

Estimates of inputs, including prices, were used to evaluate the potential sales from uses of the 

JIDPA and SPPA under each alternative. This direct sales estimate serves as the input for the I/O 

model to obtain an estim ate of total economic impact for each alternative (changes in direct and 

indirect income and employment). 

The economic impact analysis for the No Action Alternative was the first model prepared to provide 

a baseline for the alternatives analysis. It contains a discussion of im pacts that were used for 

comparison with other alternatives. Methodology for the Proposed Action impact analyses are fully 

discussed in Chapter 4.0. Project-specific impacts are discussed for the JIDP in Chapter 5.0 and for 

the SPP in Chapter 6.0. Where impacts are the same among alternatives, reference was m ade to 

those alternatives so that impact discussions are not repeated. Cumulative impacts for the Proposed 

Action and each alternative are discussed and include the social and econom ic impacts of the 

Proposed Action or alternatives in com bination with other proposed, existing, or reasonable 

foreseeable developments. 

2.2.1 Natural Gas Activities 

The economic impact of the Proposed Actions, alternatives, and cumulative effects on the study-area 

economy were analyzed in two parts using the methods developed for the SWREE (UWAED 1997) 

and JMHCAP (UW AED 2003; BLM 2003a). The first part of each project analyzed was the 

development phase and the economic impacts associated with drilling and completion of wells in 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 11 

the JIDPA and SPPA. The second part anal yzed was the production phase and the econom ic

impacts associated with the production of natural gas from the completed wells. 

Estimated average per well developm ent and production costs were provided by the Operators.

Certain economic assumptions were used in the natural gas development analyses (the drilling and

completion of natural gas wells), including the following:

• expenditure per well (cost to drill); 

• volume of production (million cubic feet [MMCF]) per well; 

• value of production (the average price of natural gas used for the price forecast by 

the Consensus Revenue Estimating Group (CREG) [CREG 2004]); 

• total economic impact per well (direct and indirect); 

• industry earnings per well; 

• annual job equivalents (AJEs) per well (An AJE represents 12 m onths of 

employment. For example, one AJE could represent one job for 12 m onths or two 

jobs for 6 months or three jobs for 4 months. For the purposes of this analysis, a job 

[one AJE] is defined as 260 worker-days = 1 worker-year, a person year is 365 days; 

therefore, there are approxim ately 1.4 worker years per person year [one AJE = 

1.4 person-years]); and 

• local government taxes and revenues. 

2.2.2 Grazing 

The economic impact of the Proposed Actions, alternatives, and cum ulative effects on livestock 

grazing in the JIDPA and SPPA was estim ated using the m ethods described in the SW REE 

(UWAED 1997) and JMHCAP (UWAED 2003; BLM 2003a). 

The value of cattle grazing AUMs was estim ated using data obtained from the W yoming 

Agricultural Statistics Service which included the value of livestock sold in W yoming each year 

from 1998 to 2002 (Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service 2003). Gross receipts per AUM were 

estimated from 5-year average prices and adjusted for inflation each year to 2002 dollars. A 5-year 

average was used in the analysis due to the variability in livestock prices in recent years and the lack 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
12 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

of correlation between livestock prices, other industries, and inflation. Livestock prices were 

conservatively held constant throughout the planning period. Total livestock sales were divided by 

the number of animals that calved in each year, which provides a value per animal sold. The value 

per cow was divided by an AUM conversion factor, which resulted in an estimated value per AUM 

per year. The value and number of AUMs per alternative were used in combination with IMPLAN 

to estimate economic impacts of grazing under each alternative. 

Based on the information described above, certain AUM economic assumptions were developed for 

impact analysis. These included: 

• gross production receipts per AUM; 

• total economic impact (direct and secondary) per AUM; 

• labor earnings generated per AUM; 

• AJEs per AUM; and 

• local government revenue generated per AUM. 

2.2.3 Recreation 

The economic impact of the Proposed Actions, alternatives, and cum ulative effects on recreation 

were estim ated using the m ethods developed for the SW REE (UW AED 1997) and JMHCAP 

(UWAED 2003; BLM 2003a). 

Recreation activities are not purchased in an identifiable market so their economic value must be 

determined indirectly. Two types of measures are typically used for "non-market" commodities: 

• the expenditures associated with the use of the non-market commodity, and 

• the net value of the non-market commodity to the consumer. 

The first m easure considers the econom ic activity generated by the use of the non-m arket 

commodity by measuring participant expenditures to estimate the economic activity that is generated 

in the region in terms of income and jobs. In regional analyses, this type of m easure is typically 

used to value recreation use by nonresidents and this was the m easure employed in this analysis. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 13 

For resident expenditures, it was assum ed that recreationists would have spent their m oney 

elsewhere in the region' s economy if they had not been participating in the recreation activity. 

Recreation expenditures by residents are viewed as a shifting of dollars from one site or commodity 

to another based on personal consumption preferences and not a net gain to the region's economy. 

The second measure considers the value of the satisfaction that the non-market commodity provides 

the consumer by considering the value of the recreation activity to the participant after all his or her 

costs are subtracted. This m easure represents the "net econom ic value" to the user that is 

over-and-above costs. It is similar to the concept of profit for a business. Special techniques based 

on observed consumer behavior or the expressed valuations by the consumer are used to estimate 

this type of value. In regional analysis, this type of measure is typically used to value recreation use 

by residents. This measure was not used for this analysis due to a lack of available data on resident 

use. A detailed discussion of the estimation of "net economic values" is presented in the appendix 

of the economic effect analysis developed for the JMHCAP (UWAED 2003; BLM 2003a). 

Recreation impacts were estimated utilizing information obtained from the sources described in 

Chapter 1.0 and Section 2.2.1. From those estimates, certain economic assumptions were developed 

for use in the analysis for consum ptive (i.e., hunting pronghorn and greater sage-grouse) and 

nonconsumptive recreation (e.g., wildlife and scenery viewing, off-road vehicle use), including the 

following: 

• expenditures by individual per recreation day; 

• total economic impact (direct and secondary) per recreation day; 

• labor earnings generated per recreation day; 

• AJEs generated per recreation day; 

• local government revenue generated per recreation day; and 

• net economic value generated per recreation day. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
14 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

2.2.4 Social Impacts 

Baseline social and economic factors, including population, personal incom e, and quality of 

living factors described in Sections 2.1.2.1-2.1.2.3 were compared to expected changes in the 

economy that would affect a typical family in the study area. Impacts were evaluated against the 

potential for changes in quality of life factors (i.e., availability of necessities, recreation and leisure 

time) and the ability of residents to maintain or improve the current quality of life as a result of the 

proposed projects and alternatives. 

2.2.5 Economic Justice 

The potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to the social, cultural, and economic well-being 

and health of minority and low-income groups were evaluated per Executive Order (EO) 12898.

 This was done by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental impacts of the proposed projects (including cumulative effects) on 

minority populations and low-income populations. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 15 

3.0 SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILES

AND EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

The Pinedale Field Office (PFO) and Rock Springs Field Office (RSFO) RMP Records of 

Decision (RODs) (BLM 1988, 1997, 2004a) and land use plans for both the state (W yoming 

State Land Use Com mission 1979) and local areas (SCBC and SCPC 2003) identify the 

following management objectives associated with socioeconomics: 

• to coordinate land use decisions with economic factors and needs; 

• to mitigate economic, social, and environmental impacts on communities caused by 

rapid or large-scale growth and development; 

• to plan for the provision of public facilities and services, including safe and efficient 

transportation and utility systems, in coordination with local land use policies, goals, 

and objectives; and 

• to provide adequate, suitable land to meet housing needs of all residents. 

BLM (2004a) criteria stipulate that impacts to socioeconomic resources would be considered 

potentially significant if any of the following were to occur: 

• changes in total employment in Lincoln, Sublette, and Sweetwater Counties exceed 

an increase or decrease of 1% of the trend or 

• changes in local tax revenues exceed an increase or decrease of 15% of the trend. 

The SCBC and SCPC (2003) emphasize the following values specific to the social traditions and 

socioeconomic base of Sublette County. 

• Sublette County’s unique, local culture should be preserved and enriched, a culture 

characterized by a rural Wyoming flavor, a thriving private business community, an 

atmosphere friendly to working fam ilies, and the security of friendly crim e-free 

communities. 

• There should be an abundance of economic freedom and diverse opportunities for 

residents old and new to pursue prosperity and happiness--com plemented and 

sustained by a business-friendly atm osphere, reasonable taxation, a low cost of 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
16 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

living, limited regulation, wise developm ent of its natural resources, and a strong 

tradition of a good work ethic. 

Additional information has been taken from the socioeconomic profile (BLM 2003b) prepared for 

inclusion in the new Pinedale RMP (now in pr eparation). Unless otherwise stated, all dollar 

amounts are presented in year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 

3.1 POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHY 

3.1.1 Geographic Study Area 

3.1.1.1 JIDP Location 

The JIDPA is located in south-central Sublette County, W yoming, approxim ately 32 m i 

southeast of Pinedale and 28 mi northwest of Farson, Wyoming, on approximately 30,500 acres 

in T28N and T29N, R107W through R109W. This acreage includes approximately 28,580 acres 

of federal surface and mineral estate managed by the BLM; 1,280 acres of State of Wyoming surface 

and minerals; and 640 acres of private surface/federal minerals. Access to the area is from U.S. 

Highway 191, located 1.5 to 11 mi east of the JIDPA. 

3.1.1.2 SPP Location 

The SPPA is located in southwest Sublette County, approximately 13 mi west of Big Piney on 

31,231 acres in T29N and T30N, R114W. Access is via U.S. Highway 189 located 13 mi east 

of the SPPA. 

3.1.1.3 Economic Study Area 

The economic study area includes the counties and communities most likely to be impacted by 

the proposed projects, including LaBarge in Lincoln County; Pinedale, Big Piney, Marbleton, 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 17 

and Boulder in Sublette County; and Eden, Farson, and Rock Springs in Sweetwater County. 

Rock Springs is about 70 m i from the project areas, but is a hub for regional natural gas 

development activities and likely will be home to some of the project workers. Wyoming and 

the U.S. are also included in the profile and impact analyses where information is available and 

pertinent. 

Like much of Wyoming, the economic study area is quite rural in nature. All three counties 

have a large land area with a dispersed population as summarized in Table 3.1. Public lands 

constitute the majority of the land in the three counties, ranging from 72.4% in Sweetwater 

County to 81.5% in Sublette County. Landownership in all three counties is primarily federal, 

ranging from 68.7% in Sweetwater County to 74.7% in Sublette County. Private lands 

constitute only 20.8% of Lincoln County lands, 18.5% of Sublette County lands, 27.6% of 

Sweetwater County lands, and 43.0% of all lands in Wyoming. 

3.1.2 Population 

Population data was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau (2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2000d), 

Taylor and Lieske (2002), and the W yoming Department of Administration and Information 

(WDAI) (2001a, 2001b, 2002a, 2002b, 2003a). EPS uses BEA population data, which differs from 

census totals; however, percentages tend to approximate calculations based on census data. Where 

the population data conflict, census estimates were used for calculations and variances from EPS 

reporting are noted. EPS profiles, charts, and raw data are on file at TRC Mariah' s Laramie, 

Wyoming, office. 

Annual growth rates between two consecutive years (e.g., 1999-2000) were calculated using a 

simple annual growth formula (Formula 1). 

Formula 1: 

([Y2 data -Y1 data]/Y1 data) X 100 = annual growth 

Example of Annual Growth from 1999 to 2000 

([2000 data-1999 data]/1999 data) x 100 = Annual Growth rate for 1999 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
18 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 3.1 Landownership of the JIDP/SPP Study Area.1 

Counties 

Wyoming Lincoln Sublette Sweetwater 

Geographic Characteristic Acres Mi2 Acres Mi2 Acres Mi2 Acres Mi2 

PUBLIC LANDS 

Federal Lands 

National Park Service 2,342,399 3,660.0 7,438 11.6 0 0 0 0 

Forest Service 9,270,312 14,484.9 901,026 1,407.9 1,169,377 1,827.2 93,276 145.7 

Fish and Wildlife 92,805 145.0 6,029 9.4 0 0 25,291 39.5 

Bureau of Land Management 17,428,611 27,232.2 1,013,269 1,583.2 1,257,155 1,964.3 4,304,983 6,726.5 

Bureau of Reclamation 803,294 1,255.1 25,032 39.1 5,428 8.5 200,250 312.9 

Total Federal Lands 29,937,421 46,777.2 1,952,794 3,051.2 2,431,960 3,799.9 4,623,800 7,224.7 

Percentage of Total Federal 47.6% n/a 71.4% n/a 74.7% n/a 68.7% n/a 

Lands 

State of Wyoming 

State Lands Commission 3,649,649 5,702.6 212,095 331.4 212,095 331.4 212,095 331.4 

Recreation Commission 126,901 198.3 4 0.0 0 0 25 0.0 

Department of Game and Fish 156,170 244.0 2,181 3.4 9,425 14.7 35,395 55.3 

Total State Lands 3,932,720 6,144.9 214,280 334.8 221,520 346.1 247,515 386.7 

Percentage of Total State 6.3% n/a 7.8% n/a 6.8% n/a 3.7% n/a 

Lands 

Local Government 

County 15,156 23.7 0 0 701 1.1 1,483 2.3 

City 46,894 73.3 0 0 525 0.8 4,110 6.4 

School Districts and Colleges 23,759 37.1 0 0 141 0.2 910 1.4 

Total Local Government 85,809 134.1 0 0 1,367 2.1 6,503 10.2 

Lands 

Percentage of Total 

Government Lands 

0.14% n/a 0 0 0.04% n/a 0.1% n/a 

Other Public Lands 1,884,186 2,944.0 1,482 2.3 2,923 4.6 7,782 12.2 

Percentage of Total Other 2.99% n/a 0.05% n/a 0.09% n/a 0.12% n/a 

Public Lands 

Total Public Lands 35,840,136 56,000.2 2,167,074 3,386.1 2,653,480 4,146.1 4,871,315 7,611.4 

Percentage of Total Public 57.0% n/a 79.2% n/a 81.5% n/a 72.4% n/a 

Lands 

PRIVATE LANDS 27,073,322 42,302.1 568,566 888.4 602,433 941.3 1,860,085 2,906.4 

Percentage of Total Lands 43.0% n/a 20.8% n/a 18.5% n/a 27.6% n/a 

TOTAL LANDS 62,913,458 98,302.3 2,735,640 4,274.4 3,255,913 5,087.4 6,731,400 10,517.8 

Number of acres for each land classification was obtained from Wyoming Department of Administration and Information (WDAI) (2002a). 

The number of square m iles and percentage of total acres was calculated. In some instances, the calculated inform ation differs from the 

information presented in WDAI (2002a) and BLM (2003b). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 

1 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 19 

Annualized growth rate over a period of time (e.g., 1980 to 1990) was calculated using Formula 2. 

Formula 2 is a geometric mean equation, based on end-points. 

Formula 2: 

[(Y2 data/Y1 data)(1/[Y2-Y1]) - 1] X 100 = average annual growth 

Example of Average Annual Growth from 1980 to 1990

 [(1990 data/1980 data)(1/[1990-1980]) - 1] x 100 =

average annual growth rate for the period 1980 to 1990

All state and local area dollar estimates are in year 2000 dollars (thousands) (adjusted for inflation), 

with the exception of PCPI, which is stated in actual dollars and was obtained from BEA (2003b). 

3.1.2.1 United States 

U.S. census numbers indicate fairly steady gr owth occurred during the 20-year study period 

(1980-2000). From 1980 to 2000, the U.S. population grew by 24% (54,879,707 people) 

(WDAI 2001a) (Table 3.2). EPS estimates a different number of people but arrives at the same 

percentage. 

The majority of U.S. residents (222,358,309, 79%) live in urban areas (Table 3.3). Of those 

in rural areas (59,063,597), 95% (56,075,066) are nonfarm residents (U.S. Census Bureau 

2000d). A total of 2,987,531 U.S. residents lives on farms. The U.S. has an average population 

density of 79.6 people/square mile (U.S. Census Bureau 2000a). 

3.1.2.2 Wyoming 

Numbers from the 2000 census indicate considerable growth in the Rocky Mountain West; however, 

Wyoming has experienced both growth and decline over the past 20 years. Wyoming's census 

numbers also indicate differences in growth between the urban and rural areas of the state. After 

increasing by 41% between 1970 (332,416) and 1980 (469,557) and then decreasing by more than 

3.4% from 1980 to 1990 (453,588), W yoming pop ulation trends have returned to 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
20 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 3.2 Historic and Projected Population. 

Population1 

Total Change in 

Population (%)1

 Projected Population1 

1980- 1990- 1980-

Location 19802 19902 20002 1990 2000 2000 20023 20104 20154 20204 20254 

U.S. (thousands) 226,542 248,709 281,421 9. 8 13.2 24.2 288,368 297,716 310,133 322,742 335,050 

State of Wyoming 469,557 453,588 493,782 -3.4 8.9 5.2 498,703 607,000 641,000 670,000 694,000 

Lincoln County 12,177 12,625 14,573 3.7 15.4 19.7 14,890 15,520 NP NP NP 

LaBarge 302 493 431 63.2 -12.6 42.7 NR NR NP NP NP 

Sublette County 4,548 4,843 5,920 6.4 22.2 30.2 6,240 6,690 NP NP NP 

Big Piney 530 454 408 -10.1 -1.3 -23.0 NR 461 NP NP NP 

Bondurant NR NR 155 -- -- -- NR NR NP NP NP 

Boulder NR NR 30 -- -- -- NR NR NP NP NP 

Cora NR NR 76 -- -- -- NR NR NP NP NP 

Daniel NR NR 89 -- -- -- NR NR NP NP NP 

Marbleton 537 634 720 18.0 16.9 34.1 NR 814 NP NP NP 

Pinedale 1,066 1,181 1,412 10.7 20.3 32.5 NR 1,596 NP NP NP 

Sweetwater County 41,723 38,823 37,613 -6.9 -3.1 -9.9 37,194 35,400 NP NP NP 

Eden NR NR 388 -- -- -- NR NR NP NP NP 

Farson NR NR 242 -- -- -- NR NR NP NP NP 

Rock Springs 19,458 19,050 18,708 -2.1 -1.7 -3.9 NR 17,607 NP NP NP 

1 NR = not reported; -- = not calculated due to lack of information; NP = no projection available at this geographic level. 2 WDAI (2001a). Information for Bondurant, Boulder, Cora, Daniel, Eden, and Farson was not collected until the 2000 census. U.S. Census Bureau 

information was not collected for LaBarge until the 1990 census; however, WDAI reported 1980 estimates (WDAI 2001a). 3 Estimate as of July 2002. WDAI (2003a). 4 U.S. (Campbell 1997) and Wyoming (WDAI 2002b) projections. 

Table 3.3 Urban and Rural Population and Density, 2000. 

Population1 

Location Urban Total 

Residents 

Farm2 Non-Farm2 

Density per 

Square Mile 

U.S. 

No. of People 222,358,309 59,063,597 2,987,531 56,076,066 79.6 

Percent 79% 21% 5% 95% NA 

State of Wyoming 

No. of People 322,073 171,709 15,150 156,559 5.1 

Percent 65% 35% 9% 91% NA 

Lincoln County 

No. of People 2,958 11,653 718 10,897 3.6 

Percent 20% 80% 6% 94% NA 

Sublette County 

No. of People --3 5,920 477 5,443 1.2 

Percent -- 100% 8% 92% NA 

Sweetwater County 

No. of People 33,512 4,101 416 3,685 3.6 

Percent 89% 3% 10% 90% NA 

1 U.S. Census Bureau (2000a). 2 Total rural residents living on farms and not living on farms. 3 Sublette County has no urban population as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 21 

a more moderate growth rate (Taylor and Lieske 2002; WDAI 2002a). According to the 2000 

census, the state' s population increased by 8.9% between 1990 and 2000, from 453,588 to 

493,782, and increased 5.2% over the 20-year study period (U.S. Census Bureau 2000a) 

(Table 3.2). Wyoming's population growth from 1980-2000 (5.2%) was substantially less than 

that in the neighboring states of Colorado (30.6%), Utah (29.6%), Idaho (28.5%), and Montana 

(12.9%). Growth was also lower than the national average (13.2%), but it was comparable to 

the eastern border states, South Dakota (8.5%) and Nebraska (8.4%) (Taylor and Lieske 2002).

 However, Wyoming's growth was substantially higher than North Dakota (0.5%) (Taylor and 

Lieske 2002). 

Although Wyoming has grown since 1990, population growth has not been evenly distributed 

throughout the state. The majority of Wyoming residents (322,073, 65%) lives in urban areas 

(Table 3.3). Of those in rural areas (171,709), 91% (156,559) are nonfarm residents (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2000d). A total of 15,150 Wyoming residents live on farms, and 1,611 (11%) 

of these live in the three-county study area (U.S. Census Bureau 2000d). Wyoming has a 

population density 5.1 people/square mile (U.S. Census Bureau 2000a). 

3.1.2.3 Lincoln County 

The Lincoln County population increased 3.7% between 1980 (12,177) and 1990 (12,625); 

however, by 2000 the population rose to 14,573, a 15.4% increase from 1990 (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2000a, 2000b) (Table 3.3). Thus, the Lincoln County population increased by 2,396 

(19.7%) during the 20-year study period. (EPS, using BEA population estimates, indicated an 

18% increase in population). The majority of Lincoln County residents (11,653, 80%) lives in 

rural areas (Table 3.3). Of these, 94% (10,897) are nonfarm residents (U.S. Census Bureau 

2000d). Lincoln County has a population density 3.6 people/square mile (U.S. Census Bureau 

2000a). 

LaBarge is the com munity in Lincoln County most likely to be affected by the proposed 

projects. The U.S. Census Bureau indicates that population data for LaBarge was not collected 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
22 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

until the 1990 census; however, it was reported for 1980 by W DAI (2001a). Unlike Lincoln 

County as a whole, the population of LaBarge rose from 302 in 1980 to 493 in 1990 (63% 

increase) then fell to 431 in 2000 (-12.6%), for a total increase of 129 (43%) during the 20-year 

study period (Table 3.2). 

3.1.2.4 Sublette County 

The Sublette County population in 2000 was 5,920, up from 4,843 (22%) in 1990 and up from 

4,548 (30%) in 1980 (U.S. Census Bureau 2000a, 2000b). (EPS indicates a growth of 

1,333 people, a 59% increase in population). Sublette County has no urban clusters or urban 

areas as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. Therefore, the entire population is considered 

rural, but of that number, 477 (8%) are farm residents, while 5,443 (92%) are nonfarm residents 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2000d) (Table 3.3). Sublette County has a population density 

1.2 people/square mile (U.S. Census Bureau 2000c). 

Pinedale, Big Piney, Marbleton, and Boulder in Sublette County are the com munities most 

likely to be affected by the proposed projects. Bondurant, Cora, and Daniel m ay also be 

affected. Census data for Bondurant, Boulder, Cora, and Daniel was not collected until the 

2000 census. In 2000, Pinedale had the largest population in Sublette County (1,412), while 

Boulder had the smallest population in the entire study area (30) (Table 3.2). 

According to local officials, population has changed in the Sublette County area since the 

census was conducted. Pinedale has seen growth, although it has not been quantified (personal 

communication, May 20, 2004, with Patti Raisch, Pinedale Town Clerk); Marbleton has 

increased to possibly 750 residents (personal communication, May 21, 2004, with Alice Griggs, 

Marbleton Town Clerk), and Big Piney has rem ained stable or declined (personal 

communication, May 20, 2004, with Vickie Brown, Big Piney Town Clerk). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 23 

3.1.2.5 Sweetwater County 

The Sweetwater County population in 2000 was 37,613, down from 38,823 (-3.1%) in 1990 and 

from 41,723 in 1980, thus the decrease over the 20-year study period of 9.9% (-4,110) (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2000a, 2000b) (Table 3.2). (Despite an obvious downward trend visible on it's 

accompanying graph, EPS indicates an increase of 4,778 people [11%].) Sweetwater County 

has a population density of 3.6 people/square mile; however, unlike Sublette County, 89% 

(33,512) of the Sweetwater County population lives in urban clusters (U.S. Census Bureau 

2000d) (Table 3.3). Of the 4,101 rural residents, only 416 (10% of rural residents; 1% of 

county residents) reside on farms. 

Rock Springs is the com munity most likely to be affected in Sweetwater County; however, 

Eden and Farson may also be minimally affected. No census data was collected for Eden and 

Farson until 2000. Rock Springs reflected Sweetwater County' s trend, declining 1.7% from 

19,458 in 1980 to 19,050 (-2.1%) in 1990 to 18,708 (-3.9% from 1980) in 2000. In 2000, Rock 

Springs had the largest population in the entire study area (18,708) (Table 3.2). In the affected 

portion of Sweetwater County, Farson had the smallest population (242) (U.S. Census Bureau 

2000a; 2000b). 

3.1.3 Income, Poverty, and Unemployment 

Income, poverty, and unemployment data were obtained for each county in the study area from the 

U.S. Census Bureau (1981, 1990, 2000c) and Wyoming Department of Employment, Research, 

and Planning (WDERP) (2002a, 2002b, 2002c). EPS does not address poverty and has limited 

coverage of unemployment trends. Personal per capita income as reported by the census is not the 

same as the PCPI reported by BEA (see Section 3.2). All income and wage statistics are reported 

in year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation based on the U.S. average CPI used by EPS as reported 

by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), unless otherwise noted. Table 3.4 shows the information 

on median household income, personal per capita income, poverty, and unemployment at the state 

and county level and at the community level, where available. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
24 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 3.4 Income, Poverty, and Unemployment. 

Median Household 

Income1,2 

Personal Per Capita 

Income1,2 Poverty Rate1,2 Unemployment Rate1,2 

($) ($) (%) (%) 

Location 19803 19904 20005 19803,6 19904,6 20005,6 19793 19897 19995 19808,9 19909,10 200010,11 

U.S. 35,194 39,599 41,994 21,280 25,787 29,469 12.4 11.8 12.4 7.1 5.6 4.0 

Wyoming 41,784 35,700 37,892 24,561 23,696 27,372 7.9 11.2 11.4 4.0 5.5 3.9 

Lincoln County 37,627 37,534 40,794 19,602 19,071 20,980 11.5 11.1 9.0 6.0 6.6 5.2 

LaBarge NR 12,142 18,837 NR 6,995 18,837 NR 24.5 12.3 NR NR NR 

Sublette County 36,425 35,343 39,044 25,201 24,746 26,927 9.7 8.8 9.7 2.7 2.9 3.8 

Big Piney NR 15,418 17,647 NR 8,882 17,647 NR 6.2 11.5 NR NR NR 

Bondurant NR NR 19,432 NR NR 19,432 NR NR 19.2 NR NR NR 

Boulder NR NR 12,500 NR NR NR NR NR 33.3 NR NR NR 

Cora NR NR 20,831 NR NR 20,831 NR NR 7.9 NR NR NR 

Daniel NR NR 21,213 NR NR 21,213 NR NR 24.4 NR NR NR 

Marbleton NR 15,125 18,446 NR 8,713 18,446 NR 10.1 4.2 NR NR NR 

Pinedale NR 17,030 20,441 NR 9,811 20,441 NR 12.9 8.9 NR NR NR 

Sweetwater 50,394 47,707 46,357 10,955 16,810 28,037 5.2 7.4 7.8 3.7 5.5 4.8 

County 

Eden NR NR 52,625 NR NR 18,392 NR NR 17.6 NR NR NR 

Farson NR NR 44,545 NR NR 16,140 NR NR 0.0 NR NR NR 

Rock Springs 19,525 19,456 51,539 4,471 11,208 19,396 5.8 8.5 9.4 NR NR NR 

1 NR = not reported. 2 All national, state, and local area dollar estimates are in year 2000 dollars adjusted for inflation based on U.S. average consumer 

price index (for urban consumers). EPS uses the urban consumer base; therefore, it was also applied to inflation adjustments for 

this technical report to maintain consistency. Median household income is for all geographic units; personal per capita is for towns 

and cities. Poverty rate is the percent of people in poverty. Unemployment rate is the percentage of people actively seeking work 

but unemployed. 3 U.S. Census Bureau (1981) (based on 1979 income). 4 U.S. Census Bureau (1990) (based on 1989 income). 5 U.S. Census Bureau (2000c) (based on 1999 income). 7 WDAI (2001b). Poverty rate is the percent of people in poverty. 8 WDERP (2002a). 9 BLS (2003a). 10 WDERP (2002b). 11 WDERP (2002c). 

The following definitions involved in the discussion of incom e, poverty, and unemployment 

were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau (2000a). 

Household income is the sum of money income received in a calendar year (1979, 1989, 1999) 

by all household members 15 years old and over, including household members not related to 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 25 

the householder, people living alone, and other nonfamily household members. Included in the 

total are amounts reported separately for wage or salary income; net self-employment income; 

interest, dividends, or net rental or royalty incom e or income from estates and trusts; Social 

Security or Railroad Retirement income; Supplemental Security Income (SSI); public assistance 

or welfare payments; retirement, survivor, or disability pensions; and all other income. 

Personal per capita income is the mean income computed for every man, woman, and child in 

a geographic area. It is derived by dividing the total income of all people 15 years old and over 

in a geographic area by the total population in that area. (Income information is not collected 

for all people under 15 years old even though all people under the age of 15 are included in the 

denominator of per capita income, thus, personal per capita income may be underestimated.) 

Below poverty level is a classification assigned to fam ilies and persons if their total fam ily 

income or unrelated individual incom e was less than the poverty threshold specified for the 

applicable family size, age of householder, and number of related children under 18 present.

 The U.S. Census Bureau follows OMB's Statistical Policy Directive 14 to define poverty and 

uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine 

who is poor. If a family's total income is less than that family's threshold, then that family, and 

every individual in it, is considered poor. If a person is not living with anyone related by birth, 

marriage, or adoption, then the person' s own in come is com pared with his or her poverty 

threshold. 

The poverty thresholds do not vary geographically, and they are updated annually for inflation 

using the CPI. The official poverty definition counts money income before taxes and does not 

include capital gains and noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps). 

Poverty is not defined for people in m ilitary barracks, or institutional group quarters, or for 

unrelated individuals under age 15 (such as foster children); they are excluded from the poverty 

universe--that is, they are considered neither as "poor" nor as "nonpoor" (Dalaker and Proctor 

2000). According to the U.S. Census Bureau, for a fam ily of four (i.e., two adults and two 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
26 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

children), the poverty threshold in 2002 occurred at an annual income of $18,244 (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2003). 

If total family income is less than the poverty threshold (poverty guidelines as published by the U.S. 

Department of Health and Hum an Services) appropriate for that fam ily, the family is in poverty. 

All family members have the same poverty status. For individuals who do not live with fam ily 

members, their own incom e is compared with the appropriate threshold. If total fam ily income 

equals or is greater than the threshold, the family (or unrelated individual) is not in poverty. Total 

family income divided by the poverty threshold is called the ratio of income to poverty. A family 

is considered to be in poverty if the ratio of in come to poverty is less than 1.0. The difference in 

dollars between family income and the family's poverty threshold is called the income deficit (for 

families in poverty) or income surplus (for families above poverty). 

Computation of Poverty: 

Total Family Income/Poverty Threshold = Ratio of Income to Poverty

Ratio of Income to Poverty > 1.0 = family not in poverty

Ratio of Income to Poverty <1.0 = family in poverty

Total Family Income - Poverty Threshold = Income Deficit or Surplus 

Employment, as defined by the BEA, is the total number of persons: a) performing any type 

of labor for pay or profit, b) working at least 15 hours per week on an unpaid basis in family 

enterprises, and c) tem porarily absent for non-econom ic reasons. Em ployment under this 

definition includes all full-time and part-time jobs. The BEA employment count is a measure 

of occupied jobs, rather than a m easure of em ployed persons. If an individual holds two 

separate jobs at any given time, the individual is counted twice, since two employment positions 

are occupied. 

On the other hand, W DERP derives unem ployment rates from the BLS data. The BLS 

employment and unemployment figures are a count of people, not jobs. This is the fundamental 

difference in methodology between BEA and BLS employment figures. Unemployed persons 

include those persons who did not work, have made specific efforts to find employment, and 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 27 

were also available for work. The unemployment rate is calculated by dividing the number of 

unemployed persons by the total civilian labor force. All unemployment information was 

obtained from WDERP (2002a, 2002b, 2002c). 

3.1.3.1 United States 

Households throughout the U.S. experienced increased income over the 20-year study period, 

although poverty levels remained relatively static and unemployment decreased. The median 

household income throughout the U.S. increased by approximately 13% between 1980 and 1990 

and by 6% between 1990 and 2000, with a total increase of 19% (<1% average annual increase) 

over the course of the 20-year study period. Personal per capita income increased 21% from 

1980 to 1990 and again increased (14%) from 1990 to 2000, for a total increase of 38% (slightly 

less than 2% average annual increase) over the 20-year study period. Overall, for the 20-year 

study period there was no change in poverty levels in the U.S., although they dropped slightly 

from 1979 to 1989 then increased again by 1999 (U.S. Census Bureau 1981, 1990, 2000a) 

(Table 3.4). The unemployment rate dropped throughout the 20-year study period, from 7.1% 

(1980) to 4.0% (2000) (BLS 2003a). 

3.1.3.2 Wyoming 

The median household income throughout Wyoming fell by nearly 15% between 1980 and 1990 

and grew 6% between 1990 and 2000, for a total decline of 9% over the course of the 20-year 

study period (-0.5% average annual decline]) (Table 3.4). In distinct contrast to national 

increases, Wyoming's personal per capita incom e fell by nearly 4% from 1980 to 1990, but 

experienced a recovery of 16% from 1990 to 2000, for an overall increase of 11% (0.5% 

average annual growth) over the 20-year study period. The poverty rate increased over the 

20-year study period, from 7.9% in 1979 to 11.4% in 1999 (U.S. Census Bureau 1981, 1990, 

2000a). The unemployment rate for W yoming rose from 1980 (4.0%) to 1990 (5.5%), then 

decreased to 3.9% by 2000 (WDERP 2002a, 2002b, 2002c). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
28 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

3.1.3.3 Lincoln County 

Lincoln County residents experienced an overall increase in income, along with reduced poverty 

and unemployment rates over the 20-year study period. 

The median household income in Lincoln County fell by 0.2% between 1980 and 1990 then 

grew by nearly 9% between 1990 and 2000, for an overall increase of 8% for the 20-year study 

period (0.4% average annual increase) (see Table 3.4). Personal per capita income in Lincoln 

County decreased by nearly 3% from 1980 to 1990 but followed the state trend for an increase 

of nearly 10% from 1990 to 2000, for an overall increase of almost 7% (0.3% average annual 

increase) over the 20-year study period. Personal per capita income only slightly exceeds the 

poverty level. The poverty rate decreased slightly from 1979 (11.5%) to 1989 (11.4%) and 

decreased again, to 9% by 1999 (U.S. Census Bureau 1981, 1990, 2000a). Unemployment 

followed a rise-and-fall pattern similar to that experienced by the state and the other counties 

in the study area, with the unemployment rate increasing from 6.0% in 1980 to 6.6% in 1990, 

then falling to 5.2% in 2000 (WDERP 2002a, 2002b, 2002c). 

Data was not collected for LaBarge until the 1990 census. LaBarge has experienced trends 

similar to the state, with median household income increasing by approximately 55% (4% 

average annual growth) from 1990 to 2000 (see Table 3.4). Personal per capita income 

increased more than 169% (10% average annual growth) between 1990 and 2000. Despite the 

dramatic increase, the per capita income of LaBarge barely exceeded the poverty level 

($18,244). The poverty rate significantly decreased from 24.5% in 1989 to 12.3% in 1999; 

however, it still exceeds the poverty rate in both the state and county, as well as the other 

counties in the study area. 

3.1.3.4 Sublette County 

Sublette County residents experienced an overall increase in income, although poverty rates 

remained stable and unemployment rates increased over the 20-year study period. 

The median household income in Sublette County fell by nearly 3% between 1980 and 1990, 

then increased by 10% between 1990 and 2000, for an overall increase of 7% (0.4% average 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 29 

annual growth) over the 20-year study period (see Table 3.4). Personal per capita income in 

Sublette County followed the state trend and fell by alm ost 2% between 1980 and 1990 but 

increased by almost 9% from 1990 to 2000, for an overall increase of 7% (0.3% average annual 

growth) over the course of the 20-year study period. The poverty rate decreased from 9.7% in 

1979 to 8.8% in 1989 but, despite the gains in personal income, increased back to 9.7% by 1999 

(U.S. Census Bureau 1981, 1990, 2000a). The 2000 unemployment rate in Sublette County 

(3.8%) was lower than the state overall and was the lowest unemployment rate in the study area. 

Unemployment followed a rise-and-fall pattern similar to that experienced by the state and the 

other counties in the study area, with the unemployment rate increasing from 2.7% in 1980 to 

3.8% in 2000 (WDERP 2002a, 2002b, 2002c). 

Complete inform ation for the potentially aff ected com munities in Sublette County is not 

available for all study years. Big Piney, Marbleton, and Pinedale have experienced increases 

in both median household income and personal per capita income since 1980. Marbleton had 

the highest increase in m edian household incom e (22%; 2% average annual growth) and 

personal per capita income (112%; 8% average annual growth) (see Table 3.4). Despite the 

increase, the per capita income of Marbleton barely exceeds the poverty level and no personal 

per capita income is reported for Boulder. The median household income in Boulder in 2000 

was only $12,500--68.5% of the poverty level ($18,244). The highest reported poverty rates 

in the three-county study area in 2000 were in Sublette County--Boulder (33.3%), Daniel 

(24.4%), and Bondurant (19.2%). Although poverty in Sublette County has remained relatively 

stable, the poverty rates in Marbleton and Pinedale have decreased since 1989. EPS 

indicatesthat the fastest growing area of personal income is from non-labor sources--presumably 

in-migrants attracted by the quality of life in the community (personal communication, December 

2004, with Roy Allen, Economist, BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne). 

3.1.3.5 Sweetwater County 

The median household income in Sweetwater County fell by 5% between 1980 and 1990 and 

fell again by 3% between 1990 and 2000, for an overall decrease of 8% (-0.4% average annual 

change) over the course of the 20-year study period (see Table 3.4). However, personal per 

capita income increased 53% from 1980 to 1990 and 67% from 1990 to 2000, for an overall 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
30 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

increase of 156% over the course of the 20-year study period (Table 3.4). The poverty rate 

increased 42% from 1979 to 1989 but only in creased 5% from 1989 to 1999 (U.S. Census 

Bureau 1981, 1990, 2000a). The 2000 unemployment rate in Sweetwater County was 4.8% and 

was higher than the state and nation. Unemployment followed a rise-and-fall pattern similar 

to that experienced by the state and the other counties in the study area, with the unemployment 

rate increasing from 3.7% in 1980 to 5.5% in 1990, then falling to 4.8% by 2000 (W DERP 

2002a, 2002b, 2002c). 

Rock Springs experienced a decline in median household income (-0.4%) from 1980 to 1990 

but experienced an increase (165%) from 1990 to 2000, for an overall increase of 164% (5% 

average annual growth) over the 20-year study period (see Table 3.4). Personal per capita 

income increased (151%) from 1980 to 1990 and again from 1990 to 2000 (73%), for an overall 

increase of 334% (8% average annual growth) over the course of the 20-year study period. 

Despite the increase in personal income, the Rock Springs poverty level increased from 5.8% 

in 1979 to 8.5% in 1989 and to 9.4% in 1999. 

Information for Eden and Farson in Sweetwater County was not collected until the 2000 census. 

However, the median household income in Eden was the highest in the three-county study area 

($52,625), and Farson had the lowest poverty level in the three-county study area in 1999 

(0.0%) (see Table 3.4). 

3.1.4 Workforce Age, Gender, and Disabilities 

Workforce information was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau (2000e, 2000f), because 

EPS does not address the workforce on a national level; therefore, census inform ation is 

presented in this section. For the purposes of this report, the civilian labor force is defined as 

all persons between 16 and 66 years of age (retirem ent age is 67) in the civilian 

non-institutional population who either had a job or were looking for a job in the last 12 months 

and who did not have an em ployment disability. Employment disability was defined for the 

purposes of the last census as a condition that had lasted for 6 months or more: 

• that limited the kind or amount of work that he or she could do at a job, 

• that prevented him or her from working at a job, 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 31 

• that made it difficult to go outside the hom e alone (for example, to shop or visit a 

doctor's office), and 

• that made it difficult to take care of his or her own personal needs such as bathing, 

dressing, or getting around inside the home. 

Based on the age of residents, employment disability information, and the unemployment rates 

in each county, there is a civilian labor force of approximately 1,719 unemployed working-age 

residents available for employment in the study area (Table 3.5). However, there may be some 

disconnect between published data and the actual available labor force. A labor shortage has 

been reported in all sectors in Sweetwater County, with as many as 600 job vacancies existing 

in November 2004 (Mast 2004). Additionally, the new Halliburton facility has reported that 

it is having difficulty filling the 100 new jobs created by its facility in Rock Springs (Mast 

2004). 

Table 3.5 Population and Workforce, 2000.1 

County

 Sex and Age U.S. Wyoming Lincoln Sublette Sweetwater 

Male 

0-15 years 32,919,334 57,604 1,985 680 4,727 

16-66 years 92,539,411 168,540 4,627 2,080 13,168 

67 years and over 12,594,818 22,109 763 281 1,072 

Total males 138,053,563 248,253 7,375 3,041 18,967 

Female 

0-15 years 31,353,445 54,266 1,901 663 4,515 

16-66 years 93,508,194 162,400 4,455 1,926 12,533 

67 years and over 18,506,704 28,863 842 290 1,598 

Total females 143,368,343 245,529 7,198 2,879 18,646 

Total all ages 281,421,906 493,782 14,573 5,920 37,613

Total working age 186,047,605 330,940 9,082 4,006 25,701

Persons with disabilities2 57,890,659 30,952 633 325 1,942 

Total potential workforce 128,156,946 299,988 8,449 3,681 23,759 

Unemployment rate 4.0% 3.9% 5.2% 3.8% 4.8% 

Number of Persons 5,126,277 11,699 439 139 1,140 

Available for Employment 

1 U.S. Census Bureau (2000e). 2 U.S. Census Bureau (2000f). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
32 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

3.1.4.1 United States 

As a whole, in 2000, the population of the U.S. was alm ost equally divided between m ales 

(49%) and females (51%). There were 186,047,605 (66% of the total population) working-age 

residents in the U.S. (U.S. Census Bureau 2000e) (Table 3.5). According to census records, 

57,890,659 individuals in the U.S. were work disabled (U.S. Census Bureau 2000f), leaving a 

total of 128,156,946 working-age individuals nationwide (Table 3.5). Given an unemployment 

rate of 4%, there were approximately 5,126,277 unemployed residents of working age available 

for employment in the nation. 

3.1.4.2 Wyoming 

As a whole, in 2000, the population of W yoming was almost equally divided between males 

(248,253; 50.3%) and females (245,529; 49.7%) (see Table 3.5). There are 330,940 (67% of 

the total population) working age residents in W yoming (U.S. Census Bureau 2000e). 

According to census records, 30,952 individuals in Wyoming are work-disabled (U.S. Census 

Bureau 2000f), leaving a total of 299,988 working age individuals statewide. Given an 

unemployment rate of 3.9%, there are approximately 11,699 unemployed residents of working 

age available for employment in the state. 

3.1.4.3 Lincoln County 

The population of Lincoln County was nearly equally divided between males (7,375; 51%) and 

females (7,198; 49%) (see Table 3.5). There are 9,082 (62%) working-age residents in Lincoln 

County (U.S. Census Bureau 2000e). Of these, the census indicates that 633 people are work 

disabled (U.S. Census Bureau 2000f), leaving 8,449 working age individuals available for 

employment. Given an unemployment rate of 5.2%, there are approximately 439 unemployed 

residents of working age available for employment in Lincoln County. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 33 

3.1.4.4 Sublette County 

The population in Sublette County had slightly more males (3,041; 51%) than females (2,879; 

49%) (see Table 3.5). There are 4,006 (68%) working-age residents in Sublette County (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2000e). Of these, the census indicates that 325 individuals are work disabled 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2000f), leaving a total of 3,681 working age individuals available for 

employment. Given an unemployment rate of 3.8%, there are approximately 139 unemployed 

residents of working age available for employment in Sublette County. 

3.1.4.5 Sweetwater County 

The population of Sweetwater County was nearly equally divided between males (18,967; 50%) 

and females (18,646; 50%) (see Table 3.5). There are 25,701 (68%) working-age residents in 

Sweetwater County (U.S. Census Bureau 2000e). Of these, the census indicates that 1,942 

individuals are work disabled (U.S. Census Bureau 2000f), leaving a total of 23,759 workingage individuals available for em ployment. Given an unem ployment rate of 4.8%, there are 

approximately 1,140 unemployed residents of working age available for em ployment in 

Sweetwater County. 

3.1.5 Quality of Living 

Data on quality of living for each county in the study area were obtained from the Wyoming 

Business Council (2002b, 2002c, 2002d), WDAI (2002b), and personal communications. Due 

to the remote and unique area encompassed by the JIDPA and SPPA, the U.S. is not included 

in the quality of life analysis, with the exception of crime statistics. 

3.1.5.1 Crime 

The crim e indexes are "100" based, m eaning that a value of 100 for a particular level of 

geography is the average national value. For example, a value of 150 indicates that the area has 

one and a half times the average risk level. A value of 50 indicates that the area is at half the 

average risk level. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
34 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Wyoming has a low crime index compared to the national average, with the index for personal 

crimes at 49--about half the national index--and property crimes at 71--about three-fourths the 

national index. The highest individual crime index for personal crime in Wyoming is for rape 

(80), which is higher than the index for any of the counties in the study area. The highest 

Wyoming crim e index for crim es against property is larceny (115)--15% greater than the 

national average (Wyoming Business Council 2002b). 

The overall personal crime index in the study area is less than the national average (ranging 

from 30 to 60%), although m urder (133% in Sublette County) exceeds the national average.

 The crimes against property index is generally lower than the national average (ranging from 

33 to 76%), with the exception of larceny (155% in Sweetwater County). 

Sublette County has im plemented an enhanced 911 system as part of com munity policing 

efforts and to promote citizen's health and safety (Sublette County Sheriff's Department 2002). 

A 911 System Health Questionnaire identifies health concerns for local area citizens, which 

is included as part of a computer system used to assist medical, fire, and law enforcement in 

meeting the needs of victims in the event of an emergency. Additionally, Sublette County has 

implemented: an innovative Ranch W atch program; child identification and fingerprinting; 

McGruff (child safety); D.A.R.E.; citizen's academy; seminars on drug awareness, shoplifting, 

and check fraud; and vacation watch program to aid in the prevention of crime in this largely 

rural area. 

The Sublette County Sheriff' s Department staff includes a sheriff, undersheriff, lieutenant, 

emergency management coordinator, three detectives, a probation/resource officer, two patrol 

sergeants, a seasonal forest patrol deputy, five patrol deputies for Big Piney/Marbleton, five 

patrol deputies for Pinedale, four patrol deputies for the county, a detention sergeant and five 

detention deputies, a com munication sergeant and five com munication deputies, an office 

manager, and three secretaries/clerks (Sublette County Sheriff's Department 2002). 

The Sublette County Sheriff' s office services all of Sublette County and the affected towns 

within the Sublette County. While calls for service have increased in recent years (from 

3,000 in 1995 to 7,000 in 2003), approxim ately 40% of the increased dem and is a result of 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 35 

displaced Jackson Hole residents who have in-migrated to Sublette County in an attempt to find 

housing; the remaining 60% of the increase results from a combination of Jonah Field workers 

and tourists (ranging from 11,000 to 14,000 visitors per day during the sum mer) (personal 

communication, May 2004, Sheriff Hank Ruland, Sublette County Sheriff' s Departm ent, 

Pinedale, W yoming). The budget has increased from $1.0 m illion in 1995 to m ore than 

$4.5 million in 2004. The majority of calls for service resulting from Jonah Field development 

are medical emergencies not involved with criminal action, although some increase in speeding 

violations can be attributed to the Jonah Field workers. According to Sheriff Ruland, the oil 

and gas workers are welcome and contributing members of the community who show that they 

genuinely care about the community by participating in such activities as community clean-up 

days. Additionally, recent im provements in th e county legal system (new jail, courthouse, 

equipment, competitive wages, increased staffing [up from 12 officers in 1995 to 26 sheriff's 

deputies and 21 jail officers in 2003], and vehicles ) are a direct result of the tax revenues 

resulting from natural gas activities in the Jonah Field. 

The Sheriff's department and Sublette County would not have been able to sufficiently expand 

to keep up with the increased dem and for services without those revenues (personal 

communication, May 2004, Sheriff Hank Ruland, Sublette County Sheriff' s Departm ent, 

Pinedale, Wyoming). However, service calls increased from 4,032 in 1995 to 7,347 in 2003 

(Royster 2004). According to Sheriff Ruland, the biggest crime problem in Sublette County 

is methamphetamine. Drug use also leads to increases in dom estic violence and bar fights--

particularly within the temporary worker demographic. Although there has been an increase 

in drug use in Sublette County, Ruland does not equate that increase to oil and gas workers--it 

is a state-wide problem (Royster 2004). Additionally, Ruland recognizes that any increase in 

population--including visiting hunters and other tourists--result in an increase in drug and 

alcohol-related calls (Royster 2004). The majority of law enforcement calls in Sublette County 

still involve traffic--people speeding or running stop signs. One study indicates that transient 

workers pose challenges to law enforcem ent primarily in the form of highway safety and 

increased substance abuse (Blevins et al. 2204.) However, it is estimated that crime in Sublette 

and Sweetwater County has increased by 80% since 2000, largely as a result of oil and gas 

development (personal com munication, Decem ber 2004, Marilyn Filkins, Sublette County 

Attorney [formerly Sweetwater Deputy County Attorney], Pinedale). At the end of 2004, the 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
36 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Sublette County Attorney' s office had 1,200 open cas es and had hired an assistant county 

attorney to handle only crim inal cases. Additionally, she indicated that in 2000-2001, there 

were one or fewer felony arrests in Sublette County, in 2004 the average is approximately one 

felony arrest per week and many of those are egregious aggravated assaults. Ms. Filkins also 

reports gang-like behavior from various drilling and pipeline crews. Increases in felonies and 

drug-related calls have been reported by the Sweetwater County Sheriff and the Chief of Police 

in Rock Springs, and these were prim arily attributed to oil and gas workers (crim e report to 

Pinedale/Anticline Working Group (PAWG) presented by Jana Weber) (personal 

communication, Decem ber 2004, with Roy Allen, Econom ist, BLM W yoming State Office, 

Cheyenne). Ms. Filkins holds the opinion that Sweetwater County has a higher incident of 

crime related to methamphetamine than Sublette County. 

It should be noted that both Questar (a local oil and gas producer) and EnCana require random 

drug testing for em ployees and subcontractors. Additionally, EnCana sponsors training 

sessions for em ergency response personnel and Questar donates m oney to fam ily violence 

organizations (Royster 2004). However, one of the smaller local operators is reported to have 

delayed drug-testing for a year and a half, and when a random drug test was performed, 16 of 

18 workers on a drill rig tested positive and were fired (personal com munication, December 

2004, Marilyn Filkins, Sublette County Atto rney [form erly Sweetwater Deputy County 

Attorney], Pinedale). 

3.1.5.2 Infrastructure 

County and community profile information was primarily obtained from BLM (1997) as well 

as local community websites and other extant information. 

Lincoln County 

In Lincoln County, LaBarge is the only potentially affected community. It was incorporated 

in 1973 and is located in Lincoln County on U.S. Highway 189 approximately 75 mi north of 

Green River and 21 mi south of Big Piney. The town has a mayor/council, one full-time and 

one part-time policeman, 911 emergency telephone service, and a 15 m ember volunteer fire 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 37 

department. There is a 6,000-volum e library, one day care center, one senior center, four 

churches, one m otel with 36 room s, and an RV park with six spaces. Medical services are 

provided by a weekly clinic and by ambulance service, and communications include a weekly 

newspaper, cable TV, and a post office. Recreational facilities include one ice skating rink, two 

baseball fields, bike paths, two parks, and a small airport. It has been reported that there is a 

shortage of health-care providers in Sublette County (Royster 2004). Some health-care 

providers m ay work shifts up to 52 hours straight. The Pinedale Medical Clinc serviced 

approximately 12,000 patients in 2003--mostly oil and gas workers. 

Sublette County 

Sublette County has three airports; 26 churches; three libraries; five medical facilities (however, 

the nearest hospitals are in Jackson and Rock Springs, W yoming); two m useums; two 

newspapers; nine post offices (Big Piney, Bondurant, Boulder, Cora, Daniel, Farson, LaBarge, 

Marbleton, and Pinedale); and two school districts including three elem entary schools, two 

middle schools, two high schools, and a private school, with higher education available from 

Western Community College's distance learning program; and utilities/services are provided 

by one telephone company, two garbage/refuse services, one cable television provider, three 

natural gas suppliers, one electricity supplier, and one coal company. Citizen organizations are 

important to Sublette County' s infrastructure and include volunteer fire departm ents, a 

search-and-rescue organization, and a citizen's recycling program (Sublette.Com 2001; Pinedale 

Online 2002). 

Pinedale. Located approximately 100 mi northwest of Rock Springs and 32 m i north of the 

JIDPA on U.S. Highway 191, Pinedale is the county seat of Sublette County. The town has a 

mayor/council government, 911 emergency service, and a volunteer fire departm ent. Police 

protection for the town is provided through contract with the Sublette County Sheriff's Office. 

There is a 37,000-volum e library, one day care center, one senior center, nine churches, 

11 hotels/motels with a total of 162 rooms, and a recreational vehicle (RV) park with 44 spaces. 

Medical services include a clinic, three doctors, a physician's assistant, one dentist, ambulance 

service, and a nursing home with 107 rooms. Communications include a weekly newspaper, 

cable TV, and a post office. There is one golf course, one ice skating rink, bike paths, two 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
38 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

parks, and a recreation center, as well as a small airport. It has been reported that there is a 

shortage of health-care providers in Sublette County. Some health-care providers may work 

shifts of up to 52 hours straight. The Pinedale Medical Clinic serviced approximately 12,000 

patients last year--mostly oil and gas workers (Royster 2004). 

Pinedale has a variety of establishments for overnight lodging. A Best Western and Super 8 are 

located on the west end of town and offer the m ost rooms. A variety of sm aller motels are 

located in the downtown area. The surrounding area has several bed and breakfasts, guest 

ranches and lodges, and individual cabins available for rent. Tourism in and around Pinedale, 

and in Sublette County generally, is a m ajor business with the prim ary attraction being the 

natural resources in the area and the many outdoor activities associated with them, including 

hunting, fishing, cam ping, backpacking and hiking, wilderness escapes, horseback riding, 

mountain biking, golf, wildlife viewing, downhill skiing, cross-country skiing, and 

snowmobiling. 

Big Piney. Big Piney is located on U.S. Highway 189 about 95 mi north of Green River and 

35 mi southwest of Pinedale. The town has a m ayor/council government, 911 em ergency 

service, and a voluntary fire department. Police protection is provided by the Sublette County 

Sheriff's Office. There is a 40,000-volume library, one day care center, six churches, and three 

motels. Medical services include two doctors, one dentist, and am bulance service. 

Communications include a weekly newspaper, cable TV, and a post office. There is one ice 

skating rink, one bike path, three parks, three baseball fields, one swimming pool, and a small 

airport. Major employers include the oil a nd gas industry, agriculture, and retail trade and 

services. 

Marbleton. Marbleton is located on U.S. Highway 189, 1 mi north of Big Piney. Marbleton 

has an RV park and picnic grounds, two motels, a coffee shop and restaurant, gas stations, retail 

shops, a movie theater, a medical clinic, and an airport. Major industries include ranching, oil 

and gas, and recreation. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 39 

Boulder. Boulder is an unincorporated community located on U.S. Highway 191, 12 mi south 

of Pinedale and 85 mi north of Rock Springs. Boulder has a post office and the Boulder Store, 

which includes a store, gas station, RV park (nine spaces), motel (nine rooms), restaurant, and 

bar. 

Sweetwater County 

Sweetwater County is located in the southwestern part of Wyoming with 60 mi of its border 

touching the states of Utah and Colorado. The county consists of 10,497 sq mi. The two 

largest cities in the county are Rock Springs and Green River. 

Rock Springs. Established in 1888 as a m ining town, the cultural tradition in Rock Springs 

emphasizes natural resources as the driving force behind its economy (Rock Springs Chamber 

of Com merce 2004). Rock Springs is located along Interstate 80 (I-80) in west-central 

Sweetwater County and serves as the econom ic hub of the area. Law enforcement and fire 

protection services are available, as well as a 911 em ergency number. Public education is 

provided by 11 elem entary schools, two junior high schools, one high school, and W estern 

Wyoming Community College (a 2-year junior college). Community services consist of two 

libraries (107,000 total volumes), eight day care centers, and 32 churches. Commercial services 

include two shopping centers, five convention facilities (with a total capacity of 4,660 persons), 

31 hotels/motels (1,680 total rooms), an RV park (50 spaces), and several mobile home parks. 

Medical care is provided by a hospital (100 beds), a nursing hom e (100 rooms), 33 doctors, 

24 dentists, and an ambulance service. Communications consist of two local newspapers (one 

published in Rock Springs and one in Green River), cable television, telephone service, two AM 

and three FM radio stations, and two post offices. 

Recreation resources include 17 baseball fields, 24 tennis courts, six swim ming pools, eight 

soccer fields, a golf course, one ice skating rink, two recreation centers, and 24 parks. Outdoor 

recreation opportunities available within 30 m i of the city include Flam ing Gorge National 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
40 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Recreation Area and various opportunities on BLM-administered lands, including Boar's Tusk, 

sand dunes, petroglyphs, and the Oregon/California Trails. 

Cultural/entertainment attractions include th e Red Desert Rodeo, W ild Horse Days, the 

Sweetwater County Museum , the historical Rock Springs City Hall Museum , the Fine Arts 

Center, and the Western Wyoming Community College Dinosaur Collection. 

Rock Springs is serviced by two com mercial airlines providing flights to and from the Rock 

Springs Airport, two bus lines, four car rental services, and two taxi services. 

Eden/Farson. Eden and Farson are two unincorporated communities located on U.S. Highway 

191 about 40 m i northwest of Rock Springs and 28 m i southeast of the JIDPA. The 

communities are governed by Sweetwater County and have a resident sheriff' s officer and 

highway patrolm an, a 26-m ember volunteer fire departm ent, am bulance service, and 911 

emergency phone service. There are four churches, two gas stations, two cafes, two bars, and 

a convenience store. Recreational facilities include a youth center and a county park. 

Eden and Farson are not serviced by a doctor, nurse, or dentist, although there is an emergency 

medical technician service. The nearest m edical facility is in Rock Springs. There is one 

elementary and one secondary school. Bridger Valley Electric supplies energy and three 

vendors supply propane for heating. Residents have individual wells and septic systems, and 

solid waste disposal facilities are available. Housing is limited, with farm and ranch homes 

constituting the primary type of housing. 

3.1.5.3 Housing 

Historic information on housing was obtained from the WDAI (2002a), and projected data were 

obtained from the Wyoming Business Council (2002d), these data are presented in Table 3.8. 

Rental rates and cost as compared to the state were obtained from WDAI (2003b) (Table 3.9a), 

and housing values as well as percentage of income spent on housing were obtained from 

Wyoming Housing Database Partnership (WHDP) (2003) (Table 3.9b). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 41 

Table 3.8 Historic and Projected Housing Availability. 

Wyoming Lincoln 

Historic Projected Historic Projected 

Housing Item 1980 1990 2000 2002 2007 2012 1980 1990 2000 2002 2007 2012 

Type of Housing1,2 

Vacant N/A 34,572 30,246 38,804 38,706 39,582 N/A 1,272 1,565 1,349 1,389 1,430 

Owner-occupied N/A 114,544 135,514 139,391 149,399 159,413 N/A 3,310 4,280 4,461 4,869 5,282 

Renter-occupied N/A 54,295 58,094 58,736 60,422 62,098 N/A 826 986 1,024 1,072 1,116 

Total housing units 188,217 203,411 223,854 236,931 248,527 261,093 4,671 5,408 6,831 6,834 7,330 7,828 

Percent of Housing1 

Vacant N/A 17.0 13.5 16.4 15.6 15.2 N/A 23.5 22.9 19.7 18.9 18.3 

Owner-occupied N/A 56.3 60.5 58.8 60.1 61.1 N/A 61.2 62.7 65.3 66.4 67.5 

Renter-occupied N/A 26.7 26.0 24.8 24.3 23.8 N/A 15.3 14.4 15.0 14.6 14.30 

No. of Building 3,845 692 1,582 2,045 -- -- 30 3 145 204 -- --

Permits2 

Sublette Sweetwater 

Historic Projected Historic Projected 

Housing Item 1980 1990 2000 2002 2007 2012 1980 1990 2000 2002 2007 2012 

Type of Housing1,2 

Vacant N/A 1,077 1,181 1,155 1,177 1,201 N/A 1,828 1,816 2,075 2,063 2,107 

Owner-occupied N/A 1,281 1,737 1,820 2,055 2,289 N/A 9,552 10,586 10,722 10,960 11,154 

Renter-occupied N/A 553 634 652 692 733 N/A 4,065 3,519 3,420 3,168 2,926 

Total housing units 2,393 2,911 3,552 3,627 3,924 4,223 15,116 15,445 15,921 16,217 16,191 16,187 

Percent of Housing1 

Vacant N/A 37.0 33.2 31.8 30.0 28.4 N/A 11.8 11.4 12.8 12.7 13.0 

Owner-occupied N/A 44.0 48.9 50.2 52.4 54.2 N/A 61.8 66.5 66.1 67.7 68.9 

Renter-occupied N/A 19.0 17.9 18.0 17.6 17.4 N/A 26.3 22.1 21.1 19.6 18.1 

No. of Building 82 37 54 88 -- -- 801 56 41 48 -- --

Permits2 

1 Historic data from WDAI (2002a); projected data from Wy oming Business Council (2002d). Reported average 

availability may not accurately reflect actual availability within particular communities (e.g., Pinedale) that have already 

been impacted by other projects (e.g., Pinedale/Anticline Project) in the area. 2 Total residential units (i.e., single family units, duplex units, tri- and four-plex units, and multi-family units) (Wyoming 

Housing Database Partnership 2003). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
42 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 3.9a Average Rental Rates.1 

Apartment2 

Fourth 

Quarter 

House3 

Fourth 

Quarter 

Mobile Home4 

Fourth 

Quarter 

Mobile Home Lot5 

Fourth 

Quarter 

Location 

2001 

($) 

2002 

($) 

Percent 

Change 

2001 

($) 

2002 

($) 

Percent 

Change 

2001 

($) 

2002 

($) 

Percent 

Change 

2001 

($) 

2002 

($) 

Percent 

Change 

Lincoln 292 332 13.7 400 388 -3.1 315 304 -3.4 158 163 3.2 

Sublette 441 534 21.1 613 655 7.0 350 457 30.6 175 165 -5.7 

Sweetwater 390 392 0.5 533 516 -3.2 422 422 0.0 201 197 -2.2 

Wyoming 430 443 3.0 599 617 3.0 436 448 2.8 178 183 3.1 

average 

1 WDAI (2003b). Reported average rental rates may not accurately reflect actual rates within particular communities (e.g., 

Pinedale) that have already been impacted by other projects (e.g., Pinedale/Anticline Project) in the area. 2 Two-bedroom, unfurnished, excluding gas and electric. 3 Two or three-bedroom, single family, excluding gas and electric. 4 This price reflects total monthly rental expense, including lot rent. 5 Single-wide, including water. 

The U.S. Census Bureau defines a housing unit as "a house, an apartment, a group of rooms or 

a single room intended for occupancy as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are 

those in which the occupants live separately from any other individuals in the building and 

which have a direct access from the outside of the building or through a com mon hall. In 

accordance with this definition, each apartment unit in an apartment building is counted as one 

housing unit" ( WHDP 2003). Residences reported herein include single family units (including 

mobile homes), duplex units, tri- and four-plex units, and multi-family units. The habitability 

of vacant residences is unknown, and the acceptability of any individual housing unit is not 

quantifiable and is subjective for each individual tenant. Housing units are locations intended 

to be permanent living residences and do not include transient lodging facilities such as hotels, 

motels, and bed-and-breakfasts. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 43 

Table 3.9b Housing Values and Percentage of Income Spent on Housing, 2000.1 

County 

Wyoming Lincoln Sublette Sweetwater 

Housing Values 

Number of Occupied Units 193,608 5,266 2,371 14,105 

Median Value $96,600 $95,300 $112,000 $104,200 

Median Monthly Owner Costs 

Mortgage $825 $855 $847 $953 

No mortgage $229 $233 $243 $231 

Median Selected Renter Costs 

Contract Rent $373 $362 $413 $363 

Gross Rent $437 $434 $523 $428 

Percentage of Income Spent on Housing2 

Rental Units 

Number of Units 55,793 921 502 3,488 

Less than 10% 5,109 101 41 449 

10-14% 8,331 167 74 715 

15-19% 8,150 176 50 487 

20-24% 6,533 82 58 402 

25-29% 4,914 54 23 286 

30-34% 3,569 30 21 162 

35-39% 2,641 28 13 134 

40-49% 3,177 81 32 125 

>50% 7,179 120 75 385 

Not computed 6,190 921 115 343 

Units with Mortgage 

Number of Units 62,809 1,838 473 5,128 

Less than 10% 5,157 126 35 426 

10-14% 13,007 347 87 1,173 

15-19% 13,879 363 85 1,201 

20-24% 10,691 296 69 833 

25-29% 6,845 222 63 567 

30-34% 3,783 118 45 325 

35-39% 2,465 76 16 164 

40-49% 2,691 139 15 157 

>50% 4,081 139 56 259 

Not computed 210 12 2 23 

Units Without Mortgage 

Number of Units 32,782 1,147 389 2,155 

Less than 10% 19,215 688 239 1,423 

10-14% 5,770 235 54 371 

15-19% 2,737 96 24 122 

20-24% 1,703 38 32 93 

25-29% 921 24 11 39 

30-34% 565 17 9 20 

35-39% 322 23 4 23 

40-49% 328 17 8 13 

>50% 911 17 6 44 

Not computed 310 12 2 7 

Total No. of Units Compiled for Income Spent on Housing2 151,384 3,906 1,364 10,771 

1 WHDP (2003). 2 Total number of units used by WDHP to calculate percentage of income spent on housing unit information does not equal total number 

of occupied units. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
44 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

3.1.5.3.1 Wyoming 

In 2002, W yoming had a total of 236,931 housing units with a 16.4% vacancy rate 

(38,804 vacant units). More than 2,000 residential housing building perm its were issued 

state-wide in 2002 (WHDP 2003) (Table 3.8). 

The cost of rental housing for the fourth quarter of 2002 increased between 2.8 and 3.1% from 

2001 for all types of housing in Wyoming. The highest rent in the fourth quarter of 2002 was 

for houses at $617, up 3.0% from the previous year, and the lowest rent was for mobile home 

lots at $183 (assum es the renter owns a m obile home to place on a lot), up 3.1% from the 

previous year (Table 3.9a). 

According to W HDP (2003), 193,608 residential units in W yoming were occupied in 2000 

(Table 3.9b). The median value of these units was $96,600, with a median mortgage payment 

of $825 and a median gross rent of $437. Of the 151,384 units surveyed for percentage of 

income spent on housing, 36.9% of these units were rentals, 41.5% were mortgaged units, and 

21.7% were units without a mortgage. Some occupants paid more than 50% of their income for 

housing costs (12.9% of renters, 6.5% of mortgaged unit owners, and 2.8% of unmortgaged unit 

occupants) (Table 3.9b). 

3.1.5.3.2 Lincoln County 

In 2002, Lincoln County had the fewest renter-occupied units (15%, 1,024 units) in the study 

area. There were 1,349 vacant units (19.7%) in Lincoln County. However, the greatest number 

of residential building permits (204) in the study area was issued in Lincoln County (WHDP 

2003) (see Table 3.8). 

Lincoln County had the lowest rental costs in the study area in both 2001 and 2002. The cost 

of rental housing for the fourth quarter of 2002 increased over 2001 for apartments (13.7%) and 

mobile hom e lots (3.2%), while the rates for houses (-3.1%) and m obile hom es (-3.4%) 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 45 

decreased during the same period. The highest rent in the fourth quarter of 2002 in Lincoln 

County was for houses ($388) and the lowest was for mobile home lots ($163) (see Table 3.9a). 

According to WHDP (2003), 5,266 residential units in Lincoln County were occupied in 2000 

(see Table 3.9b). The median value of th ese units was $95,300, with a m edian mortgage 

payment of $855 and a median gross rent of $434. Of the 3,906 units surveyed for percentage 

of income spent on housing, 23.6% were rentals, 47.1% were mortgaged units, and 29.4% were 

units without a m ortgage. In Lincoln County, 8.8% of renters, 7.8% of m ortgaged unit 

occupants, and 1.5% of unm ortgaged unit occupants spent m ore than half their incom e on 

housing costs. 

3.1.5.3.3 Sublette County 

In 2002, Sublette County had the highest officially reported vacancy rate in the study area 

(31.8%, 1,155 vacant units), and the lowest num ber of owner-occupied units (50.2%) (see 

Table 3.8). However, individuals have reported that it was difficult to rent or purchase adequate 

housing in Sublette County and a surplus apparently does not exist (personal communication, 

Bill Lanning, BLM, PFO). No housing is available in Pinedale, Big Piney, or Marbleton 

(personal com munication, May 20, 2004, with Patti Raisch, Pinedale Town Clerk; Vicky 

Brown, Big Piney Town Clerk; Alice Griggs, Marbleton Town Clerk; and Mary Langford, 

Sublette County Clerk). According to Ms. Langford, most of the housing impact in the town 

of Pinedale originates from administrators associated with oil and gas field development, rather 

than oil and gas field workers. However, according to Sheriff Hank Ruland, up to 40% of the 

demand on his office results from the in-migration of dislocated Teton County residents who 

cannot find adequate housing in Jackson Hole (personal communication, May 21, 2004, with 

Sheriff Hank Ruland, Sublette County Sheriff's Department). Therefore, a large percentage of 

the housing demand may result from dislocated Teton County residents rather than oil and gas 

workers. This view is shared by Cyd Goodrich, Ms. Goodrich stipulates that there is no lowincome housing available in the Pinedale community. She holds the opinion that much of the 

pressure is from higher-middle to lower-upper income families moving out of Teton County and 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
46 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

she has never heard anyone express a lack of interest in moving to Pinedale because of oil and 

gas development. However, most of the affected individuals who encounter difficulty obtaining 

housing are native residents of Pinedale, especially young or newly married, under-employed 

couples who simply cannot afford the high rental rates and are not in a position to purchase. 

The vacancy rate for rentals/hotels/motels in summer (April-November) is estimated to be 0%, 

while it is less than 10% the rest of the year and declining (personal communication, December 

2004, with Cyd Goodrich, Realtor, Pinedale Properties). Much of the seasonal pressure on 

housing comes from seasonal, often migrant workers from Canada, who come on work visas. 

Landlords offer only one-year leases and do not allow subletting, so, although the houses are 

only used during the drilling season by workers in areas without year-round operations and sit 

vacant the rest of the year, other workers who are involved in year-round operations have 

difficulty finding adequate housing. Housing pressures are less in the southern part of the 

county, because there are no direct roads to the oil and gas fields (personal communication, 

December 2004, with Cyd Goodrich, Realtor, Pinedale Properties). Additionally, the demand 

for new housing apparently exceeds the rate of building. A total of 88 new residential building 

permits were issued in Sublette County in 2002 (WHDP 2003). 

Sublette County had the highest rental costs for apartments ($534, up 21.1% from the fourth 

quarter of 2001), houses ($655, up 7.0%), and mobile homes ($457, up 30.6%) in the study area 

in the fourth quarter of 2002--these were also the greatest increases in the study area, and 

Sublette County was the only county in the study area to see an increase in rental rates for 

houses. However, Sublette County had the greatest decrease in rental rates for mobile home 

lots (-5.7%) in the study area (see Table 3.9a). In 2004, rent for single family homes ranges 

from $1,000-$1,500/month, while small apartments in multi-unit facilities range from $850-

$1,000/month (personal communication, December 2004, with Cyd Goodrich, Realtor, Pinedale 

Properties). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 47 

According to WHDP (2003), 2,371 residential units in Sublette County were occupied in 2000 

(see Table 3.9b). The median value of th ese units was $112,000, with a m edian mortgage 

payment of $847 and a median gross rent of $523. Of the 1,364 units surveyed for percentage 

of income spent on housing, 36.8% were rentals, 34.7% were mortgaged units, and 28.5% were 

units without a m ortgage. In Sublette County, 14.9% of renters, 18.4% of m ortgaged unit 

occupants, and 61.4% of unm ortgaged unit occupants spent m ore than half their incom e on 

housing costs. 

Plans are underway to build another m otel in town and several m ancamps are currently under 

discussion by area operators for permitting to alleviate some of the pressures on housing (personal 

communication, December 2004, with Cyd Goodrich, Realtor, Pinedale Properties). Several 

housing developments are also being planned (personal communication, December 2004, with Roy 

Allen, Economist, BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne). 

3.1.5.3.4 Sweetwater County 

In 2002, Sweetwater County had the highest number of owner-occupied units (10,722, 66.1%), 

the highest num ber of renter-occupied units (3,420, 21.1%), and the lowest vacancy rate 

(2,075 units, 12.8%) (Table 3.8). A total of 48 new residential building permits were issued 

in Sweetwater County in 2002 (WHDP 2003). 

Sweetwater County had the highest rental costs for mobile home lots ($197) in the study area 

in the fourth quarter of 2002. However, the average rent for mobile home lots decreased by 

2.2% from the previous year. Rental rates for Sweetwater County remained relatively stable 

or declined from the rates for the previous year across the board, with the greatest decrease in 

the study area in rates for houses (-3.2%) and the lowest increase in the study area in rental 

rates for apartments (0.5%). The rates for mobile homes did not change (Table 3.9b). 

According to WHDP (2003), 14,105 residential units in Sweetwater County were occupied in 

2000 (Table 3.9b). The median value of these units was $104,200, with a m edian mortgage 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
48 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

payment of $953 and a median gross rent of $428. Of the 10,771 units surveyed for percentage 

of income spent on housing, 32.4% were rentals, 47.6% were mortgaged units, and 20.0% were 

units without a mortgage. In Sweetwater County, 11.0% of renters, 5.1% of m ortgaged unit 

occupants, and 2.0% of unmortgaged unit occupants paid more than 50% of their income for 

housing costs. 

3.1.5.4 Cost of Living and Inflation 

Cost of living and inflation information was obtained from the Wyoming Cost of Living Index 

(WCLI) for the fourth quarter of 2002 (WDAI 2003b). The WCLI is a summary of price data 

collected from 27 cities and towns throughout Wyoming over the period of January 8, 9, and 10, 

2003. The price data collected are used to build a comparative index and to estimate inflation 

rates for Wyoming and the five regions of the state (Table 3.10). 

Twenty-seven communities across the state were included in the WCLI based on the following 

criteria. First, the largest city or town in each county was priced. In addition, prices were 

collected in any city or town with a population of more than 5,000 persons or where a city or 

town had at least 85% of that county's largest community's population. In counties where only 

one community was priced, those prices were used to represent the entire county. In counties 

where two communities were priced, a population-based weighted average of the prices for the 

two communities was used for the entire county. 

The 140 item s surveyed were aggregated into six categories, which were then weighted 

according to their overall importance in the average consumer's budget. These categories and 

their respective weight com ponents included housing (46.3%), transportation (17.1%), food 

(14.7%), recreation and personal care (10.3%), apparel (5.8%), and medical costs (5.8%). The 

housing category, due to its relative importance in the average consumer's budget, carries the 

largest weight factor and is the most influential category in both the comparative index and the 

inflation rates. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
49 

1 

Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 3.10 Comparative Cost of Living Index.1 

Recreation and 

Rank County All Items Food Housing Apparel Transportation Medical Personal Care 

1 Teton 139 105 174 121 104 110 111 

2 Sheridan 106 107 107 120 100 107 104 

3 Sublette 105 96 107 123 101 97 110 

4 Campbell 105 100 111 87 99 101 102 

5 Laramie 104 107 109 94 98 100 97 

6 Johnson 103 105 100 132 100 99 106 

7 Albany 102 94 107 103 101 99 96 

8 Natrona 99 105 98 103 100 98 96 

9 Sweetwater 98 100 95 94 100 99 103 

10 Park 97 99 92 107 101 102 101 

11 Carbon 94 105 85 91 102 96 107 

12 Converse 94 95 90 89 100 98 98 

13 Fremont 93 89 91 87 101 99 100 

14 Hot Springs 93 98 83 102 102 104 103 

15 Uinta 93 92 89 87 100 105 98 

16 Goshen 91 93 85 99 99 97 99 

17 Platte 91 100 80 107 100 95 100 

18 Lincoln 91 90 84 102 100 92 99 

19 Big Horn 89 96 77 117 100 95 99 

20 Washakie 89 92 78 112 99 101 98 

21 Niobrara 88 90 74 104 101 103 106 

22 Crook 87 93 76 98 100 93 101 

23 Weston 87 89 76 93 101 109 100 

Fourth quarter 2002. Prices as of January 8, 9, and 10, 2003 (statewide average = 100) (WDAI 2003b). 

The WCLI compared each county's price level to the statewide average for the fourth quarter 

of 2002. All 23 counties were included to create the com parative index and are included in 

Table 3.10 for purposes of comparison. The WCLI reflected only the price level of each county, 

at the time of data collection, compared with the statewide average of 100. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
50 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

3.1.5.4.1 Lincoln County 

Lincoln County ranked 18th in the state in the fourth quarter of 2002, and had a significantly 

lower cost of living than the other counties in the study area with an all-item s index of 91. 

Housing had the lowest index value (84) and apparel (102) had the highest index value in the 

county. 

3.1.5.4.2 Sublette County 

Sublette County was the third most expensive county in the state in the fourth quarter of 2002 

and had the highest cost of living in the st udy area with an all item s ranking of 105 (Table 

3.10). Sublette County had the highest index in the study area for housing (107), apparel (123), 

transportation (101), and recreation and personal care (110). 

3.1.5.4.3 Sweetwater County 

Sweetwater County was ranked ninth in the state in the fourth quarter of 2002 (see Table 3.10). 

It had the highest index in the study area for food (100) and medical (103). Sweetwater County 

had the lowest index in the study area for apparel (94). 

3.1.5.5 Inflation 

Tables 3.11 and 3.12 show estimated Wyoming inflation rates. Table 3.11 shows estimated inflation 

rates for all categories and the respective category weights. Table 3.12 shows the estimated annual 

all items inflation rates for the five regions of the state, as well as statewide rates. The inflation rate 

represents the percent change in the price level of a standard basket of selected consum er items 

priced this quarter, compared with the price level of the same goods recorded one year ago. WDAI 

(2003b) weighted the data by population to more accurately represent the price changes experienced 

by the majority of consumers in Wyoming. Nationally, the inflation rate from December 2001 to 

December 2002 was 2.4% (CPI), as reported by the BLS. 

The Wyoming annual all-items inflation rate for the fourth quarter of 2002 was 3.7% (Table 3.11), 

with the medical category experiencing the highest inflation rate for the third consecutive period, 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 51 

increasing 6.0% over the previous period. A broad increase in prices across the medical category 

led to the relatively high increase in healthcare-related costs. Within the medical category, health 

insurance costs experienced significant increases, a nd if this trend continues, healthcare-related 

inflation will continue to remain high. 

The transportation and apparel categories experienced large price increases from 2001 to 2002 

largely due to increased gasoline prices during that tim e period. At the tim e of pricing for the 

WCLI, the full impact of gasoline increases was not yet realized, but significant increases in gasoline 

prices were incorporated into the 4.7% increase from the previous year in transportation-related 

costs (Table 3.11). 

The apparel category experienced an annual increase in prices of 4.5% in the fourth quarter of 2002 

(Table 3.11). This category can be volatile from quarter to quarter because many of the items priced 

may be subject to discount sales and the timing of these sales from year to year may have a large 

effect on the final apparel inflation number. The southwest region, which includes the study area, 

Table 3.11 Annual Inflation Rates in Wyoming by Category (Statewide Average).1 

Category (%) 

Recreation and 

Quarter2 All Items Food Housing Apparel Transportation Medical Personal Care 

Weights 100.0 14.7 46.3 5.8 17.1 5.8 10.3 

4Q96 4.8 9.3 2.4 7.0 7.0 4.1 2.9 

2Q97 2.8 4.9 2.1 2.8 2.4 3.3 2.8 

4Q97 2.9 4.5 2.5 -0.6 0.9 4.7 5.0 

2Q98 1.5 2.6 0.9 3.6 0.0 0.2 3.7 

4Q98 2.2 2.8 2.6 4.0 -2.2 0.7 6.2 

2Q99 2.6 3.7 3.2 1.1 0.7 3.0 2.3 

4Q99 3.1 4.7 2.5 -0.2 4.5 3.4 3.1 

2Q00 4.3 4.9 3.6 -1.2 7.9 5.2 3.3 

4Q00 3.2 1.8 3.9 -0.4 2.9 4.0 3.9 

2Q01 4.3 3.0 6.6 3.1 1.6 4.0 2.0 

4Q01 3.5 5.0 4.5 1.8 -0.1 7.3 2.3 

2Q02 2.5 1.9 3.1 0.5 -0.4 5.9 4.3 

4Q02 3.7 3.3 3.1 4.5 4.7 6.0 3.9 

1 Source: WDAI (2003b). Note: The 2Q99 inflation calculations mark the first time the WCLI used all 23 counties to calculate the inflation rates. 

Previously, only 15 counties were used. The inflation rate represents the percent change in the price level of a standard basket of selected 

consumer items priced this quarter, compared with the price level of the same goods recorded one year ago. 2 4Q96 = fourth quarter (October, November, December) 1996. Fourth quarter represents the December to December and 2nd Quarter represents 

the June to June percent change. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
52 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 3.12 Annual Inflation Rates for the U.S., Wyoming, and Regions.1 

U.S. 

Consumer 

Price Index Wyoming 

Quarter3 (%) (All Items %) Southeast

4Q96 3.3 4.8 5.2

2Q97 2.3 2.8 3.6

4Q97 1.7 2.9 3.3

2Q98 1.7 1.5 1.3

4Q98 1.6 2.2 2.7

2Q99 2.0 2.6 3.8

4Q99 2.7 3.1 3.6

2Q00 3.7 4.3 3.9

4Q00 3.4 3.2 2.8

2Q01 3.2 4.3 4.1

4Q01 1.6 3.5 4.9

2Q02 1.1 2.5 2.6

4Q02 2.4 3.7 3.0

Southwest 

4.0 

2.8 

4.0 

2.6 

2.8 

3.4 

2.6 

2.3 

2.6 

3.1 

2.3 

1.4 

2.5 

Region2

 (All Items %) 

Central Northeast Northwest 

5.0 4.2 4.9 

3.1 1.0 2.6 

1.9 3.0 2.2 

0.3 2.1 2.5 

1.4 2.0 2.4 

1.5 2.6 0.9 

2.8 3.4 3.0 

4.4 7.4 4.0 

3.4 6.9 3.8 

5.0 4.8 4.6 

2.9 4.0 2.6 

2.8 3.1 2.2 

5.1 5.1 2.7 

1 Source: WDAI (2003b). Note: The 2Q99 inflation calculations mark the first time the WCLI used all 23 counties to calculate the inflation rates.

 Previously, only 15 counties were used. 2 Regional Composition for Inflation Estimate: 

Southeast: Albany, Carbon, Goshen, Laramie, Niobrara, and Platte Counties.

Southwest: Lincoln, Sublette, Sweetwater, and Uinta Counties.

Central: Converse, Fremont, and Natrona Counties.

Northeast: Campbell, Crook, Johnson, Sheridan, and Weston Counties.

Northwest: Big Horn, Hot Springs, Park, Teton, and Washakie Counties. 3 4Q96 = fourth quarter (October, November, December) 1996. Fourth quarter represents the December to December and 2nd Quarter represents 

the June to June percent change. 

had the lowest inflation rate (2.5%) in the state for the fourth quarter of 2002 (Table 3.12). Because 

the regional inflation rates are calculated using a smaller sample size than the state-wide all items 

rate, they may be more volatile over time. Thus, when considering regional inflation rates, it must 

be noted that they can vary significantly from quarter to quarter. 

3.1.6 Education 

All study area schools are reported to have plenty of capacity for expansion of enrollm ent 

(Blevins et al. 2004). School enrollment (ADM) in Pinedale increased from 637 in 2002 to 693 

in 2004 (personal communication, December 2004, with Tom Burns, Retired School Business 

Manager, Pinedale). The school is estimated to be operating at approximately 80-85% capacity 

in 2004. Mr. Burns stated that Pinedale has historically had a 10-15% turnover of student 

population annually from non-oil and gas field related transient families. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 53 

Several schools in Sweetwater County have closed recently. These schools were built in 

anticipation of mine expansions that never occurred, and with actual mine closures, there was 

insufficient population to maintain the schools (personal communication, December 2004, with 

Tom Burns, Retired School Business Manager, Pinedale). However, the increased population 

anticipated to m eet em ployment requirem ents for the new Halliburton and Schlum berger 

facilities could once again increase the county population sufficiently to require the schools to 

be reopened (personal com munication, Decem ber 2004, with Tom Burns, Retired School 

Business Manager, Pinedale). 

3.1.6.1 Primary and Secondary Education 

Information on education statistics in the study area was obtained from the National Center of 

Education Statistics (NCES) (2003) (Table 3.13). The Wyoming Comprehensive Assessment 

System (WyCAS) is a systematic approach to student assessment (Wyoming Department of 

Table 3.13 Education Statistics, 2001-2002.1 

County 

Statistic Wyoming Lincoln Sublette Sweetwater 

Schools 388 13 8 31 

School Districts 58 2 2 2 

Students 88,130 3,110 1,217 7,175 

American Indian/Alaskan Native Students 2,834 14 4 51 

Asian/Pacific Islander Students 793 17 10 39 

Black Non-Hispanic Students 1,195 5 7 93 

Hispanic Students 6,370 44 20 689 

White Non-Hispanic Students 76,936 3,030 1,176 6,303 

Diploma Recipients 6,071 246 94 566 

Staff 13,398 421 214 1,100 

Teachers 7,026 215 105 565 

Pupil/Teacher Ratio 13.3:1 15.3:1 12.7:1 13.8:1 

NCES (2003). NCES Report No. 550008375. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 

1 
54 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 3.14 Results of W yCAS Testing, Categorized by Econom ically Disadvantaged 

Category.1 

Total Number of Number of Economically Proficient and Number of Not Economically Proficient and 

District Name Students Tested Disadvantaged Students Advancing (%) Disadvantaged Students Advancing (%) 

FOURTH GRADE 

Reading 

Lincoln #1 42 9 11 33 33 

Lincoln #2 180 68 49 112 63 

Sublette #1 51 14 21 37 68 

Sublette #9 41 17 41 24 38 

Sweetwater #1 279 86 22 193 48 

Sweetwater #2 196 52 31 144 44 

Writing 

Lincoln #1 42 9 11 33 30 

Lincoln #2 180 68 34 112 49 

Sublette #1 51 14 14 37 62 

Sublette #9 41 17 17 24 46 

Sweetwater #1 279 86 86 193 45 

Sweetwater #2 196 52 52 144 37 

Mathematics 

Lincoln #1 42 9 22 33 27 

Lincoln #2 180 68 44 112 49 

Sublette #1 51 14 14 37 41 

Sublette #9 41 17 24 24 21 

Sweetwater #1 279 86 21 193 55 

Sweetwater #2 196 52 26 144 26 

EIGHT GRADE 

Reading 

Lincoln #1 61 12 33 49 31 

Lincoln #2 177 57 51 120 69 

Sublette #1 55 0 -- 55 64 

Sublette #9 58 15 27 43 53 

Sweetwater #1 332 37 11 295 25 

Sweetwater #2 205 20 15 185 45 

Writing 

Lincoln #1 61 12 33 49 45 

Lincoln #2 177 57 63 120 82 

Sublette #1 55 0 -- 55 65 

Sublette #9 58 15 60 43 60 

Sweetwater #1 332 37 11 295 35 

Sweetwater #2 205 20 25 185 56 

Mathematics 

Lincoln #1 61 12 25 49 24 

Lincoln #2 176 57 21 119 39 

Sublette #1 55 0 -- 55 56 

Sublette #9 58 15 27 43 33 

Sweetwater #1 332 37 3 295 33 

Sweetwater #2 205 20 0 185 44 

ELEVENTH GRADE 

Reading 

Lincoln #1 50 5 0 45 44 

Lincoln #2 180 33 55 147 69 

Sublette #1 55 11 55 44 66 

Sublette #9 41 5 20 36 58 

Sweetwater #1 308 0 -- 308 41 

Sweetwater #2 228 13 15 215 50 

Writing 

Lincoln #1 50 5 20 45 42 

Lincoln #2 180 33 70 147 69 

Sublette #1 55 11 64 44 89 

Sublette #9 41 5 60 36 61 

Sweetwater #1 308 0 -- 308 52 

Sweetwater #2 228 13 38 215 61 

Mathematics 

Lincoln #1 50 5 0 45 42 

Lincoln #2 180 33 48 147 54 

Sublette #1 55 11 55 44 61 

Sublette #9 41 5 40 36 56 

Sweetwater #1 308 0 -- 308 37 

Sweetwater #2 228 13 15 215 38 

Wyoming Department of Education Assessment and Accountability Office (2003). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 

1 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 55 

Education Assessment and Accountability Office 2003). Its multiple components are designed 

to m easure school progress towards m eeting the newly adopted W yoming Content and 

Performance Standards. Proficiency statistics for econom ically disadvantaged students are 

presented in Table 3.14 to provide an overview of the performance status of students in each 

district in the study area. Statewide testing was mandated by the Wyoming Legislature through 

Enrolled Act II in 1997 as a result of the W yoming Supreme Court's decision related to the 

school finance lawsuit. WyCAS also meets several important federal requirements for testing. 

3.1.6.1.1 Wyoming 

There were 388 schools in 58 school districts in Wyoming that served a total 88,130 students 

in the 2001-2002 school year (see Table 3.13). The ethnic distribution of the students was as 

follows: 87.3% white/non-Hispanic; 7.2% Hispanic; 3.2% American Indian/Alaskan Native; 

1.4% black/non-Hispanic; and 0.9% Asian/Pacific Islander. The average pupil/teacher ratio in 

the state is 13.3:1. 

3.1.6.1.2 Lincoln County 

Lincoln County had the second largest school system in the study area. In the 2001-2002 

school year, 13 schools in two school districts (Lincoln #1 and Lincoln #2) served a total 

3,110 students (see Table 3.13). The ethnic distribution of the students was as follows: 

97.4% white/non-Hispanic; 1.4% Hispanic; 0.5% Asian/Pacific Islander; 0.5% Am erican 

Indian/Alaskan Native; and 0.2% black/non-Hispanic. The average pupil/teacher ratio (15.3:1) 

in Lincoln County was the highest in the study area. 

As presented in the WyCAS test results, 222 fourth graders in Lincoln County were tested for 

reading, writing, and mathematics. One hundred sixteen (52.3%) of these fourth graders were 

proficient in reading (see Table 3.14). Of the 222 tested fourth graders, 77 (34.7%) are 

considered economically disadvantaged, and only 34 (44.2%) of the disadvantaged students 

were proficient in reading. Of the 145 fourth graders determ ined to not be econom ically 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
56 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

disadvantaged, 81 (55.9%) were proficient in reading. Overall, 89 (40.1%) of these fourth 

graders were proficient in writing. Twenty-four (31.2%) of economically disadvantaged fourth 

graders and 65 (44.8%) of the not econom ically disadvantaged students were proficient in 

writing. Overall, ninety-six (43.2%) fourth graders were proficient in mathematics. Thirty-two 

(41.6%) of the econom ically disadvantaged and 64 (44.1%) of those not econom ically 

disadvantaged were proficient in mathematics. 

As presented in the WyCAS test results, 238 eighth graders in Lincoln County were tested for 

reading, writing, and m athematics. One hundred thirty-one (55.0%) of these eighth graders 

were proficient in reading (see Table 3.14). Of the 238 tested eighth graders, 69 (29.0%) are 

considered economically disadvantaged, and only 33 (47.8%) of the disadvantaged students 

were proficient in reading. Of the 169 eighth graders determ ined to not be econom ically 

disadvantaged, 98 (58.0%) were proficient in reading. Overall, 160 (67.2%) of these eighth 

graders were proficient in writing. Forty (58.0%) of economically disadvantaged eighth graders 

and 120 (71.0%) of the not econom ically disadvantaged students were proficient in writing. 

Overall, 74 (30.9%) eighth graders were proficient in m athematics. Fifteen (21.7%) of the 

economically disadvantaged and 59 (34.9%) of those not econom ically disadvantaged were 

proficient in mathematics. 

As presented in the WyCAS test results, 230 eleventh graders in Lincoln County were tested 

for reading, writing, and m athematics. One hundred thirty-nine (60.4%) of these eleventh 

graders were proficient in reading (see Table 3.14). Of the 230 tested eleventh graders, 38 

(16.5%) were considered economically disadvantaged and only 18 (47.4%) of the disadvantaged 

students were proficient in reading. Of the 192 eleventh graders determ ined to not be 

economically disadvantaged, 121 (63.0%) were proficient in reading. Overall, 144 (62.6%) 

eleventh graders were proficient in writing. Twenty-four (63.2%) of econom ically 

disadvantaged eleventh graders and 120 (62.5%) of the not econom ically disadvantaged 

students were proficient in writing. Overall, 114 (49.6%) eleventh graders were proficient in 

mathematics. Sixteen (42.1%) of the economically disadvantaged and 98 (51.0%) of those not 

economically disadvantaged were proficient in mathematics. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 57 

3.1.6.1.3 Sublette County 

Sublette County had the sm allest school system in the study area. In the 2001-2002 school 

year, eight schools in two school districts served a total 1,217 students (see Table 3.13). The 

ethnic distribution of the students was as follows: 96.6% white/ non-Hispanic; 1.6% Hispanic; 

0.8% Asian/Pacific Islander; 0.6% black/non-Hispanic; and 0.3% American Indian/Alaskan 

Native. Sublette County had the lowest pupil/teacher ratio in the study area (12.7:1). 

As presented in the WyCAS test results, 92 fourth graders in Sublette County were tested for 

reading, writing, and mathematics. Forty-four (47.8%) of these fourth graders were proficient 

in reading (see Table 3.14). Of the 92 tested fourth graders, 31 (33.7%) are considered 

economically disadvantaged, and only 10 (32.3 %) of the disadvantaged students were 

proficient in reading. Of the 61 fourth graders determ ined to not be econom ically 

disadvantaged, 34 (55.7%) were proficient in reading. Overall, 39 (42.4%) of these fourth 

graders were proficient in writing. Five (16.1%) of economically disadvantaged fourth graders 

and 34 (55.7%) of the not econom ically disadvantaged students were proficient in writing. 

Overall, 26 (28.3%) fourth graders were proficient in m athematics. Six (19.4%) of the 

economically disadvantaged and 20 (32.8%) of those not econom ically disadvantaged were 

proficient in mathematics. 

As presented in the WyCAS test results, 113 eighth graders in Sublette County were tested for 

reading, writing, and mathematics. Sixty-two (54.9%) of these eighth graders were proficient 

in reading (see Table 3.14). Of the 113 tested eighth graders, 15 (13.3%) are considered 

economically disadvantaged, and only four (26.7%) of the disadvantaged students were 

proficient in reading. Of the 98 eighth graders determ ined to not be econom ically 

disadvantaged, 58 (59.2%) were proficient in reading. Overall, 71 (62.8%) eighth graders were 

proficient in writing. Nine (60.0%) of econom ically disadvantaged eighth graders and 

62 (63.3%) of the not economically disadvantaged students were proficient in writing. Overall, 

Forty-nine (43.4%) of eighth graders were proficient in m athematics. Four (26.7%) of the 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
58 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

economically disadvantaged and 45 (45.9%) of those not econom ically disadvantaged were 

proficient in mathematics (Table 3.14). 

As presented in the WyCAS test results, 96 eleventh graders in Sublette County were tested for 

reading, writing, and m athematics. Fifty-seven (58.3%) of these eleventh graders were 

proficient in reading (see Table 3.14). Of the 96 tested eleventh graders, 16 (16.7%) were 

considered economically disadvantaged, and only seven (43.8%) of the disadvantaged students 

were proficient in reading. Of the 80 eleventh graders determ ined to not be econom ically 

disadvantaged, 50 (62.5%) were proficient in reading. Overall, 71 (74.0%) eleventh graders 

were proficient in writing. Ten (62.5%) of economically disadvantaged eleventh graders and 

61 (76.3%) of the not econom ically disadvantag ed students were proficient in writing. 

Overall, 55 (57.3%) of eleventh graders were proficient in mathematics. Eight (50.0%) of the 

economically disadvantaged and 47 (58.8%) of those not econom ically disadvantaged were 

proficient in mathematics. 

3.1.6.1.4 Sweetwater County 

Sweetwater County had the largest school system in the study area. In the 2001-2002 school 

year, 31 schools in two school districts served a total 7,175 students (see Table 3.13). The 

ethnic distribution of the students was as follows: 87.8% white/ non-Hispanic; 9.6% Hispanic; 

1.3% black/non-Hispanic; 0.7% Am erican Indian/Alaskan Native; and 0.5% Asian/Pacific 

Islander. The average pupil/teacher ratio (13.8:1) was consistent with the state average. 

As presented in the WyCAS test results, 475 fourth graders in Sweetwater County were tested 

for reading, writing, and mathematics. One-hundred ninety-one (40.2%) of these fourth graders 

were proficient in reading (see Table 3.14). Of the 475 tested fourth graders, 138 (29.1%) were 

considered economically disadvantaged, and only 35 (25.4 %) of the disadvantaged students 

were proficient in reading. Of the 337 fourth graders determ ined to not be econom ically 

disadvantaged, 156 (46.3%) were proficient in reading. Overall, 241 (50.7%) of these fourth 

graders were proficient in writing. One hundred one (73.2%) of economically disadvantaged 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 59 

fourth graders and 140 (41.5%) of the not economically disadvantaged students were proficient 

in writing. Overall, 175 (36.8%) fourth graders were proficient in m athematics. Thirty-two 

(23.2%) of the econom ically disadvantaged and 144 (42.7%) of those not econom ically 

disadvantaged were proficient in mathematics. 

As presented in the WyCAS test results, 536 eighth graders in Sweetwater County were tested 

for reading, writing, and mathematics. One hundred sixty-four (30.5%) of these eighth graders 

were proficient in reading (see Table 3.14). Of the 537 tested eighth graders, 56 (10.4%) were 

considered economically disadvantaged, and only seven (12.5%) of the disadvantaged students 

were proficient in reading. Of the 480 eighth graders determ ined not to be econom ically 

disadvantaged, 157 (32.7%) were proficient in reading. Overall, 216 (40.2%) eighth graders 

were proficient in writing. Nine (16.1%) economically disadvantaged eighth graders and 207 

(43.1%) of the not economically disadvantaged students were proficient in writing. Overall, 

180 (33.5%) eighth graders were proficient in mathematics. One (1.8%) of the economically 

disadvantaged and 179 (37.3%) of those not econom ically disadvantaged were proficient in 

mathematics. 

As presented in the WyCAS test results, 536 eleventh graders in Sweetwater County were tested 

for reading, writing, and m athematics. Two hundred thirty-six (44.0%) of these eleventh 

graders were proficient in reading (see Table 3.14). Of the 536 tested eleventh graders, 

13 (2.4%) were considered econom ically disadvantaged, and only two (15.4%) of the 

disadvantaged students were proficient in reading. Of the 523 eleventh graders determined to 

not be econom ically disadvantaged, 234 (44.7%) were proficient in reading. Overall, 

296 (55.2%) eleventh graders were proficient in writing. Five (38.5%) of econom ically 

disadvantaged eleventh graders and 291 (55.6%) of the not econom ically disadvantaged 

students were proficient in writing. Overall, 198 (36.9%) eleventh graders were proficient in 

mathematics. Two (15.4%) of the economically disadvantaged and 196 (37.5%) of those not 

economically disadvantaged were proficient in mathematics. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
60 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

3.1.6.2 Post-secondary Education 

Information on post-secondary educational services was obtained from the W yoming 

Community College Commission (2003). 

Seven Wyoming community colleges and the University of Wyoming serve the state and the study 

area. Following the largest one-year increase in the last decade, enrollm ents at W yoming's 

community colleges rose an average of 4.1% over the 2002-2003 school year. The increase was 

due in part to a number of strategic efforts implemented by the individual colleges and the college 

system, including an aggressive enrollment development campaign. The system maintains a high 

professor to student ratio, a supportive student environm ent, and extracurricular enrichm ent 

opportunities. In addition to workforce training and strong com munity partnerships, Wyoming's 

community colleges offer a strong developmental foundation, and an impressive springboard into 

further academic and career opportunities (Wyoming Community College Commission 2003). 

Compared to a year ago, enrollment at Central Wyoming College was up 11.7%, Laramie County 

Community College was up in enrollm ent 8.3%, Eastern Wyoming College rose 7.7%, W estern 

Wyoming Community College (at Rock Springs, within the study area) was up 5.6%, and Casper 

College's enrollment was up 4.0%. According to the Wyoming Community College Commission 

(2003), Wyoming leads the nation in proportion of the adult population served by com munity 

colleges at any given point in tim e. Currently, Wyoming community colleges serve 5.3% of the 

adult Wyoming population com pared to a national average of 2.7%. On March 28, 2003, the 

Wyoming Community College Commission approved a statewide Technical Studies Associate of 

Applied Sciences Degree, which responds to the growing need for college degrees that recognize 

specialized workforce training programs offered by Wyoming community colleges. 

3.1.7 Social Traditions 

The study area's general heritage is based on ranching and mineral extraction and remains one of 

least populated and most undeveloped areas in the lower U .S., with a population density ranging 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 61 

from 1.2 people/square mile in Sublette County to 3.6 people/square mile in Sweetwater County 

(see Table 3.3). Landownership is largely public (80% of Sublette County, 79% of Lincoln County, 

and 72% of Sweetwater County) (see Table 3.1). Oil and gas has played a significant role in the 

regional economy since the 1920s. Historically, most of the oil and gas activity was limited to the 

LaBarge area in southwestern Sublette County and neighboring Lincoln County but now extends 

over much of the southern portion of the county. 

The social characteristics throughout the study ar ea are sim ilar to other sm all rural western 

communities and are strongly tied to traditional natural resource-based industries such as agriculture 

and extractive industries. In addition, study area residents recognize the importance of public lands 

in providing the natural resource base for economic activities, as well as supporting a particular way 

of life. Public lands often provide scenic beauty, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities. 

Because public lands comprise 76% of all land within the study area, management decisions can 

affect not only the economic base but lifestyles as well. 

Agriculture has provided the historical basis for community development for much of the nineteenth 

century, and ranching and grazing are viewed as a viable economic activity that provides open space, 

protection of natural resources, and support of cultural and ecological diversity. Although 

agricultural activities have become less important economically in recent years (providing 0.7% of 

industry income and 4.7% of employment in the study area in 2000), the industry is important for 

its historic and cultural influence. Moreover, agricultural is viewed as a guardian of resources and 

an underpinning of social culture in the area. Because management decisions made by federal land 

managers affect ranching operations beyond public land boundaries, com munities are concerned 

about the social influences these decisions have on local communities. 

The oil and gas industry has also played a strong role in the social character of Sublette County and 

has been an important part of the tax base for Sublette, Sweetwater, and Lincoln Counties for nearly 

50 years. The area has experienced several boom and bust cycles throughout its history and has 

realized an increased population tied to this industry. Individuals working in this industry are now 

active members of local communities and are directly affected by federal land manager decisions. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
62 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

In spite of the traditional social characteristics, there are indications that the views and beliefs of 

residents in the study area are changing. Some areas have seen an increase in population, including 

a combination of retirees and others attracted to this region for the abundance of high quality air, 

water, and land resources that offer a rich quality of life and reflect a western wilderness heritage. 

This new population is not tied to traditional natural resource industries and is m ore likely to 

support a conservation-oriented public land management policy. 

3.2 PERSONAL INCOME TRENDS 

The BEA reports data adjusted to current dollars using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). CPI data 

were obtained from the BLS (2003a). CPI is a measure of the average change in prices over time 

in a market basket of goods and services. The estimate for 2003 was based on the change in the CPI 

from fourth quarter 2001 to fourth quarter 2002. The BLS uses the following formula to compute 

the inflation factor and current year dollars. 

Inflation Factor = (Current Year CPI / Year "X" CPI)

Current Year Dollars = Year "X" Dollars x Inflation Factor

The CPI values and inflation factors used by EPS and applied in this docum ent are listed in 

Table 3.15. Average wage inform ation was obtained from BEA (2003a) and is sum marized in 

Table 3.16. Personal income trend data were obtained from the BEA (2003b). Table 3.17 shows 

the components of personal income for 1980, 1990, and 2000 for the counties in the study area and 

Wyoming. 

Personal income can be broken down into three categories: 

• labor incom e (i.e., earnings from work; wages, salaries, and self-em ployment 

income), 

• investment income (i.e., dividends, interest, and rent), and 

• transfer payments (i.e., Social Security benefits, Medicare and Medicaid benefits, 

other income support and assistance). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 63 

Table 3.15 CPI and Inflation Factors, 1980-2003.1 

Inflation 

Year CPI Factor2 

1980 82.4 2.09 

1981 90.9 1.89 

1982 96.5 1.78 

1983 99.6 1.73 

1984 103.9 1.66 

1985 107.6 1.60 

1986 109.6 1.57 

1987 113.6 1.52 

1988 118.3 1.46 

1989 124.0 1.39 

1990 130.7 1.32 

1991 136.2 1.26 

Inflation 

Year CPI Factor2 

1992 140.3 1.23 

1993 144.5 1.19 

1994 148.2 1.16 

1995 152.4 1.13 

1996 156.9 1.10 

1997 160.5 1.07 

1998 163.0 1.06 

1999 166.6 1.03 

2000.3 172.2 1.00 

2001 177.1 0.97 

2002 179.9 0.96 

2003.4 184.5 0.93 

1 Obtained from BLS (2003a). 2 Inflation Factor = CPI current year/year "X" CPI.

3 2000 is the current year (base year) for the purposes of this analysis (i.e., inflation factor = 1.00--the base year when 

$1 is worth $1). 4 November 2003 CPI. 

Table 3.16 Wages and Job Numbers. 

Average Wage ($)1,2 Number of Jobs3 

Area 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 

U.S. 29,254 30,738 34,647 114,231,200 139,426,900 167,283,800 

Wyoming 32,004 26,146 26,549 279,650 272,471 328,532 

Lincoln 31,618 26,545 25,050 6,591 6,873 8,125 

Sublette 27,816 23,260 24,783 2,812 3,076 3,965 

Sweetwater 39,568 33,759 33,748 25,503 22,856 24,281 

1 The employment estimates used to compute the average wage are a job, not person, count. People holding more 

than one job are counted in the employment estimates for each job they hold. Source: BEA (2003a). 2 All national, state, and local area dollar estimates are in year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 

3 BEA (2003d). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 

Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 65 

Total personal incom e (TPI), as defined by the BEA, is the current incom e of residents of a 

particular area from all sources. It is measured after personal Social Security deductions but before 

personal tax deductions have been made. It includes income received from business; federal, state, 

and local governments; households; institutions; foreign governments; other labor income (such as 

employers' contributions to private social insurance program s); farm and non-farm proprietor 

income; dividends, interest, and rent; and transfer payments. It is the only key economic indicator 

that is adjusted for seasonality; it is not, however, adjusted for price changes. 

Because total personal income is a measure of income received, estimates of state and local area 

personal income are assumed to reflect the residence of the income recipients (see below). Of the 

six major components of personal income, three are recorded on a place-of-residence basis. They 

are transfer paym ents; dividends, interest, and rental income; and proprietors' income. The data 

available at the state and county level for wages and salaries, other labor incom e, and personal 

contributions for social insurance are estimated from data recorded by place-of-work. 

Four adjustments are made to earnings by place of work to derive total personal income by place of 

residence. Following these adjustm ents, total earnings still com prise the bulk of total personal 

income. Beginning with total labor and proprietor earnings, the first adjustm ent is m ade by 

deducting contributions for social insurance. Although these are considered part of employee total 

earnings for the current period, social insurance contributions are not received during the current 

period and are, therefore, not included in personal income. 

The second adjustm ent is m ade for em ployee place of residency. The BEA defines em ployee 

residency as the location at which the employee is residing while employed. An example of this type 

of adjustment is a regular occurrence in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. Here, a significant number 

of employees work in the oil and gas fields in Sublette County but reside in Sweetwater County. 

Earnings for these employees show up as earnings data for Sweetwater County. However, in the 

derivation of personal incom e by place of residence, an adjustm ent is m ade to reallocate these 

earnings as personal income for Sublette County. This residency adjustment for Sublette County 

is, therefore, the net effect of place-of-work versus place-of-residence discrepancies. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
66 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

A third adjustm ent is m ade by appending dividends, interest (m onetary and im puted), and rent 

income. 

• Dividends are paym ents in cash or other assets, excluding stock, by for-profit 

corporations to non-corporate stockholders in the state. 

• Interest is the monetary and imputed interest income of persons from all sources. 

Imputed interest income is an estimate of the value of the services (such as checking 

and record keeping) provided by commercial banks, mutual savings banks, savings 

and loan associations, credit unions, and regulated investment companies (excluding 

life insurance carriers) without an explicit charge which is included by BEA in 

personal interest income (BEA 2003b). 

• Rental income is the monetary income of persons from the rental of real property, the 

imputed net rental incom e of owner-o ccupants of non-farm dwellings, and the 

royalties received by persons from patents, copyrights, and rights to natural 

resources. The net rental value of owner–occupied nonfarm housing is included in 

the rental income of persons. The imputation assumes that the owner–occupants are 

in the rental business and that they are renting the houses in which they live to 

themselves: As tenants, they pay rent to the landlords (that is, to them selves); as 

landlords, they collect rent from their tenants (that is, from themselves), they incur 

expenses, and they may have a profit or a loss from the rental business (BEA 2003b). 

The fourth and final adjustment is the addition of transfer payments. Transfer payments (benefits 

from governm ent social insurance funds and cer tain other program s) are incom e paym ents to 

persons, generally in monetary form, for which they do not render current services. As a component 

of personal income, they are payments by governments and businesses to individuals and nonprofit 

institutions. 

Once these four adjustments to the earnings by place of work component are made, the result is total 

personal income by place of residence. Personal income effectively measures the size of consumer 

markets. When presented by industry of origin, as in this report, earnings can also be interpreted 

as a measure of the size of industrial markets. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 67 

Per capita personal income (PCPI) is calculated by dividing total personal income of the area by the 

total population of the area (BEA 2003c). (PCPI is distinguished from the personal per capita 

income calculated by the U.S. Census Bureau and described in Section 3.1.3.) PCPI as computed 

by BEA is a useful tool to compare income across regions, states, and counties. PCPI can be used 

to track income growth over time. It is also useful in that it removes the effect of population growth 

on total personal income. PCPI data are presented in Table 3.17. 

3.2.1 United States 

In 2000, the U.S. had a TPI of $8.4 trillion (see Table 3.17). The change in TPI has rem ained 

relatively stable over the 20-year study period; TPI reflected an increase of 73.7% (2.8% average 

annual growth) from 1980. In 2000, net earnings from labor accounted for 68.2% of TPI (compared 

with 71.4% in 1980); dividends, interest, and rent accounted for 19.0% (compared with 16.5% in 

1980); and transfer payments were 12.7% (compared with 12.1% in 1980). From 1990 to 2000, net 

earnings increased 31.6%; dividends, interest, and rent increased 23.0%; and transfer paym ents 

increased 36.6%. 

In 2000, the U.S. had a PCPI of $29,760 (see Tabl e 3.17). This PCPI was up 39.8% from 1980 

(1.7% average annual increase). The average wage in the U.S. has also steadily increased, going 

from $29,254 (year 2000 dollars adjusted for inflation) in 1980 to $34,647 in 2000 (18% increase; 

0.8% average annual increase), while the number of jobs for the same period increased by a total 

of 46% (BEA 2002, 2003a, 2003d). 

3.2.2 Wyoming 

In 2000, Wyoming had a TPI of $13.8 billion (see Table 3.17). This TPI ranked fifty-first in the 

U.S. (ranking includes the District of Columbia), down from 1980, when the TPI of $11.6 billion 

(in 1980 dollars) ranked forty-ninth in the U.S. The 2000 TPI reflected an increase of 18.5% since 

1980 (0.9% average annual growth). In 2000, net earnings from labor accounted for 61.1% of TPI 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
68 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

(compared with 76.3% in 1980); dividends, interest, and rent com prised 27.3% (compared with 

16.7% in 1980); and transfer payments comprised 11.6% (compared with 7.0% in 1980). 

Personal income from investments and transfer payments in Wyoming between 1980 and 2000 grew 

by 94.3% and 95.5%, respectively, while labor incom e decreased by 5.1% over this sam e time 

period. This change in how individuals earn income is not unlike national trends. A trend common 

in many areas in the Intermountain West, is the influx of individuals of retirement age choosing to 

reside in the region, thus resulting in an increasing dependence of the local economy on investment 

income (BLM 2003b). 

In 2000, Wyoming had a PCPI of $27,941, com pared to $24,561 in 1980 (see Table 3.17). This 

reflects a 13.8% increase over the 20-year study period, or 0.6% average annual growth. Wyoming's 

PCPI is 93.9% of the national average. 

The average wage in Wyoming has steadily decreased, going from $32,004 in 1980 to $26,549 in 

2000 (17.0% decrease; 0.9% average annual loss), while the num ber of jobs for the sam e period 

increased by a total of 17% (BEA 2002, 2003a, 2003d). 

3.2.3 Lincoln County 

In 2000, Lincoln County had a TPI of $308 million, an increase of 26.7% (1.2% average annual 

growth) since 1980 (see Table 3.17). In 2000, net earnings from labor accounted for 56.5% of 

TPI (com pared with 74.4% in 1980); dividends, interest, and rent accounted for 30.5% 

(compared with 17.1% in 1980); and transfer payments accounted for 12.9% (compared with 

8.6% in 1980). 

In 2000, Lincoln County had a PCPI of $21,041, up 7.3% (0.4% average annual growth) from 1980 

(see Table 3.17). The Lincoln County PCPI is 70.7% of the national average. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 69 

The average wage in Lincoln County in 2000 ($25,050) was 6% below the average for 

Wyoming and 72% of the national average. Wages in Lincoln County decreased a total of 21% 

over the 20-year study period (1.2% average annual decrease). The number of jobs for the same 

period increased by a total of 23%, well ahead of the state (17%) (BEA 2002, 2003a, 2003d). 

3.2.4 Sublette County 

In 2000, Sublette County had a TPI of $165 million (see Table 3.17). The 2000 TPI reflected 

an increase of 42.0% (1.8% average annual growth) from 1980, higher than the state change but 

remaining lower than the national change. In 2000, net earnings from labor accounted for 

52.2% of TPI (com pared with 69.3% in 1980); dividends, interest, and rent were 37.7% 

(compared with 24.7% in 1980); and transfer payments were 10.1% (compared with 6.0% in 

1980). 

In 2000, Sublette County had a PCPI of $27,741, up 10.1% (0.5% average annual growth) from 

1980 (see Table 3.17). The Sublette County PCPI is 93.2% of the national average. 

The average wage in Sublette County in 2000 ($24,783) was 71.5% of the national average and 

93.3% of the state average (BEA 2002). The 2000 wage was 10.9% lower than in 1980 (0.6% 

average annual decrease). The number of jobs for the same period increased by a dramatic total 

of 41.0%, well ahead of the state (17.5%) (BEA 2002, 2003a, 2003d). 

According to the EPS community profile, non-labor income sources are the fastest growing sector 

in Sublette County. Individuals in this segment of the income population are likely attracted by the 

quality of life and pristine beauty of the surrounding area (personal communication, December 2004, 

with Roy Allen, Economist, BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne).. 

3.2.5 Sweetwater County 

In 2000, Sweetwater County had a TPI of $1.1 billion. This reflected a 0.7% decrease from 1980 

(0.04% average annual decrease). In 2000, net earnings from labor accounted for 69.4% of TPI 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
70 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

(compared with 84.7% in 1980); dividends, interest, and rent were 21.3% (compared with 9.8% in 

1980); and transfer payments were 9.3% (compared with 5.5% in 1980). 

In 2000, Sweetwater County had a PCPI of $29,811, up 11.9% (0.6% average annual growth) from 

1980 (see Table 3.17). The Sweetwater County PCPI is more than 100% of the national average. 

The average wage in Sweetwater County during 2000 ($33,748) was 97.4% of the national 

average and 127.1% of the state average. Despite the apparent high wages, it is important to 

note that the 2000 wage was 14.7% lower than in 1980, an average annual loss of 0.8%. The 

number of jobs fell 4.8% in the same time period, as compared to state growth (17.5% increase 

in the number of jobs) (BEA 2002, 2003a, 2003d). 

3.3 INDUSTRY AND ECONOMY 

3.3.1 Overview 

Gross state product (GSP) is the value added in production by the labor and property located in a 

state (BEA 2003f). The BEA calculates GSP for a state as the sum of gross state product originating 

(GSPO) by industry for all industries. This measure of GSP is the state counterpart of the nation's 

gross domestic product by industry from the national income and product accounts (BEA 2003f). 

The GSPO by industry is the contribution of each industry, including governm ent, to GSP. An 

industry's GSPO, often referred to as its "value added," is equal to its gross output (sales or receipts 

and other operating income, plus inventory change) minus its intermediate inputs (consumption of 

goods and services purchased from other industries or imported). 

For each industry, the estimate of gross product is composed of four components (estimated below 

in year 2000 dollars only): 1) compensation of employees; 2) proprietor incom e with inventory 

valuation adjustment and capital consum ption allowances; 3) indirect business tax and non-tax 

liability; and 4) other, m ainly capital-related charges. Most of the com pensation and proprietor 

income components of GSP are based primarily on BEA estimates of earnings by place of work, an 

aggregate in the state personal in come series (BEA 2003f). The IBT component of GSP reflects 

liabilities charged to business expenses, most of which are sales and property taxes levied by state 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 71 

and local governments. The capital charges com ponent of GSP com prises corporate profits with 

IVA, corporate capital consum ption allowances, business transfer paym ents, net interest, rental 

income of persons, and subsidies less current surplus of government enterprises. 

The industry classifications represent groupings in accordance with the revised 1987 Standard 

Industrial Classification (SIC) Manual, published by the OMB (OMB 1987). The SIC was 

developed for use in the classification of establishm ents by the type of activity in which they are 

engaged, for the purposes of facilitating the collection, tabulation, presentation, and analysis of data 

relating to establishm ents and for prom oting uniform ity and com parability. These 10 m ajor 

industrial sectors (one-digit SIC codes) are 1) agriculture; 2) m ining; 3) construction; 

4) manufacturing; 5) transportation, communication, and public utilities (TCPU); 6) wholesale trade; 

7) retail trade; 8) finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE); 9) services; and 10) government. For 

purposes of this classification, an establishment is an economic unit, generally at a single physical 

location, where business is conducted or where services or industrial operations are performed (BEA 

2003f). 

Each establishment is assigned an industry code on the basis of its prim ary activity, which is 

determined by its principal product (or group of products) produced or distributed or services 

rendered. Ideally, the principal product or service is determined by its relative share of "value added" 

at the establishment. In practice, however, it is rarely possible to obtain this measure for individual 

products or services. Typically, the BEA adopts some other criterion that may be expected to give 

approximately the same results in determining the primary activity of an establishment (BEA 2003f). 

3.3.2 Wyoming Industry 

The BEA calculates income and gross state product information at the SIC two-digit level. The data 

for GSP (Table 3.18) are presented at the simplified one-digit SIC code level for the purposes of this 

report, with the exceptions of mining (coal, metal, and non-mineral) separated from oil and gas and 

government separated into federal civilian, federal military, and state and local. Data presented in 

this technical support document are in year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation (see Section 3.2). 

Table 3.19 provides employee compensation data to provide a com parison of state-wide income 

growth in relation to GSP changes. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
72 

1 

Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 3.18 Wyoming Gross State Product. 1 

Gross State Product (GSP) 

1980 1990 2000 Growth (%) 

Industry GSP % of GSP GSP % of GSP GSP % of GSP 1980-1990 1990-2000 1980-2000 

Agriculture 619 2.7 510 2.9 468 2.4 -17.6 -8.2 -24.3 

Mining (metal, coal, non-metallic) 3,162 14.0 1,920 10.9 1,437 7.5 -39.3 -25.1 -54.6 

Oil and gas 6,499 28.8 4,215 23.8 3,089 16.2 -35.2 -26.7 -52.5 

Construction 1,601 7.1 573 3.2 1,015 5.3 -64.2 77.1 -36.6 

Manufacturing 917 4.1 779 4.4 1,335 7.0 -15.1 71.4 45.5 

TCPU 2,236 9.9 2,661 15.0 2,510 13.1 19.0 -5.7 12.2 

Wholesale trade 802 3.6 505 2.9 773 4.0 -37.1 53.2 -3.7 

Retail trade 1,273 5.6 1,053 6.0 1,403 7.3 -17.3 33.3 10.2 

FIRE 2,023 9.0 1,648 9.3 2,285 12.0 -18.5 38.6 13.0 

Services 1,500 6.7 1,505 8.5 2,202 11.5 0.3 46.4 46.8 

Government 

Federal civilian 391 1.7 427 2.4 501 2.6 9.2 17.4 28.2 

Federal military 196 0.9 246 1.4 277 1.4 25.4 12.4 41.0 

State and local 1,312 5.8 1,650 9.3 1,817 9.5 25.7 10.2 38.4 

Total Gross State Product 22,532 100.0 17,690 100.0 19,112 100.0 -21.5 8.0 -15.2 

BEA (2003e), millions of year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 

Table 3.19 Compensation of Employees (Millions of Year 2000 dollars).1 

Compensation Paid to Employees 

from Gross State Product (GSP)1 

1980 1990 2000 Growth (%) 

% of % of % of 

Industry Paid Total Paid Paid Total Paid Paid Total Paid 1980-1990 1990-2000 1980-2000 

Agriculture 148 1.7 100 1.5 132 1.6 -32.5 31.8 -12.4 

Mining (metal, coal, non-metallic) 1,220 14.0 655 9.6 518 6.4 -46.3 -20.9 -135.6 

Oil and gas 1,014 11.6 426 6.3 580 7.2 -58.0 36.3 -74.8 

Construction 997 11.4 402 5.9 642 7.9 -59.7 59.8 -55.3 

Manufacturing 422 4.8 364 5.3 461 5.7 -13.9 26.8 8.4 

TCPU 932 10.7 780 11.5 762 9.4 -16.3 -2.3 -22.3 

Wholesale trade 416 4.8 250 3.7 299 3.7 -39.8 19.4 -39.1 

Retail trade 775 8.9 622 9.1 799 9.9 -19.8 28.5 3.0 

FIRE 255 2.9 237 3.5 308 3.8 -7.0 29.9 17.2 

Services 832 9.5 895 13.2 1,393 17.2 7.6 55.7 40.3 

Government 

Federal civilian 380 4.4 398 5.9 443 5.5 4.6 11.3 14.1 

Federal military 173 2.0 217 3.2 226 2.8 25.3 4.0 23.3 

State and local 1,166 13.4 1,455 21.4 1,547 19.1 24.7 6.4 24.6 

Total Gross State Product 8,731 100.0 6,798 100.0 8,108 100.0 -22.1 19.3 -7.7 

BEA (2003f), millions of year 2000 dollars adjusted for inflation. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 

1 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 73 

In 2000, the greatest percentage of GSP came from oil and gas (16.2%) and TCPU(13.1%), followed 

closely by FIRE (12.0%) and services (11.5%) (Table 3.18). In contrast, in 1980, the greatest 

contributors to GSP were also from oil and gas (28.8%) and mining (14.0%), followed by TCPU 

(9.9%) and FIRE (9.0%) (Table 3.18). In 2000, combined mineral extraction (mining plus oil and 

gas) contributed 23.7% of GSP, down from 42.8% in 1980 (a combined decline of more than 53.2% 

over the 20-year period) (Table 3.18). 

In 2000, the greatest percentage of employee compensation came from state and local government 

(19.1%), followed by services (17.2%) (Table 3.19). In contrast, in 1980, the greatest contributor 

to compensation came from mining (14.0%) and state and local governm ent (13.4%), followed 

closely by oil and gas (11.6%) and construction (11.4%) (Table 3.19). Combined mineral extraction 

(mining plus oil and gas) contributed 13.6% of em ployee compensation in 2000, down from a 

combined total of 25.6% in 1980 (a combined decline of more than 50.9% over the 20-year period) 

(Table 3.19). This implies that economic development is resulting in job and revenue diversification 

within Wyoming. 

3.3.3 Industry Employment 

The BEA estimates annual employment and earnings for counties throughout the U.S. Total annual 

employment includes both full-time and part-time jobs so that individuals with more than one job 

will be counted twice. The employment estimates include those that are employed by businesses 

and public entities, as well as individuals that are self-em ployed. Data were obtained from BEA 

regarding total annual employment by industry for each county and for Wyoming for 1980, 1990, 

and 2000 to examine trends over the 20-year study period. These data are presented in Table 3.20. 

3.3.1.1 Wyoming 

All employment categories in Wyoming added 48,882 jobs from 1980 to 2000, an increase of 17.5% 

(0.8% average annual growth) (see Table 3.20). Services provided the greatest number of new jobs 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
74 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 3.20 Employment by Industry.1 

Number of Jobs 

Lincoln Sublette Sweetwater Wyoming 

Industry 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 

Farm employment 851 733 698 429 402 412 266 220 205 14,504 12,476 12,624 

Agriculture services, forestry, 32 77 149 27 83 132 48 81 188 2,016 3,353 5,769 

fishing and other 

Mining (coal, metal, nonmetal, oil 1,359 667 517 276 315 325 7,318 4,989 3,717 38,523 20,840 19,387 

and gas) 

Construction 575 444 863 388 261 427 3,282 1,533 1,509 25,805 15,782 24,879 

Manufacturing 467 614 530 31 (D) 2 91 494 745 1,649 10,512 11,203 13,583 

Transportation and public utilities 503 568 582 176 145 108 2,208 1,987 1,785 19,169 16,583 17,084 

Wholesale trade 196 80 133 25 (D) 55 773 648 615 10,055 7,633 8,812 

Retail trade 821 1,083 1,389 499 409 603 3,743 3,739 4,447 43,998 47,252 57,824 

Finance, insurance, and real estate 287 307 471 147 184 228 693 1,125 1,127 16,334 17,167 21,303 

Services 576 1,040 1,278 395 599 905 3,605 3,760 4,749 48,437 61,294 83,161 

Federal, civilian 117 146 110 62 91 96 304 262 266 7,539 7,589 7,400 

Federal, military 63 75 84 39 28 41 214 228 215 6,335 6,311 6,204 

State government 109 136 126 54 74 72 203 278 269 10,988 13,150 13,820 

Local government 635 903 1,195 264 364 470 2,352 3,261 3,540 25,435 31,838 36,682 

Total full-time and part-time 6,591 6,873 8,125 2,812 2,955 3,965 25,503 22,856 24,281 279,650 272,471 328,532 

employment 

1 BEA (2003b). 2 (D) = not shown to avoid disclosure of confidential information, but the estimates for this item are included in the totals. BEA does 

not provide this information. 

over the 20-year period (34,724). This comprised a 71.7% (2.7% average annual growth) increase 

in the number of service jobs from 1980 to 2000, providing 25.3% of all jobs in 2000 compared to 

17.3% in 1980. 

Agriculture services, forestry, and fisheries experienced the greatest percentage (186.2%; 5.4% 

average annual growth) of job growth during the 20-year study period, with 3,753 new jobs, and 

provided 1.8% of all Wyoming jobs in 2000 compared to 0.7% in 1980 (see Table 3.20). 

The greatest number (-19,136) and highest percentage (-49.7%; -3.4% average annual loss) of job 

losses occurred in mining from 1980 to 2000, and mining provided 5.9% of all Wyoming jobs in 

2000 compared to 15.8% in 1980 (see Table 3.20). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 75 

The average weekly wages in the private and government sectors in Wyoming in the first quarter 

of 2003 were $547 and $598, respectively. Mining had the highest average weekly wage at $1,104, 

followed by utilities at $1,044, and management at $1,001. The greatest percentage of employee 

compensation state-wide in the first quarter of 2003 came from government (27.2%), followed by 

total mineral extraction (14.7%) (WDERP 2003a). 

3.3.1.2 Lincoln County 

All employment categories in Lincoln County added 1,534 jobs from 1980 to 2000, an increase of 

23.3% (1.1% average annual growth) (see Table 3.20). Services provided the greatest number of 

new jobs over the 20-year period (702). This comprised a 121.9% (4.1% average annual growth) 

increase in the num ber of service jobs from 1980 to 2000, providing 15.7% of all jobs in 2000 

compared to 8.7% in 1980. 

Agriculture services, forestry, and fisheries experienced the greatest percentage of job growth 

(365.6%; 8% average annual growth) during the 20-year study period, with 117 new jobs, and 

provided 1.8% of all Lincoln County jobs in 2000 com pared to less than 0.5% in 1980 (see 

Table 3.20). 

The greatest num ber (-842) and highest percenta ge (-62.0%; -4.7% average annual loss) of job 

losses occurred in mining from 1980 to 2000 (see Table 3.20). Mining provided 6.4% of all Lincoln 

County jobs in 2000 compared to 20.6% in 1980. 

The average weekly wages in the private and government sectors in Lincoln County in the first 

quarter of 2003 were $660 and $495, respectively. Heavy and civil engineering construction had 

the highest average weekly wage at $1,439, followed by oil and gas at $1,243 and utilities at $1,051. 

Construction provided 29.5% of total income generated in Lincoln County in the first quarter of 

2003 and government provided 22.2% (WDERP 2003a). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
76 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

3.3.1.3 Sublette County 

Industry employment in Sublette County added 1,153 new jobs from 1980 to 2000, an increase of 

41.0% (1.7% average annual growth) (see Table 3.20). Services provided the greatest number of 

new jobs over the 20-year period (510). This comprised a 129.1% (4.2% average annual growth) 

increase in the num ber of service jobs from 1980 to 2000, providing 22.8% of all jobs in 2000 

compared to 14.0% in 1980. 

Agriculture services, forestry, and fisheries experienced the greatest percentage of growth (388.9%; 

8.3% average annual growth), adding 105 new jobs during the 20-year study period (see Table 3.20). 

This category provided 3.3% all Sublette County jobs in 2000 compared to less than 1.0% in 1980. 

The greatest number (-68) and highest percentage (-38.6%; -2.4% average annual loss) of job losses 

occurred in TCPU from 1980 to 2000 (see Table 3.20). TCPU provided 2.7% of all Sublette County 

jobs in 2000 compared to 6.3% in 1980. 

The average weekly wages in the private and govern ment sectors in Sublette County in the first 

quarter of 2003 were $559 and $529, respectively. Oil and gas had the highest average weekly wage 

at $1,846, followed by finance/insurance at $964 and federal governm ent at $719. Oil and gas 

extraction (plus support activities) provided 30.3% of total income generated in Sublette County and 

government provided 27.3% in the first quarter of 2003 (WDERP 2003a). 

3.3.1.4 Sweetwater County 

Industry employment in Sweetwater County lost 1,222 jobs from 1980 to 2000, a decrease of 4.8% 

(0.2% average annual decrease) (see Table 3.20). Local government provided the greatest number 

of new jobs over the 20-year period (1,188). This comprised a 50.5% (2.1% average annual growth) 

increase in the number of local government jobs from 1980 to 2000, providing 14.6% of all jobs in 

2000 compared to 9.2% in 1980. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 77 

Agriculture services, forestry, and fisheries experienced the greatest percentage of growth (291.7%; 

7.1% average annual growth), adding 140 new jobs during the 20-year study period (see Table 3.20). 

This category provided 0.8% of all Sublette County jobs in 2000 compared to 0.2% in 1980. 

The greatest number (-3,601) and highest percentage of job losses (49.2%; 3.3% average annual 

loss) occurred in mining from 1980 to 2000 (see Table 3.20). Mining provided 15.3% of all Sublette 

County jobs in 2000 compared to 28.7% in 1980. 

The average weekly wages in the private and government sectors in Sweetwater County in the first 

quarter of 2003 were $744 and $580, respectively. Oil and gas had the highest average weekly wage 

at $1,728, followed by chemical manufacturing at $1,485 and mining (exclusive of oil and gas) at 

$1,346. The greatest percentage of employee compensation county-wide came in the first quarter 

of 2003 from mining (20.0%), followed by local government (14.7%) (WDERP 2003a). 

3.3.4 Industry Earnings 

Total earnings by industry for counties in the study area and W yoming for 1980, 1990, and 2000 

were obtained from BEA (Table 3.21). Data gaps and disclosure restrictions (e.g., income figures 

at the 2- and 3-digit SIC levels) often occur because data are not available for some regions or for 

certain years due to confidentiality restrictions. Data gaps may occur in both labor and income data. 

Data containing disclosure restrictions was estim ated using the constant share of total m ethod. 

Constant share of total calculations assume the category's share of the total in previous years remains 

the same during the missing years. 

3.3.4.1 Wyoming 

Wyoming experienced a loss in total gross earnings for all industries (private non-farm, farm, and 

government) of 5.0% from 1980 to 2000. In 1980, total mineral extraction was the largest source of 

industry earnings in Wyoming (25.0%), and government (federal civilian, military, state, and local 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 


80 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

government) provided 17.4% of income (see Table 3.21). Mining (metal, coal, nonmetallic) led the 

individual categories (13.4% of all incom e) in 1980, followed by services (12.5%); construction 

(11.9%); oil and gas extraction (11.6%), and TCPU (9.8%). 

Wyoming's mining and minerals sector contributes more to GSP than any other sector of the 

economy (Foulke et al. 2001). Minerals (including oil and gas) accounted for 23.7% of 

Wyoming's GSP, or over $4.5 billion in 2000 (see Table 3.18) and supported approxim ately 

19,387 full-time wage earners, or 5.9% of Wyoming's employment base (see Table 3.20) (BEA 

2003e). 

In 2000, governm ent led industry incom e, providing 23.4% of incom e, followed by services 

(20.0%), retail trade (9.3%), construction (8.5%), and TCPU (8.3%) (see Table 3.21). 

In real terms, for the 20-year study period, Wyoming industry income fell in farm, mining, oil and 

gas, construction, TCPU, wholesale trade, and retail trade. The most industry incom e growth 

occurred in non-farm agricultural services (156.4%; 4.8% average annual growth) and government 

(27.5%; 1.2% average annual growth) (Table 3.21). 

3.3.4.2 Lincoln County 

In 1980, total mineral extraction was the greatest source of industry income (36.4% of all income) 

in Lincoln County (see Table 3.21). Total government constituted 12.4% of total industry income 

in Lincoln County, followed by TCPU (12.8%); construction (11.0%); oil and gas extraction (9.7%); 

and retail trade (7.9%). 

In 2000, total government led industry income (23.4%), followed by TCPU (15.8%); construction 

(13.9%); services (10.6%); and retail trade (8.6%). Total mineral extractions provided 14.2% of 

industry income (see Table 3.21). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 81 

Over the 20-year study period (1980-2000), non-farm agricultural services led industry growth 

(188.1%; 5.4% average annual growth), followed by services (67.3%; 2.6% average annual growth); 

total government (67.2%; 2.6% average annual growth) (note that military increased by 131.9% and 

local government increased by 96.8% over the 20-year study period), FIRE (19.6%), and TCPU 

(18.7%) (see Table 3.21). Losses occurred in total mineral extraction (-65.4%) and farm income 

(-60.0%). 

3.3.4.3 Sublette County 

In 1980, total mineral extraction provided 20.0% (oil and gas provided 20.0%, mining provided 

less than 0.1%) of Sublette County industry earnings, while construction provided 18.6%, 

followed by total government (15.1%), and services (13.6%) (see Table 3.21). 

In 2000, total governm ent provided the m ost industry incom e to Sublette County (24.0%), 

followed by services (20.8%), total mineral extraction (18.1%), construction (13.8%), and retail 

trade (9.3%) (see Table 3.21). 

Industry income in Sublette County grew during the 20-year study period from 1980 to 2000 by 

4.3% (0.2% annually) (see Table 3.21). Mining (metal, coal, nonm etallic) in Sublette County 

demonstrated a boom/bust cycle, going from an average annual growth rate of 50.8% from 1980 to 

1990 to a declining average annual rate of 5.5% from 1990 to 2000; thus, while the industry overall 

grew by 3,340.0% (19.3% annual average growth) over the 20-year study period, it provided only 

2.0% of all Sublette County industry earnings in 2000. Nonfarm agricultural services, forestry, 

fishing, and other was the next leading grow th industry (149.9%; 4.7% average annual growth), 

followed by FIRE (97.7%), m anufacturing (86.1%), and total governm ent (65.4%; 2.5% annual 

average growth) (federal civilian governm ent grew 113.3% and local governm ent grew 69.3% 

during the study period). Farm industry income decreased a total of 66.8%, followed by TCPU (-

59.8%), construction (-22.6%), and oil and gas extraction (-15.9%). Overall, mineral extraction 

provided a total of 18.1% of all Sublette County industry earnings in 2000 compared to 20.0% in 

1980 (average annual a loss of 0.3%) (see Table 3.21). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
82 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

3.3.4.4 Sweetwater County 

In 1980, total m ineral extraction provided 40.7% (m ining provided 29.9%, and oil and gas 

provided 10.8%) of Sweetwater County industry earnings, while construction provided 16.4%, 

followed by TCPU and services (10.1% each) (see Table 3.21). 

In 2000, total m ineral extraction provided 31.3% (oil and gas provided 14.1%, and m ining 

provided 17.2%) of Sweetwater County industry earnings, while total governm ent provided 

14.9%, followed by manufacturing (12.1%), and services (12.0%) (see Table 3.21). 

Total earnings in Sweetwater County fell 18.2% (1.0% annual average loss) over the 20-year 

study period. Government industry income grew 38.9% (1.7% annual average growth) (military 

grew 73.8%, local government grew 50.7%, and state government grew 14.9%, while federal 

civilian fell 3.3%) (see Table 3.21). Manufacturing grew 389.5% (8.3% annually), followed by 

non-farm agricultural services (133.5%) and FIRE (70.0%). Farm fell 76.2%, followed by 

construction (-68.0%); wholesale trade (-38.2%), total mineral extraction (-37.1%; mining fell 

52.9%, oil and gas grew 6.5%). 

3.4 TAXES AND REVENUES 

3.4.1 Wyoming Overview 

According to the Tax Reform 2000 Committee (1999), the reporting and collecting of mineral 

taxes in the state is confusing and time-consuming. Mineral producers must report the same 

production three times for severance, mineral property, and the oil and gas conservation taxes. 

These procedures are costly for both the taxpayers and the administrators. Owners of mineral 

interest pay property taxes on minerals as much as 2 years after production. County treasurers 

sometimes have difficulty collecting mineral property taxes and often must initiate collection 

procedures against m ineral interest owners who may be scattered throughout the nation or, 

worse, whose company may no longer be in business. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 83 

For this reason, only those revenues that are clearly and concisely reported by the state (i.e., 

severance taxes, ad valorem production and prope rty taxes, federal royalties, and PILT) are 

discussed in detail in this technical support document. Historical information on the same types 

of revenues expected to occur as a result of the proposed projects are provided in year 2000 

dollars, a djusted f or i nflation ( see Section 3.2). W here a vailable, r evenue i nformation w as 

reported at the county and city level; however, information of this type is limited. 

In Wyoming, minerals are taxed after they are produced and a value has been established 

(Wyoming Energy Commission 2001). Minerals remaining in the ground are not taxed and 

generate no revenue (however, undeveloped mineral leases do collect lease rentals and up-front 

bonus payments). Given a consistent price, the larger the volume of the produced mineral, the 

larger the amounts that will be subject to taxation and the greater the revenue for the state. At 

the extreme, if all production ceased, Wyoming would receive no tax or royalty revenues. 

Produced minerals are classified as personal property. The two principal production taxes paid 

by mineral producers are (1) the county property (ad valorem) tax and (2) the state severance 

tax. As a result, produced m inerals are the only class of property in the state on which two 

direct taxes are levied. 

In addition to the production taxes paid on the assessed value of the produced m ineral, 

producers also pay county property (ad valorem) taxes on plants, refineries, mining and well 

head equipment, pipelines, and other facilities used in the mineral production and transportation 

operations. Mill levies applied against mineral facilities and structures are the same as those 

applied against all other property in the taxing jurisdiction. Property associated with mineral 

production is classified as industrial property and thus has a higher assessm ent ratio than 

commercial, agricultural, or residential property. 

Mineral producers also pay royalties, bonuses, rentals, and fees to the owner of the mineral for the 

right to obtain a lease and produce the m ineral. Minerals are owned by the federal governm ent, 

whereby the federal government receives a share of the revenues from the mineral production, or 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
84 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

annual rentals are paid on m ineral leases that are not producing. The same is true for m inerals 

owned by the state government. In the case of federal royalty payments, the state receives a share 

of those payments through a federal revenue-sharing provision. Mineral disbursements to states are 

based on percentage share of royalties, rents, bonuses, and other mineral revenue collections. 

To obtain a mineral lease from the state or federal government, the lessee must pay a bonus. This 

"bonus" is the amount that the successful winner of the lease (i.e., highest bidder) pays to acquire 

the lease. The state retains the entire bonus bid to acquire state leases. One-half of the federal lease 

bonus proceeds for federal land leases are returned to the state. 

The Permanent Wyoming Mineral Trust Fund (PWMTF) is a fund that holds 25% of severance taxes 

currently received by the state and acts like a savings account for the state. The fund balance was 

$1.9 billion in June 2002 (Lummis et al. 2002). As reported by Lummis et al., during the previous 

fiscal year, over $74 m illion in severance taxes were added to the fund. Natural gas alone 

contributed 46.8% of severance taxes or m ore than $34.7 m illion to the PW MTF. Gas, oil, and 

associated products contributed m ore than $45.5 m illion (61.4%) of all severance added to the 

PWMTF. The principal of the PWMTF is inviolate but may be loaned to political subdivisions. The 

interest on the PW MTF goes to the state' s general fund for the legislature to allocate to current 

programs. 

The minerals industry accounts for a substantial share of revenues to the state and to local 

governments in Wyoming. Revenues that contributed to the general fund, including those from 

the minerals industry, from 1980 to 2000 are listed in Table 3.22. Ad valorem production 

revenues are the single largest source of state revenue and provided 96.5% of revenue in 1980, 

94.6% in 1990, and 94.5% in 2000. The second and third largest sources of revenue in 1980 

were sales and use tax (1.8%) and severance tax (0.6%). In 1990, sales and use tax (1.5%) was 

the secondm ost im portant source of revenue, followed by PW MTF incom e (1.3%). Total 

general fund revenues fell nearly 16.6% from 1980 to 2000, with the greatest losses occurring 

in sales and service charges (-40.3%), followed by ad valorem production (-18.3%) 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 

86 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

 and pooled income (-13.9%). Increases over the 20-year study period were seen in PWMTF 

income (368.8%), penalties (289.7%), and all other sources (201.8%). However, market effects 

were markedly pronounced in 2000, as the significance of price increases in the natural gas industry 

became apparent as total revenues climbed 40.3% from 1998 to 2000. This growth was led by all 

other (269.8%), revenue from others (134.8%), and ad valorem production revenues (42.0%). BP 

America, one of the project proponents, was the number one taxpayer by taxable value rank for 2002 

mineral production, contributing m ore than 10% of taxable m ineral value in 2002 (W yoming 

Department of Revenue 2003) (Table 3.22). 

Declines from 1998 to 2000 occurred in charges-sales and services (-2.1%), franchise taxes (-3.2%), 

and federal aid and grants (-26.6%). 

3.4.1.1 Severance Taxes 

A severance tax is an excise tax im posed on the present and continuing privilege of rem oving, 

extracting, severing, or producing any m ineral in W yoming. Severance taxes are distributed 

according to Wyoming Statute (W.S.) 39-14-801 as presented in Table 3.23. Severance distributions 

to all Wyoming counties and cities and to those counties and cities in the study area are summarized 

in Table 3.24. 

In 1980, Wyoming received $79.3 million in severance taxes compared to $83.6 million in 2000, 

an increase of 5.5% (see Table 3.22). While overall growth occurred over the 20-year study period, 

there was a large increase (22.7%) from 1980 to 1990, then a drop of more than 14.1% from 1990 

to 2000. Natural gas prices r ose i n 2000 due to tighter supplies, lower storage stocks, and 

market perceptions (Energy Information Administration [EIA] 2001a). Increased exploration 

and lease auctions drove up the bonus paym ent component in the last several years. With 

renewed market pressure in late 1999, the value of production increased, as did corresponding 

tax revenues. Those effects were markedly pronounced in 2000 as the significance of the price 

increase became clear. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc.
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 87 

Table 3.23 Statutory Distribution of Severance Taxes (W.S. 39-14-801). 

Portion of 

Recipient Distribution Basis/Authority 

Subsection (b) mandatory W.S. 39-14-801(b) 

distributions 

Corrective action account1 As needed To bring account balance to $10 million/W.S. 39-14-801(c) 

Environmental pollution financial 

responsibility account1 

As needed To bring account balance to $1 million/W.S. 39-14-801(c) 

Subsection (d) distributions2 Remaining severance taxes, not to exceed $155 million 

General fund 62.26% W.S. 39-14-801(d)(i) 

Water Development Account I 12.45% Purposes specified in W.S. 41-2-124(a)(i)/W.S. 39-14-801(d)(ii) 

Water Development Account II 2.1% Purposes specified in W.S. 41-2-124(a)(ii)/ W.S. 39-14-801(d)(iii) 

Highway fund 4.33% or as needed To maintain a minimum balance of $500,000 in the state park road 

account/W.S. 24-14-102 

Counties 0.78% County purposes/W.S. 39-14-801(d)(v) 

Population based portion 50% of 0.78% Proportion that the population of the county bears to the population of 

(1/2 of 0.78%) the state as determined by the most recent decennial census/ 

W.S. 39-14-801(d)(v)(A) 

Assessed valuation portion (1/2 of 50% of 0.78% Inverse of the assessed valuation of each county as computed under 

0.78%) subparagraph W.S. 39-14-801(d)(vii)(C)/ W.S. 39-14-801(d)(v)(B) 

Counties 3.1% County purposes; proportion which the population of the county bears 

to total state population, population to be determined by resort to the 

latest federal census as periodically updated by the Census Bureau/W.S. 

39-14-801(d)(vi) 

Road construction funds of various 2.9% Purposes specified in W.S. 24-2-110/W.S. 39-14-801(d)(vii) 

counties 

Population based 

(1/3 of 2.9%) 

§33.3% of 2.9% Ratio that the population of the county bears to total state population 

based on the most recent decennial federal census/ 

W.S. 39-14-801(d)(vii)(A) 

Road mileage based 

(1/3 of 2.9%) 

§33.3% of 2.9% Ratio that the mileage of county roads in the county bears to total 

county roads in Wyoming/ W.S. 39-14-801(d)(vii)(B) 

Assessment based 

(1/3 of 2.9%) 

§33.3% of 2.9% Divide the inverse of each county percentage of total state-assessed 

valuation by the total sum of the inverses of all county percentages of 

state-assessed valuation/ W.S. 39-14-801(d)(vii)(C) 

Cities and Towns 9.25% Proportion which the population of the city or town bears to the 

population of all cities and towns in Wyoming, population to be 

determined by resort to the latest federal census as periodically updated 

by the Census Bureau/ W.S. 39-14-801(d)(viii) 

Capital Construction Account 2.83% Purposes specified in W.S. 9-4-604(k)(ii)/ W.S. 39-14-801(d)(ix) 

Total Severance Distributions 100% Not to exceed $155 million 

1 W.S. 39-14-801(c) requires that distributions under subsection (b) of this section be made prior to any distributions under 

subsection (d) of this section. The amount of distributions under subsection (d) of this section shall not exceed $155 million in 

any fiscal year. 2 To the extent that distributions under subsection (d) of this section would exceed $155 million in any fiscal year, the excess shall 

be credited as follows: (i) one-third (1/3) to the general fund and (ii) two-thirds (2/3) to the budget reserve account. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
88 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 3.24 Summary of Mineral Severance Taxes Received by W yoming and Directly 

Distributed to All Wyoming Counties and Cities and Project-Affected Counties and 

Cities in the Study Area. 

Distributions (Thousands of $)1 

Tax and Distribution Entity 1980 1990 2000 2001 2002 

Total Received by Wyoming2 219,889 331,196 275,123 434,534 287,457 

Amount Distributed to All 

Counties2 

-- 8,628 8,559 15,171 6,081 

Lincoln County3 -- -- 159 405 231 

Sublette County3 -- -- 61 159 94 

Sweetwater County3 -- -- 489 1,175 595 

Amount Distributed to All 

Cities2 

-- 25,885 21,506 32,136 14,498 

LaBarge4 -- -- 27 53 22 

Big Piney4 -- -- 25 49 21 

Marbleton4 -- -- 35 74 37 

Pinedale4 -- -- 65 140 72 

Rock Springs4 -- -- 1,056 2,121 959 

1 In thousands of year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation; -- = data not available. 

2 CREG (2003). Total direct disbursements to cities and counties, not including capital construction or 

other funds. 

3 Lummis et al. (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003). Distributions to counties. Total distributions reported by 

Lummis et al. do not add to the total reported as revenue received in CREG (2003). 

4 Lummis et al. (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003). Distributions to towns and cities. Total distributions reported 

by Lummis et al. do not add to the total reported as revenue received in CREG (2003). 

Counties directly received $8.6 m illion in 2000 severance taxes (Table 3.24). Cities and towns 

received $21.5 million in 2000 severance taxes, a decrease of 16.9% from 1990. Distributions of 

severance taxes to all accounts in 2000 to taled more than $275 m illion, down 16.9% from 1990 

(Table 3.25). Foulke et al. (2001) believe that gas production will drive future revenues higher for 

the foreseeable future. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 


Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 91 

In 1980, 36.1% of mineral severance taxes went to the general fund; 38.7% to PWMTF; 8.7% to the 

highway fund; 5.8% to water; 2.4% to the school foundation; 0.8% to community colleges; and 7.6% 

to other; and no funds were distributed to the budget reserves; cities and towns; counties; cities, 

towns, counties, and special districts; capital construction; or state aid. In 1990, 29.4% of mineral 

severance taxes went to the general fund, 22.4% to PWMTF, 12.5% to the budget reserve account, 

13.1% to the highway fund; 7.9% to water; 7.8% to cities and towns, 2.6% to counties, 2.2% to the 

school foundation; 0.7% to community colleges, 1.3% to other; and none to capital construction for 

cities, counties, or special districts. In 2000, 30% went to the general fund, 25% to the PWMTF, 

14% to the budget reserve account, 8% to cities and towns, 9% to water, 4% to other, 3% each to 

the highway fund and counties, 2% each to capital construction for cities, counties, and special 

districts, and state aid to county roads, and 1% to the school foundation. 

Crude oil contributed 40.5% of all distributed severance taxes in 1980, while natural gas 

contributed only 10.1% of distributed severance taxes (Table 3.26). By 2000, natural gas 

contributed 43.8% (a 445.4% increase from 1980; 8.9% average annual growth) of all severance 

taxes distributed, while crude oil dropped 35.6%, to contribute only 20.8% of severance tax 

distributions. CREG (2003) anticipates that natural gas will continue to provide a substantial portion 

of annual revenues, with estimates ranging from 40% of severance distributions in 2003 to nearly 

50% in 2008, while all other minerals are expected to decline in importance. 

3.4.1.2 Royalties 

A mineral royalty is the amount of money the owner of the mineral resource receives as a payment 

or royalty from the mineral producer. Wyoming receives a base royalty of 16.7% of the value of 

production from state-owned minerals. The federal government receives a royalty of 12.5% of the 

value of production for federal minerals. Fifty percent of federal mineral royalties are returned to 

the state. Unlike severance taxes, royalties are based on the value of the products of production, not 

just what leaves the ground. For example, natural gas royalties are based on the value of the 

methane, helium, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and liquids--not just the volume of raw gas. 

In 1999, the W yoming Legislature was grappling with a projected $200 m illion shortfall in its 

budget. Two years later, the surplus was projected at over $600 million. The difference came from 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
92 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 3.26 Proportion of Mineral Severance Taxes to All Wyoming Accounts by Mineral.1 

Mineral Revenues (Thousands of $)1 

Fiscal Year Crude Oil2 Natural Gas2 Coal3,4 Trona4 Others Total5 

1980 89,014 22,101 89,726 9,171 9,877 219,889 

1981 92,527 34,564 113,906 11,345 8,807 261,149 

1982 361,693 99,054 188,760 14,065 9,133 672,705 

1983 321,389 123,791 195,368 11,216 5,250 657,013 

1984 285,801 128,100 200,567 10,418 5,015 629,901 

1985 290,892 141,495 201,140 7,904 3,712 645,143 

1986 267,133 123,103 206,981 8,767 1,736 607,719 

1987 131,738 77,447 175,044 7,774 1,107 393,110 

1988 140,962 61,246 122,382 8,734 936 334,260 

1989 108,375 77,485 123,767 7,624 2,868 320,118 

1990 133,694 66,171 117,402 12,591 1,338 331,196 

1991 134,992 66,697 118,112 11,361 1,246 332,407 

1992 103,334 55,455 127,420 13,980 883 301,071 

1993 92,155 70,456 119,586 12,619 1,393 302,649 

1994 77,003 81,659 87,370 8,421 738 261,274 

1995 64,218 49,007 84,515 9,563 891 208,195 

1996 69,210 52,886 89,460 11,003 861 223,421 

1997 69,249 81,551 86,558 11,323 1,067 249,748 

1998 45,491 84,882 98,234 10,763 1,009 240,378 

1999 30,658 76,413 88,202 6,768 1,022 203,063 

2000 57,323 120,540 85,164 10,960 1,157 275,123 

2001 72,425 258,648 94,554 8,083 825 434,534 

2002 52,415 122,951 105,323 5,772 997 287,457 

Total Growth 

(1980-2000) (%) 

-35.60 445.41 -5.08 19.50 -88.29 25.13 

Average Annual 

Growth 

(1980-2000) (%) 

-2.18 8.85 -0.26 0.89 -10.17 1.13 

1 Source: CREG (2003). Year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 2 Condensate from natural gas production is included in crude oil. 3 The drop in revenues that occurred in FY99 was due, in part, to the reduced taxation rates put in place by Chapter 168 of the 

1999 Session Laws, "Oil Producers Recovery - 2." 4 FY98 coal revenues include $8.0 million in protest severance taxes that were from prior years' productions. 5 The drop in revenues that occurred in FY94 was due to the expiration of the Capital Facilities Tax on coal and trona. 6 The total for FY93 includes $5.4 million in penalty and interest from pre-1990 production. The FY94 total contains an additional 

$5.2 million in penalty and interest from oil and gas audit settlements on pre-1990 production. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 93 

the fact that gas and oil prices skyrocketed in 2000, bringing with them significant increases in all 

forms of m ineral revenue along with increasing natural gas revenues, which include coalbed 

methane production. Natural gas prices rose in 2000 due to tighter supplies, lower storage stocks, 

and market perceptions (EIA 2001a). In the late 1990s, these sources of income were declining as 

prices for gas and oil were depressed. W ith renewed m arket pressure in late 1999, the value of 

production increased, as did corresponding taxes. Federal royalties are distributed by the State of 

Wyoming according to W.S. 9-4-601 as presented in Table 3.27. Federal royalty distributions to all 

counties and cities, and those cities in the project-affected area are shown in Table 3.28. 

State mineral royalties received for production of state minerals are presented in Table 3.29. 

Table 3.30 shows historic and projected federal mineral royalties and distributions. Federal royalties 

increased from $222 million in 1990 (year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation) to $309 million in 

2000. Distributions of federal mineral royalties in 1980 went to the school foundation (38%), the 

highway fund (26%), cities, towns, counties, and special districts capital construction and other 

(10% each), cities and towns (8%), the University of W yoming (7%), and the highway fund for 

county roads (2%); no funds were distributed to the remaining accounts (Table 3.30). In 1990, 45% 

went to the school foundation, 26% to the highway fund, 9% to cities and towns, 5% to cities, towns, 

counties, and special districts capital construction, 7% to the University of Wyoming, 2% each to 

the highway fund for counties and state aid for county roads, 3% to school capital construction, and 

1% to the counties; no funds were distributed to the remaining accounts. In 2000, 33% to the school 

foundation, 18% to the highway fund, 15% to Legislative Royalty Impact Assistance Account (LRI), 

9% to school capital construction, 6% each to the University of Wyoming and to cities and towns, 

4% to cities, towns, counties, and special districts capital construction, 2% each to highway fund for 

county roads, the transportation enterprise, and other, and 1% to community college. 

3.4.1.3 Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) 

The federal governm ent owns and m anages 49% of W yoming lands. Federal lands are not 

subject to property taxes that support county governm ents and education; yet, local 

communities 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 94 

Table 3.27 Statutory Distribution of Federal Mineral Royalties (W.S. 9-4-601). 

Recipient Portion of Distribution Basis/Authority/Use 

Subsection (a) distributions All royalties less Distributed to trust and agency accounts; first $200 million to 

subsection (b) be distributed according to Subsection (a) 

distributions 

Highway fund 2.25% W.S. 9-4-601(a)(i) Permanent construction or maintenance 

work in counties to which the royalties are attributable with 

priority given to roads and highways impacted by mineral 

development 

26.25% W.S. 9-4-601 (a)(iii) Except as provided by W.S. 9-4-

605(a); subject to purposes specified in W.S. 9-4-606 and 9-

4-607 

1.25% W.S. 9-4-601(a)(vi) 

2.25% W.S. 9-4-601(a)(ix) 

0.625% W.S. 9-4-601(a)(x) 

Public school foundation 44.8% Subject to W.S. 9-4-605 

program account 

University of Wyoming trust 6.75% W.S. 9-4-601(a)(iv) When authorized by legislature for 

and agency fund actual and necessary expenses of constructing, equipping, 

and furnishing new buildings; repair of existing buildings; 

purchasing of improved or unimproved real estate; payment 

of principal and interest on securities used to finance these 

projects or refund previously issued securities 

Incorporated cities and towns 9.375% W.S. 9-4-601(a)(v) Planning, construction, or maintenance 

of public facilities or providing public services 

Population 325 or less $12,000 W.S. 9-4-601(a)(v)(A) 

Population greater than $15,000 W.S. 9-4-601(a)(v)(A) 

325 

Remainder based on Balance of 9.375% W.S. 9-4-601(a)(v)(B) Amount proportionate to percentage 

population obtained by dividing average daily membership (W.S. 21-13-

101) of all school districts within each county by the total 

average daily population of all school districts in the state. 

Distribution made in proportion that the population of the 

city or town bears to the total population of all cities and 

towns in the county. 

Capital construction account 3.75% W.S. 9-4-601(a)(vi) Purposes specified in W.S. 9-4-605(k)(i) 

or to fund bonds under W.S. 9-4-604(g); priority given to 

state subdivisions socially or economically impacted directly 

or indirectly by federal mineral development; 

Amounts not to exceed: 

1. $40 million to be loaned or granted to incorporated towns 

and cities (voter-approved projects necessary for health, 

safety, and welfare of inhabitants); 

2. $20 million loaned or granted to counties or special 

districts (hospital, fire protection, sanitary and 

improvement, solid waste disposal, service and 

improvement, water and sewer) 

Excess to earmarked revenue fund 

Public school capital 2.7% W.S. 9-4-601(a)(vii) Purposes specified in W.S. 21-15-

construction account 111(a)(i) 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 95 

Table 3.27 (Continued) 

Recipient Portion of Distribution Basis/Authority/Use 

Subsection (b) distributions2 W.S. 9-4-601(b) All bonus payments from the federal 

government attributable to coal, oil shale, or geothermal 

leases of federal land within Wyoming 

Construction and highway 50% W.S. 9-4-601(b)(i) Not to exceed $200 million; less W.S. 9-

4-601(b)(v) distributions 

Business ready community 

account 

Stipulated amount W.S. 9-4-601(b)(v) If the school capital construction account 

is projected by CREG to have a positive balance at the end of 

the fiscal year, then 

1. Fiscal year 2004, $7.5 million 

2. Fiscal year 2005, $10.0 million 

3. Excess to be deposited to school capital construction 

account 

Capital construction accounts 75% of first 50% W.S. 9-4-601(b)(i)(A) Less amounts distributed under (b)(v); 

purposes specified in W.S. 9-4-604(k)(i) to fund bonds under 

W.S. 9-4-604(g) 

Highway fund 25% of first 50% W.S. 9-4-601(b)(i)(B) Less amounts distributed under (b)(v); 

Community college commission 

revenue fund account 

10% of second 50% W.S. 9-4-601(b)(iv)(A) for fiscal years 2004 and 2005; not to 

exceed $1.6 million in accordance with and in addition to 

W.S. 21-18-205(c) appropriations; excess to school capital 

construction account; and any remainder after end of biennial 

budget period to school capital construction account 

Business ready community account 40% of second 50% W.S. 9-4-601(b)(iv)(B) for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 in 

accordance with W.S. 9-4-601(b)(v); thereafter to school 

capital construction account 

School foundation program 1/3 of any amount 

exceeding $200 

million 

W.S. 9-4-601(d)(iii) 

Budget reserve account 2/3 of any amount 

exceeding $200 

million 

W.S. 9-4-601(d)(iv) 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 96 

Table 3.28 Summary of Federal Mineral Royalties Received by W yoming and Directly 

Distributed to All Counties and Cities and Project-Affected Counties and Cities.1,2 

Distributions (Thousands of $)3 

Tax and Distribution 

Entity 1980 1990 2000 2001 2002 

Total Received by 

Wyoming4 

198,742 222,188 309,093 434,676 334,703 

Amount Distributed to 

Counties4 

n/d 1,389 n/d n/d n/d 

Amount Distributed to 

Cities4 

-- 20,830 19,588 21,678 20,007 

LaBarge5 -- -- 61 60 55 

Big Piney5 -- -- 66 64 55 

Marbleton5 -- -- 86 88 86 

Pinedale5 -- -- 147 152 154 

Rock Springs5 -- -- 1,010 1,002 994 

1 Includes coal lease bonuses. 2 FY98 coal revenues include $8.0 million in protest severance taxes that were from prior production years. 3 In thousands of year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation; -- = data not available; n/d = no distribution. 4 Consensus Revenue Estimating Group (CREG) (2003). Total direct disbursements to cities and counties, not including capital construction or 

other funds. 5 Lummis et al. (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003). Distributions to towns and cities. Total distributions reported by Lummis et al. do not add to the total 

reported as revenue received in CREG (2003). 

Table 3.29 Summary of State of Wyoming Mineral Royalties. 

Fiscal Year Thousands of $1 

1980 --

1990 --

2000 27,721 

2001 34,099 

2002 56,021 

Historical data for state-owned mineral royalties are not readily available and are generally not included in 

socioeconomic analyses prepared by Wyoming state agencies. WDAI (2002a). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 

1 


Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 99 

play an im portant role in supporting the m anagement of federal lands. In 1976, Congress 

authorized federal land m anagement agencies to share incom e with states and counties and 

provided a PILT program to help offset lost tax revenue (31 United States Code [U.S.C.] 6901-

6907 [Public Law 103-397, October 22, 1994; Public Law 104-333, November 12, 1996; and 

Public Law 105-83, November 14, 1997]; 43 Code of Federal Regulations [C.F.R.] Part 1880 

[65 Federal Register 51229-51234, August 23, 2000, effective Septem ber 22, 2000]). PILT 

payments are federal payments to local governments that help offset losses in property taxes 

due to nontaxable federal lands within their boundaries. PILT payments are administered by 

the BLM (Coupal et al. 2003). 

PILT payments are based on three factors: 

• eligible federal acres in the county, 

• federal revenue-sharing going to the county the prior year, and 

• county population up to the pre-determined ceiling. 

These factors are used in two calculations , a standard and a m inimum. The different 

calculations are compared to one another in an approach similar to that of federal income taxes. 

Instructions direct the use of the sm aller or larger of two num bers. The Minim um Method 

Calculation is used in cases where significant revenue sharing in the previous year would mean 

no PILT in the current year for the county. The m ain difference between the Standard and 

Minimum Method Calculations is that the Minimum Method uses a different per acre rate and 

does not take into account the prior year's revenue sharing payments (see Coupal et al. [2003] 

for detailed calculations for each county). 

Since 1998, PILT paym ents received by W yoming have increased by 63.9% (Table 3.31). The 

three-county study area has experienced a similar increase. Lincoln County PILT payments have 

increased 74.2%, Sublette County paym ents increased 58.9%, and Sweetwater County PILT 

payments increased 58.0% over the past six years. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
100 

1 

Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 3.31 Total PILT Payments and Total Acres.1 

PILT Payments/Acres 

Location 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 

Wyoming 

Payment ($) 8,118,173 8,208,280 8,318,110 11,828,099 12,392,400 13,304,416 

Acres 29,917,112 29,893,541 29,885,632 29,884,922 29,889,764 29,877,970 

Lincoln County 

Payment ($) 384,723 406,667 418,646 598,093 617,577 670,171 

Acres 1,946,836 1,946,805 1,946,765 1,946,631 1,947,558 1,947,558 

Sublette County 

Payment ($) 258,703 247,508 256,483 360,764 376,237 411,150 

Acres 2,432,160 2,432,000 2,431,960 2,431,960 2,431,305 2,431,305 

Sweetwater County 

Payment ($) 910,456 929,377 949,649 1,281,416 1,333,882 1,438,845 

Acres 4,609,862 4,606,891 4,606,891 4,606,888 4,606,888 4,606,799 

Coupal et al. (2003) and BLM (2003c), in year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 

3.4.1.4 Property Taxes (Ad Valorem Taxes) 

An ad valorem tax is a tax levied on a commodity as a percentage of its value. Ad valorem taxes on 

gas and oil in Wyoming go directly to the county in which the commodity is produced. Wyoming 

ad valorem taxes can be divided into two groups--production and property. Production taxes are 

levied on the assessed valuation of the amount of the commodity produced. Production ad valorem 

taxes are based on a percent of assessed value of production, the mineral, and the source (type of 

well or mine). Property taxes are levied on wells and producing equipment. The property tax rates 

are levied in mills (thousandths of a percent) set by each county. The overall state average for 2000 

was 75.357 mills based on assessed valuation of the property (Foulke et al. 2001). 

An ad valorem tax is based on the value of the property; to tax the property, a taxable value m ust 

be determined. Taxable value is calculated by determining the fair market value of the property or 

production, then the fair market value is multiplied by a taxation rate to calculate the taxable value. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 101 

The taxation rate depends on how the property is classified. Properties are classified in one of three 

areas: 

• gross production of minerals and mine products (taxed on 100% of value); 

• property used for industrial purposes (taxed on 11.5% of value); and 

• all other property, real (i.e., land and property permanently attached to the land) and 

personal (i.e., m ovable property [e.g., m obile hom es, construction equipm ent, 

mineral production] (taxed on 9.5% of value). 

Once the taxable valuation has been calculated, it is multiplied by the mill levy (1/10 of $0.01 or 

$1 per $1,000 of taxable value) to determine the amount of taxes due. The number of mills in a tax 

district depends on how m any mills each taxing entity requests. Wyoming state law limits most 

entities on how m any mills they can levy. For exam ple, the county can request a m aximum of 

8 mills, cities and towns get 8 m ills to run their governm ents, and school districts are lim ited to 

12 mills. 

Mill levies vary depending on what tax district the property is in. For exam ple, rural tax districts 

have levies for rural fire protection, and districts in the city limits have levies for running the city 

government. Unified school districts (elem entary, junior high, and high school) and nonunified 

school districts (kindergarten through eighth grade) are mandated to collect a 25 mill levy for school 

purposes (W.S. 21-13-102(i) and (ii)) (some of which may be subject to recapture by the state based 

on average daily membership calculations) and counties are mandated to collected a 6 mill levy for 

school purposes (W.S. 21-13-201(a)). 

The taxable valuation of all m ineral production in Wyoming fell 18% from $12.9 billion in 

1980 to $10.5 billion in 2000 (-1.1% average annual decline) (year 2000 dollars adjusted for 

inflation) (Wyoming Department of Revenue 2002). Foulke et al. (2001) believe that gas 

production, particularly, will drive future revenues higher for the foreseeable future. Assessed 

production values are presented in Table 3.32. 

Wyoming Department of Revenue reports on property tax values indicate that in 2002 natural gas 

production contributed the greatest proportion of taxable value to the state (34.8%), followed by 

residential land and improvements (18.5%), mining production (15.9%), and oil production (9.7%) 

(Table 3.33). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
102 

1 

Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 3.32 Total State-Assessed Mineral Production Valuations.1 

Taxable Valuation (Thousands of $) 

Mineral Type 1980 1990 2000 2001 2002 

Oil 4,847,711 2,561,672 1,438,976 1,047,618 1,068,000 

Natural Gas 1,402,442 1,057,631 3,365,841 3,765,627 1,894,848 

Coal 1,616,744 1,487,154 1,336,116 1,461,147 1,500,000 

Trona 290,327 236,359 206,219 202,916 203,520 

All Other Minerals 256,679 52,660 59,909 59,256 57,600 

Total Mineral Taxable 8,413,904 5,395,476 6,407,060 6,536,564 4,723,968 

Valuation 

Other Property 4,493,344 3,019,549 4,135,036 4,297,663 4,466,016 

Total 12,907,248 8,415,025 10,542,096 10,834,228 9,189,984 

CREG (2003), thousands of year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 

Table 3.33 Proportionate Taxable Valuation of Various Classes of Property in W yoming, 

1998-2002. 

Proportion of Taxable Value1 

(Ranked Highest to Lowest According to 2002 Proportions) 

Property 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Natural gas production 19.2% 18.6% 20.6% 31.9% 34.8% 

Residential lands and improvements 19.9% 22.6% 22.0% 18.5% 18.5% 

Mining (coal, minerals, and non-minerals) 20.0% 41.6% 19.5% 15.2% 15.9% 

Oil production 14.7% 8.8% 11.5% 13.7% 9.7% 

Industrial and manufacturing property 8.9% 9.8% 8.7% 7.1% 7.4% 

Commercial lands and improvements 1.5% 5.6% 5.2% 4.2% 4.4% 

Railroads 1.7% 2.0% 2.2% 1.7% 1.8% 

Electric/gas-privately owned 2.5% 2.6% 2.3% 1.6% 1.6% 

Commercial personal property 1.5% 1.7% 1.6% 1.3% 1.3% 

Agricultural lands 1.9% 2.0% 1.8% 1.3% 1.3% 

Natural gas pipelines 0.9% 1.1% 1.1% 0.8% 1.0% 

Electric-cooperatives 1.5% 1.1% 1.0% 0.7% 0.6% 

Major telecommunications 0.7% 0.7% 0.807% 0.7% 0.6% 

Residential personal property 0.6% 0.6% 0.572% 0.4% 0.4% 

Liquid pipelines 0.6% 0.7% 0.672% 0.4% 0.4% 

Rural telecommunications 0.2% 0.3% 0.232% 0.2% 0.2% 

Cellular/reseller telecommunications2 <0.1% 0.1% 0.162% 0.1% 0.2% 

Airlines <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% 

Electric-municipal <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% <0.1% 

1 Columns may not total to 100% due to rounding. Wyoming Department of Revenue (1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002). 2 Designated as radio-telephones in 1998. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 103 

3.4.1.5 Sales and Use Tax 

Wyoming has had sales and use taxes since 1935. Sales taxes apply to the retail sale of personal 

property or services within the state. A use tax is levied on any sale of any property outside the state 

of Wyoming for use, storage, or consumption inside the state of Wyoming. 

Wyoming counties, cities, and towns benefit from sales and use tax collections. Each month, the 

treasurer's office in each county sends the sales tax collections to the W yoming Department of 

Revenue, who distributes the money. Currently, two-thirds of the 4% sales tax collections go to the 

state general fund, and one-third (m inus 1% for state adm inistrative purposes) is returned to the 

cities, towns, and counties. The money returned to the cities and counties is based on where the 

purchase occurred and the population of the city or county (which is based on the last federal 

census). Counties that have 1% optional sales taxes or a 1% capital facilities tax keep 100% of the 

additional 1% collected, less state-imposed administrative costs. The state's share of the sales tax 

revenue is distributed to the General Fund. The portion returned to the counties and municipalities 

is distributed based on population. Beginning in 1973, Wyoming counties were granted the option 

to impose an additional 1% sales tax through public election. During fiscal year 2002, all counties 

except Fremont, Goshen, Park, Sublette, and Washakie were imposing this optional sales tax. The 

optional sales tax revenue, less state-im posed administrative costs, is returned to the county of 

origin. 

In addition to the aforem entioned county optional tax, any county, through public election, m ay 

impose an additional excise tax of up to 1% on retail sales m ade within the county. The revenue 

generated from this tax is designated solely for the planning, construction, furnishing, equipping, 

and debt servicing for any capital improvement project as authorized through public election. This 

tax is referred to as the 1% capital facilities option tax. During fiscal year 2002, Albany, Goshen, 

Laramie, Niobrara, Sheridan, Teton, and Uinta Counties were imposing the 1% capital facilities 

option tax, while Campbell and Sweetwater counties chose to impose 0.25% and 0.5%, respectively.

 Effective tax rates for the study area as of 2002 are listed in Table 3.34. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
104 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

To derive an estimate of county gross sales, the specific county tax collection can be divided by the 

corresponding tax rate. County sales tax rates can fluctuate from year to year because county option 

taxes originate and expire at varying times; therefore, only the total state imposed sales tax (4%) is 

used for this analysis. 

3.4.1.6 Use Tax 

State use tax is imposed on purchases made outside a taxing jurisdiction for first use, storage, or 

other consumption within that jurisdiction. Thus, the use tax prevents sales tax avoidance or the 

payment of a lesser tax rate by making purchases outside of the taxing jurisdiction where first use, 

storage, or other consumption will occur. Wyoming taxing jurisdictions are the State of Wyoming 

and/or each Wyoming county. Use tax is a complement of sales tax. Effective January 1, 1981, the 

adoption of an optional sales tax required a change in the use tax rate of equal amount. State use tax 

is shared between state governm ent and the county of origin (i.e., county where the tax was 

imposed) on the same distribution basis as sales tax. Therefore, the revised rate and allocation, as 

mentioned earlier in the sales tax description, applies here as well. 

Table 3.34 Sales, Use, and Lodging Tax Rates by County (Effective April 1, 2003).1 

Tax Rate Lincoln Sublette Sweetwater 

State Sales Tax Rate 4.0% 4.0% 4.0% 

General Purpose Option Tax 1.0% -- 1.0% 

Subtotal Sales and Use Tax Option 5.0% 4.0% 5.5% 

Lodging Tax 2.0%2 3.0% 2.0% 

Specific Purpose Option Tax -- -- 0.5% 

Total Tax Rate 7.0% 7.0% 7.5% 

1 Wyoming Department of Revenue (2003). 

2 Lodging tax is imposed only in Afton (i.e., not on a county-wide base). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 105 

3.4.1.7 Lodging Tax 

Cities, towns, and counties, by voter approval, may impose a lodging excise tax of up to 4% on all 

sleeping accom modations for guests staying less than 30 days. This tax extends to m obile 

accommodations such as tents, trailers, and cam pers, as well. All collections (less a 2% state 

administrative cost during the first year the tax is imposed and 1% thereafter) are distributed to the 

cities, towns, and counties of origin. At least 90% of the tax distributions must be used to promote 

travel and tourism within the county, city, or town imposing the tax. The amount remaining, not to 

exceed 10% of the total am ount distributed, m ay be used for general revenue within the 

governmental entity imposing the tax. 

3.4.2 Study Area Overview 

3.4.2.1 Availability of Information 

Reporting of tax and revenue information has evolved with the development of the internet and 

the ease of publishing large volum es of information. Most state agencies in W yoming now 

distribute reports via the internet, and a significant number publish only on the internet (i.e., 

no hard copies are produced). This evolution has led to an unavailability of certain reports and 

information that predate 1998 (personal com munication, July 8, 2003, with Christie Yurek, 

Validation Supervisor, Wyoming Department of Revenue, Administrative Services Division). 

Therefore, the information presented below covers the years 1998-2002. 

Oil and gas field operations support em ployment in many industries. Firms whose primary 

activity is operating oil and gas wells, exploring for oil and gas, or providing oil and gas field 

services are included in SIC 13, mining--oil and gas extraction. But many employers in other 

industries such as wholesale trade and transportation, com munications, and public utilities 

(TCPU) depend on business from oil and gas service companies (WDERP 1999). According 

to Bullard in W DERP (1999:Table 1 and Map 1), the Sublette and Sweetwater County 

economies are highly dependent on oil and natural gas extraction (15.2% and 5.8%, 

respectively), while Lincoln County is moderately dependent (4.2%) on the oil and gas industry. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
106 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

While it is not possible to determ ine the proportion of funds each city and county spends on 

each item of infrastructure and services derived from oil and gas revenues, example budgets for 

Big Piney, Pinedale, and Sublette County are presented to illustrate the distribution proportions 

of all revenues and expenditures (Tables 3.35-3.37); the budget for the town of Marbleton was 

not available and was stipulated to have insufficient detail to provide the information presented 

for the other communities (personal communication, May 21, 2004, Alice Griggs, Marbleton 

Town Clerk). According to Ms. Griggs, all funds received by Marbleton are distributed to 

infrastructure (streets), the fire department, and the Sheriff's Department. Funds received by 

Sublette County in recent years have been used for capital im provements, such as a new 

courthouse, jail, land fill, senior centers, and public clinic upgrade, and surpluses have been 

placed in reserve accounts to develop savings for future requirements (personal communication, 

May 20, 2004, with Mary Langford, Sublette County Clerk). Funds received in Big Piney in 

excess of norm al operating costs have also gone to capital im provements (personal 

communication, May 20, 2004, with Vickie Brown, Big Piney Town Clerk). 

3.4.2.2 State Royalties 

In total, royalties in Wyoming arising from natural gas production on state lands increased by 

nearly 62.0% from 1998 to 2002 (Table 3.38) (Wyoming Office of State Lands and Investments 

[WOSLI] 2002). Oil royalties have been variable, although generally growing. Overall, oil 

royalties grew 6% from 1998 to 2002. 

In Lincoln County, royalties from natural gas production on state lands fell 21.5% from 1998 

to 2002 (WOSLI 2002) (Table 3.38). Oil royalties have risen and fallen in Lincoln County, but 

generally declined (-17.3%) from 1998 to 2002. The only other mineral royalty paid to Lincoln 

County in 2001 and 2002 from state lands was for sand and gravel (WOSLI 2002). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 











118 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

In contrast, Sublette County has experienced significant increases in royalties from natural gas 

and oil production on state lands. Royalties from natural gas increased by 81.9% from 1998 

to 2002 (Table 3.38) (WOSLI 2002). Oil royalties increased even more dramatically (155.9%) 

from 1998 to 2002. The only other mineral royalty paid to Sublette County in 2001 and 2002 

from state lands was for sand and gravel (WOSLI 2002). 

Royalties from natural gas production on state lands increased by m ore than 17.1% (3.2% 

annual average growth) from 1998 to 2002 (Table 3.38) (W OSLI 2002). Oil royalties also 

increased (20.6%) in Sweetwater County from 1998 to 2002. Sweetwater County received most 

of its royalties from (and is the only county in W yoming to receive royalties from ) trona 

mining, but also received royalties from coal (2000, 2001, 2002); lim estone (2000); uranium 

(2002); and sand and gravel (2001, 2002). 

Table 3.38 Schedule of Oil and Natural Gas Royalties from State Lands Received by State 

and Counties, 1998-2002.1,2 

Royalties (Thousands of $) 

Location 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Natural Gas 

Wyoming 12,711 11,717 15,906 37,641 20,587 

Lincoln County 1,815 1,572 1,753 3,280 1,424 

Sublette County 2,736 2,450 3,036 7,125 4,978 

Sweetwater County 2,592 2,702 3,276 5,891 3,036 

Oil 

Wyoming 8,467 5,307 10,348 11,590 8,937 

Lincoln County 156 135 162 169 129 

Sublette County 333 258 454 734 852 

Sweetwater County 257 199 437 428 310 

1 WOSLI (2002), in thousands of year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 2 Royalty amounts include sales of by products (i.e., natural gas liquids, sulfur, carbon dioxide, and helium) 

and prior period adjustments. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 119 

3.4.3 Ad Valorem Valuation and Taxes Levied 

Due to changes in agency reporting methods, information from 1980 and 1990 was only minimally 

available; therefore, inform ation for a 5-year study period from 1998-2002 is presented in this 

section. Ad valorem valuations for the study area are presented in Table 3.39, and actual ad valorem 

taxes levied for 5-year study period are presented in Table 3.40. Taxes and actual mills for sample 

year 2003 are presented in Table 3.41-3.47 to illustrate source and allocation of ad valorem taxes 

in the most recent fiscal year. These actual taxes were not adjusted for inflation. 

3.4.3.1 Wyoming 

Between 1980 and 2000, the total gross real and personal property valuation in Wyoming fell 44.6% 

(Table 3.39). However, from 1998 to 2002, total gross real and personal property valuation 

increased 45.7%. Over the 20-year study period, assessed mineral valuation fell 23.1%; however, 

from 1998 to 2002, there was an increase of 51.9%. Between 1980 and 2000, non-m ineral 

assessments dropped by 84.8%. In contrast to the recovery seen in other areas, non-m ineral 

assessments only increased 5.1% from 1998 to 2002 (see Table 3.39). 

Total ad valorem county taxes levied in W yoming increased 35.5% from 1998 to 2002; total 

municipal levies increased 9.5%; total special district taxes increased 23.7%; total education taxes 

increased 31.0%; and total ad valorem taxes levied in the state increased 30.9% (see Table 3.40). 

3.4.3.2 Lincoln County 

Lincoln County experienced dram atic changes in valuations during the 1998 to 2002 period 

(Table 3.39). From 1998 to 2002, m ining (mineral, coal, non-m etal) fell 52.1%, although total 

state-assessed minerals in Lincoln County increased by 30.8%. Oil and gas were not reported in 

Lincoln County until 2001; however, there was a 10.7% increase from 2001 to 2002. Assessment 

for agricultural land fell 10.3% from 1998 to 2002. Commercial land, improvements, and personal 

property increased by 52.2% during that same time period. Total gross valuation for Lincoln County 

increased 21.5% from 1998 to 2002, while LaBarge's municipal valuation actually fell by 14.8% (see 

Table 3.39). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
120 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 3.39 Assessed Property Valuations for the State and Study Area.1 

Assessed Property Values (Thousands of $) 

Location 19802 19902 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Wyoming 

Agricultural Land -- -- 147,586 145,384 145,954 137,954 136,668 

Commercial Land, Improvements, -- -- 518,249 525,600 534,245 563,080 609,808 

and Personal Property 

Residential Land, Improvements, -- -- 1,615,472 1,678,735 1,779,786 1,937,840 2,031,913 

and Personal Property 

Mining (Mineral, Coal, Non-metal) -- -- 281,160 289,140 256,793 241,247 248,932 

Oil and Gas -- -- 135,894 134,468 158,016 173,707 207,408 

Non-mineral Industrial -- -- 282,022 286,232 273,231 308,805 336,917 

Total Locally Assessed -- -- 2,980,384 3,059,559 3,148,024 3,362,633 3,571,647 

State Assessed Mineral 8,413,904 5,395,476 4,258,668 4,168,881 6,407,060 6,536,564 6,469,177 

State Assessed Non-mineral 4,493,344 3,019,549 648,907 637,903 673,778 648,352 681,711 

Gross Valuation Real and Personal 12,907,248 8,415,025 4,907,575 4,806,784 7,080,838 7,184,916 7,150,888 

Property 

Gross Motor Vehicle Valuation -- -- 1,198,589 1,432,888 1,283,250 1,287,081 1,372,412 

Private Railroad Cars Valuation -- -- 28,353 30,908 34,800 35,948 36,291 

Total Gross Valuation -- -- 6,134,517 6,270,580 8,398,889 8,507,945 8,559,591 

Lincoln County 

Agricultural Land -- -- 5,001 3,604 4,830 4,392 4,484 

Commercial Land, Improvements, -- -- 7,015 8,556 8,986 10,326 10,680 

and Personal Property 

Residential Land, Improvements, -- -- 48,738 49,907 51,424 56,159 62,721 

and Personal Property 

Mining (Mineral, Coal, Non-metal) -- -- 12,215 6,793 5,753 5,646 5,848 

Oil and Gas -- -- -- -- -- 4,040 4,471 

Non-mineral Industrial -- -- 72,249 72,770 70,395 68,276 66,664 

Total Locally Assessed -- -- 145,218 141,630 141,389 148,839 154,868 

State Assessed Mineral -- -- 290,834 258,845 262,227 377,441 380,409 

State Assessed Non-mineral -- -- 35,727 36,082 34,192 30,575 32,746 

Gross Valuation Real and Personal -- -- 471,779 400,475 437,808 556,855 568,024 

Property 

Gross Motor Vehicle Valuation -- -- 34,495 33,913 42,433 43,194 46,942 

Private Railroad Cars Valuation -- -- 1,249 1,267 1,432 1,443 1,497 

Total Gross Valuation 

LaBarge Municipal Valuation 

--

--

--

--

507,523 

2,547 

1,965,516 

2,537 

481,672 

1,888 

601,492 

2,260 

616,462 

2,170 

Sublette County 

Agricultural Land 

Commercial Land, Improvements, 

and Personal Property 

Residential Land, Improvements, 

and Personal Property 

Mining (Mineral, Coal, Non-metal) 

Oil and Gas 

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

--

4,316 

8,415 

38,896 

37,585 

--

4,334 

7,479 

42,346 

36,598 

--

4,292 

7,979 

44,031 

38,154 

--

4,081 

8,814 

46,756 

40,883 

--

4,140 

10,026 

49,882 

42,861 

--

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 121 

Table 3.39 (Continued) 

Assessed Property Values (Thousands of $) 

Location 19802 19902 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Non-mineral Industrial -- -- 6,217 5,577 5,335 7,497 10,387 

Total Locally Assessed -- -- 95,429 96,334 99,791 108,031 117,296 

State-assessed Mineral -- -- 299,812 290,820 372,714 714,807 933,125 

State-assessed Non-mineral -- -- 3,714 3,500 3,332 2,926 2,840 

Gross Valuation Real and Personal -- -- 398,955 390,654 475,836 825,763 1,053,261 

Property 

Gross Motor Vehicle Valuation -- -- 24,706 25,108 26,373 31,645 30,483 

Private Railroad Cars Valuation -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Total Gross Valuation -- -- 822,615 415,762 502,209 857,408 1,083,744 

Big Piney Municipal Valuation -- -- 1,471 1,524 1,515 1,500 1,624 

Marbleton Municipal Valuation -- -- 2,119 2,019 2,075 2,144 2,325 

Pinedale Municipal Valuation -- -- 9,254 9,259 9,344 9,878 10,930 

Sweetwater County 

Agricultural Land -- -- 3,371 2,946 2,868 3,012 3,003 

Commercial Land, Improvements, -- -- 30,269 30,507 30,769 31,226 32,174 

and Personal Property 

Residential Land, Improvements, -- -- 95,452 96,787 92,833 106,741 91,783 

and Personal Property 

Mining (Mineral, Coal, Non-metal) -- -- 108,911 105,681 95,569 88,691 86,865 

Oil and Gas -- -- 32,155 33,996 39,107 40,896 45,031 

Other Industrial -- -- 27,627 27,668 23,356 24,258 23,617 

Total Locally Assessed -- -- 297,785 297,584 284,502 294,824 282,473 

State Assessed Mineral -- -- 812,202 716,344 372,714 950,780 948,146 

State Assessed Non-mineral -- -- 127,543 125,279 3,332 119,164 117,481 

Gross Valuation Real and Personal -- -- 1,237,531 1,529,861 660,547 1,364,767 1,348,101 

Property 

Gross Motor Vehicle Valuation -- -- 96,049 98,862 102,166 103,111 107,785 

Private Railroad Cars Valuation -- -- 4,168 4,228 4,564 4,600 4,770 

Total Gross Valuation -- -- 2,575,279 1,632,951 767,277 1,472,479 1,460,655 

Rock Springs Municipal Valuation -- -- 74,581 76,125 74,326 89,821 75,212 

1 Thousands of year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. Cities with no reported values/taxes are omitted from this table, including Bondurant, 

Boulder, Cora, and Daniel in Sublette County and Eden and Farson in Sweetwater County. 2 CREG (2003). Due to changes in reporting methods, only gross state totals are available for 1980 and 1990. 2 Wyoming Department of Revenue (1998). 3 Wyoming Department of Revenue (1999). 4 Wyoming Department of Revenue (2000). 5 Wyoming Department of Revenue (2001). 6 Wyoming Department of Revenue (2002). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
122 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 3.40 Total Ad Valorem Taxes Levied, State and Study Area.1 

Taxes Levied (Thousands of $) 

Location 19982 19993 20004 20015 20026 

Wyoming 

County Taxes Levied 90,917 83,503 91,246 117,658 123,233 

Municipal Taxes Levied 9,984 9,932 10,189 10,630 10,931 

Special District Taxes Levied 36,402 33,682 35,821 43,607 45,034 

Education Taxes Levied 393,282 362,048 392,166 503,162 515,317 

Total Ad Valorem Taxes Levied 530,585 489,164 529,422 675,057 694,515 

Lincoln County 

County Taxes Levied 4,420 4,036 4,128 5,202 5,326 

Municipal Taxes Levied 197 202 206 221 230 

Special District Taxes Levied 3,544 2,867 2,346 2,263 2,724 

Education Taxes Levied 22,719 20,908 21,144 26,366 26,680 

Total Ad Valorem Taxes Levied 30,879 28,013 27,824 34,051 34,960 

LaBarge Total Taxes Levied 188 183 132 154 148 

Sublette County 

County Taxes Levied 4,482 4,676 5,702 9,902 12,624 

Municipal Taxes Levied 118 102 103 108 119 

Special District Taxes Levied 1,117 1,082 1,310 2,025 2,473 

Education Taxes Levied 18,948 17,963 21,762 37,484 47,265 

Total Ad Valorem Taxes Levied 24,664 23,824 28,877 49,519 62,482 

Big Piney Total Taxes Levied 103 107 105 103 111 

Marbleton Total Taxes Levied 163 142 144 148 158 

Pinedale Total Taxes Levied 628 615 625 655 713 

Sweetwater County 

County Taxes Levied 14,850 13,670 13,516 16,377 16,177 

Municipal Taxes Levied 1,103 1,044 1,039 1,226 1,072 

Special District Taxes Levied 4,007 3,682 3,516 3,714 3,605 

Education Taxes Levied 64,256 59,317 58,555 69,751 68,611 

Total Ad Valorem Taxes Levied 84,216 77,713 76,626 91,068 89,465

Rock Springs Total Taxes Levied 5,354 5,428 5,293 6,340 5,290

1 Thousands of year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. Cities with no reported values/taxes are omitted from this table, including Bondurant, 

Boulder, Cora, and Daniel in Sublette County and Eden and Farson in Sweetwater County. 2 Wyoming Department of Revenue (1998). 3 Wyoming Department of Revenue (1999). 4 Wyoming Department of Revenue (2000). 5 Wyoming Department of Revenue (2001). 6 Wyoming Department of Revenue (2002). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 123 

Table 3.41 Levies for K-12 Education, 2003.1 

Counties 

Education Item2 All Wyoming ($) Lincoln ($) Sublette ($) Sweetwater ($) 

State Foundation Program 12-Mills 124,081,042 5,376,113 11,216,138 13,928,904 

6-Mill Mandatory County School Levy 62,040,519 2,688,057 5,608,069 6,964,452 

25-Mill Mandatory Level 258,502,173 11,200,235 23,366,955 29,018,550 

Boards of Cooperative Education 5,025,437 198,980 512,451 668,766 

Vocational and Adult Education3 541,880 -- -- 73,793 

Recreation 6,263,948 296,818 467,339 49,196 

Bonds and Interest 15,433,873 1,745,476 849,225 2,920,056 

Total K-12 Education 471,888,872 21,505,679 42,020,177 53,623,717 

1 Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue (2003). In Year 2003 dollars, not adjusted for inflation. 2 None of the study area counties levied taxes for additional operating, capital facilities repair, or building fund in 

2003. 

3 -- = no tax levy in 2003 for this item. 

Table 3.42 Levies for Community Colleges, 2003.1 

Community College Levy Taxes Received ($) 

County 

Operating 

(4-mill) 

Operating 

(up to 1 Mill 

Board 

Approved) 

BOCES 

(0.5 Mills) 

Operating 

(up to 5 Mills 

Voter 

Approved) 

Bonds & 

Interest Grand Total 

Lincoln -

2 - - - - -

Sublette - - - - - -

Sweetwater 4,642,968 1,160,742 - - - 5,803,710 

All Wyoming 13,538,043 3,384,511 654,514 - 1,353,293 18,930,361 

1 Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue (2003). In Year 2003 dollars, not adjusted for inflation. 2 -- = no tax levy in 2003 for this item. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
124 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 3.43 County Taxes Levied, 2003.1 

County2,3 

Mills Levied/ 

Amount of Taxes 

Levy Received ($) Lincoln Sublette Sweetwater 

Airport Operations Mills -- 0.124 0.200 

Amount Received -- $115,900 $232,148 

Civil Defense Mills -- 0.330 -

Amount Received -- $30,844 -

Fair Operation Mills 0.872 0.296 1.253 

Amount Received $269,344 $263,736 $276,665 

County Fire Protection Mills -- 0.522 -

Amount Received -- $478,507 -

Other General Fund Levy Mills 8.817 9.11 4.197 

Amount Received $3,950,099 $8,514,918 $4,871,170 

Library Operation Mills 1.339 0.557 1.995 

Amount Received $599,885 $520,616 $2,315,448 

Museum Operation Mills -- 0.213 0.229 

Amount Received -- $199,086 $265,462 

Public Health Purposes Mills -- 0.027 0.897 

Amount Received -- $25,236 $1,040,721 

Recreation System Mills -- -- 0.315 

Amount Received -- -- $365,286 

Road and Bridge Purpose Levy Mills -- 1.118 2.916

 Am ount Received -- $1,044,970 $3,384,607 

Grand Total Under 12-Mill Limit Mills 11.028 12.297 12.000

 Am ount Received $4,940,648 $11,206,742 $13,928,903 

Grand Total County Levies Mills 11.028 12.297 12.000 

Amount Received $4,940,648 $11,206,742 $13,928,903 

1 Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue (2003). In Year 2003 dollars, not adjusted for inflation. 2 -- = no tax levy for this item. 

3 None of the study area counties levied taxes for: building fund; hospital operation; public assistance and social 

services; total county bond and interest. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
125 

1 

Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 3.44 County and Statewide Average 2003 Mill Levies Applied to 2002 Mineral Production 

and Taxes Assessed.1 

County 

Average Mineral 

2003 Mill Levies 

Total Ad Valorem 

Production Tax Assessed 

Percentage of Total Ad 

Valorem Production Taxes 

Assessed in Wyoming 

Lincoln 63.542 $14,875,737 4.22 

Sublette 59.571 $47,432,192 13.46 

Sweetwater 66.458 $49,006,739 13.91 

Wyoming Total 66.065 $352,376,219 100.00 

Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue (2003). In Year 2003 dollars, not adjusted for inflation. 

Table 3.45 Municipal Taxes Levied for the Year 2003.1 

Special County District Taxes Levied for the Year 2003 

County 

Total 

Municipal 

Taxes Under 

8-Mill Limit 

($) 

Bonds and 

Interest

 ($) 

Grand Total 

Municipal 

Levies ($) 

Special Weed and 

Pest Levies 

Mills 

Amount 

($) 

Special County 

Fire District Taxes

 ($) 

Other Special County 

District

Taxes 

($) 

District 

Types3 

Total Special 

District Taxes 

Amount 

($) 

Lincoln 251,113 -

2 251,113 351,687 259,937 2,077,679 G,H,J,L,O 2,733,620 

Sublette 132,488 - 132,488 280,403 198,170 2,152,670 C,K 2,433,073 

Sweetwater 1,156,772 - 1,156,772 405,099 8,329,177 2,461,913 A,C,G,J 3,661,487 

Wyoming 4 12,016,991 187,414 n/a 7,499,369 n/a 31,032,344 n/a 46,860,890 

1 Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue (2003). In Year 2003 dollars, not adjusted for inflation. 2 -- = no tax levy for this item. 3 District Types:

A - Hospital I - Weed and Pest

B - Fire J - Solid Waste Disposal

C - Cemetery K - Rural Health Care

D - Museum L - Conservation

E - Recreation M - Sanitary and Improvement

F - Water Conservancy N - Flood Control

G - Water and Sewer O - Downtown Development

H - Improvement and Services P - Senior Citizens' Service 4 n/a = not applicable. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
126 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 3.46 City- and Town-Assessed Valuation and Taxes Levied, 2003.1 

School Tax Levy 

County Tax Levy Including Foundation Municipal Tax Levy Total Tax Levy 

City/Town 

Municipal 

Valuation Mills 

Special 

District2 Amount Mills Amount Mills Amount Mills Amount 

Big Piney 1,905,850 14.33 C,I,K 27,311 47.965 91,414 8.000 15,247 70.295 133,972 

LaBarge 2,299,884 15.33 A,C,I 35,257 47.965 110,314 8.000 18,399 71.295 163,970 

Marbleton 2,875,951 14.33 C,I,K 41,212 47.965 137,945 4.000 11,504 66.295 190,661 

Pinedale 13,217,084 13.934 C,I,K 184,167 44.000 581,552 8.000 105,737 65.934 871,456 

Rock Springs 81,327,144 13.899 I,J 1,130,366 48.600 3,952,499 8.000 650,617 70.499 5,733,482 

1 Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue (2003). In Year 2003 dollars, not adjusted for inflation. 2 District Types:

A - Hospital I - Weed and Pest

B - Fire J - Solid Waste Disposal

C - Cemetery K - Rural Health Care

D - Museum L - Conservation

E - Recreation M - Sanitary and Improvement

F - Water Conservancy N - Flood Control

G - Water and Sewer O - Downtown Development

H - Improvement and Services P - Senior Citizens' Service

Table 3.47 Grand Total All Taxes Levied, 2003.1 

Grand Total County 

Levies Grand Total Total Special Grand Total Grand Total All 

Amount Municipal Levies District Taxes All Education Taxes Levied Average 

County Mills ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) Mill Levy 

Lincoln 11.028 4,940,648 251,113 2,733,620 21,505,679 29,431,060 65.693 

Sublette 12.297 11,206,742 132,488 2,433,073 42,020,177 55,792,480 59.692 

Sweetwater 12.000 13,928,903 1,156,772 3,661,487 59,427,427 78,174,589 67.349 

All Wyoming 119,082,631 12,204,405 46,860,890 490,819,233 668,967,159 64.696 

Source: Wyoming Department of Revenue (2003). In Year 2003 dollars, not adjusted for inflation. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 

1 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 127 

In Lincoln County, ad valorem taxes increased 20.5% over the 5-year study period (see Table 3.40). 

Total Lincoln County ad valorem taxes levied grew a total of 13.2% between 1998 and 2002. In 

2003, the most recent fiscal year, 80% of ad valo rem taxes levied by Lincoln County went to the 

general fund. Total municipal levies increased 16.8%, total special district levies fell at the rate of 

23.1%, and total education levies increased 17.4%. LaBarge levies fell a total of 21.3% during the 

5-year study period. 

3.4.3.3 Sublette County 

Sublette County has experienced dramatic changes in valuations during the 5-year study period (see 

Table 3.39). The gross valuation of all real and personal property in Sublette County has increased 

164.0% from 1998 to 2002. Sublette County has no mining (mineral, coal, non-metal) properties 

to consider in either local- or state-assessed valuations. Only oil and gas properties are included in 

state-assessed mineral valuations in Sublette County, and they increased 211.2% from 1998 to 2002. 

Total local assessments increased 22.9% over the 5-year period, although agricultural land fell 4.1%. 

Non-mineral industrial properties increased 67.1% from 1998 to 2002. Residential lands with 

improvements increased 28.2%, and commercial lands with improvements increased 19.1% during 

the 5-year study period. Total gross valuation for Sublette County increased a total 31.7% from 

1998 to 2002. Municipal valuations increased in Big Piney (10.4%), Marbleton (9.7%), and 

Pinedale (18.1%) over the 5-year period. 

In Sublette County, levies against property have increased over the 5-year study period (see 

Table 3.40). Total Sublette County ad valorem taxes levied increased 181.7.3% from 1998 to 2002; 

municipal levies increased by only 1.8%; special district levies increased 121.4%, and education 

levies increased 149.4%. Big Piney's municipal levies increased 7.8%; Marbleton's municipal levies 

dropped by 3.1%; and Pinedale's municipal levies increased 13.5% from 1998 to 2002. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
128 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

3.4.3.4 Sweetwater County 

Gross valuation of all real and personal property in Sweetwater County increased 8.9% from 1998 

to 2002 (see Table 3.39). State-assessed mineral valuations increased 16.7% from 1998 to 2001. 

Locally assessed oil and gas had the greatest overall increase (40.0%). Sweetwater County has 

mining (mineral, coal, non-metal) properties that decreased (-20.2%) in value over the 5-year study 

period. Total gross valuation for Sweetwate r County declined 43.3% from 1998 to 2002. Rock 

Springs municipal valuations increased 0.9% from 1998 to 2002. 

Total Sweetwater County ad valorem taxes levied increased 8.9% from 1998 to 2002 (see 

Table 3.40). Municipal levies in Sweetwater County fell 2.8% during the 5-year study period, 

special district levies decreased by 10.0%; and education levies increased 6.8%. Total ad valorem 

taxes levied in the entire county increased 6.2%. Rock Springs municipal levies declined 1.2% from 

1998 to 2002. 

3.4.4 Sales Tax Collections 

Sales tax collection information was obtained from WDAI (2002e) and is presented for Wyoming 

and the three-county study area in Table 3.48. 

3.4.4.1 Wyoming 

Total sales tax collections for Wyoming increased 27.0% from 1998 to 2002 (Table 3.48). Increases 

in the mining (61.8%), construction (45.0%), and wholesale trade (41.3%) sectors were the m ost 

substantial. Collections from the retail trade sector, which reflects consum ers' daily spending, 

increased 16.8% during the 5-year study period. The retail trade sector is the largest of the industrial 

sectors in Wyoming, and provided 40.4% of all sales tax collections in 2002, followed by services 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 129 

Table 3.48 Sales Tax Collections in State and Study Area.1 

Sales Tax Collections (Thousands of $) 

Location/Industrial Sector 

Wyoming2 

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Agriculture 

Mining3 

1,399 

28,651 

1,358 

19,694 

1,374 

22,259 

1,347 

34,163 

1,257 

46,358 

Construction 10,228 12,325 11,198 12,136 14,828 

Manufacturing 22,877 22,085 22,854 22,127 22,124 

Transportation 30,063 30,734 31,708 37,249 37,866 

Wholesale Trade 37,060 39,477 43,602 48,086 52,365 

Retail Trade 171,014 179,324 190,610 191,510 199,673 

Finance 1,611 1,059 1,134 1,009 762 

Services 53,876 57,672 60,014 66,634 75,901 

Public Administration 31,942 36,609 33,883 38,216 42,589 

Total 388,721 400,336 418,635 452,478 493,723 

Lincoln4 

Agriculture 55 52 45 50 38 

Mining3 1,234 944 690 818 1,273 

Construction 188 186 165 155 170 

Manufacturing 705 768 870 670 565 

Transportation 844 942 821 833 871 

Wholesale Trade 1,933 1,385 2,312 1,782 2,135 

Retail Trade 3,112 3,381 3,659 3,389 3,712 

Finance 47 45 53 36 24 

Services 933 1,148 948 1,185 1,394 

Public Administration 710 732 783 797 954 

Total Collected 9,761 9,583 10,345 9,716 11,135 

Approximate Amount Returned to County 3,221 3,162 3,413 3,206 3,674 

Sublette5 

Agriculture 27 27 28 26 26 

Mining3 2,538 2,844 2,591 5,988 9,078 

Construction 110 89 125 139 173 

Manufacturing 527 396 381 882 1,047 

Transportation 383 404 481 459 483 

Wholesale Trade 956 1,034 1,145 1,201 1,557 

Retail Trade 1,691 1,629 1,923 2,289 2,575 

Finance 13 14 13 8 5 

Services 927 1,257 1,209 2,457 3,471 

Public Administration 460 407 452 451 648 

Total 7,632 8,102 8,348 13,901 19,063 

Approximate Amount Returned to County 2,518 2,674 2,755 4,587 6,291 

Sweetwater6 

Agriculture 45 40 34 33 42 

Mining3 4,868 3,361 3,514 5,683 7,165 

Construction 1,379 1,304 1,109 1,008 952 

Manufacturing 3,751 3,118 2,916 2,548 2,722 

Transportation 3,041 2,773 3,753 3,171 3,620 

Wholesale Trade 6,333 5,687 5,449 6,701 7,023 

Retail Trade 14,572 14,680 14,552 14,514 15,673 

Finance 173 120 128 108 64 

Services 5,777 5,829 5,908 6,748 8,192 

Public Administration 3,038 3,416 3,180 3,461 3,441 

Total 42,975 40,328 40,544 43,975 48,894 

Approximate Amount Returned to County 14,182 13,308 13,380 14,512 16,135 

1 WDAI (2002e). Thousands of year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 2 Note: Penalty and interest monies are excluded; collections amounted to $1,751,376 in FY02. 3 Includes oil and gas. 4 Note: Penalty and interest monies are excluded; collections amounted to $39,384 in FY02. 5 Note: Penalty and interest monies are excluded; collections amounted to $27,109 in FY02. 6 Note: Penalty and interest monies are excluded; collections amounted to $134,973 in FY02. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
130 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

(15.4%), wholesale trade (10.6%) and m ining (9.4%). The collections reported in the public 

administration sector (8.6% of all sales tax collections) were primarily comprised of taxes generated 

through automobile sales (WDAI 2002e). 

3.4.4.2 Lincoln County 

Total sales tax collections in Lincoln County increased 14.1% from 1998 to 2002 (see Table 3.48). 

Collections from the retail trade sector, which reflects consumers' daily spending, increased 19.3%. 

The largest increases were seen in services (49.4%) and public adm inistration (34.3%). Losses 

occurred in finance (48.8%), agriculture (31.6%), manufacturing (19.9%), and construction (9.6%). 

In 2002, the retail trade sector was the largest of the industrial sectors, providing 33.3% of all sales 

tax collections in Lincoln County, followed by wholesale trade (19.2%), services (12.5%), and 

mining (11.4%) (see Table 3.48). 

3.4.4.3 Sublette County 

Annual sales tax collections in 17 of the state's 23 counties increased over previous year levels, and 

Sublette County experienced the greatest increase (37.1%) over fiscal year 2001 (W DAI 2002e). 

Total sales tax collections in Sublette County increased 149.8% from 1998 to 2002 (see Table 3.48). 

The largest overall increase during that term was seen in services, which expanded by 274.5%, 

followed by mining (257.7%) and m anufacturing (98.5%). Finance and agriculture experienced 

declines (63.9% and 2.6% respectively) in sales taxes collected over the 5-year study period. 

Mining provided 47.6% of sales tax collections in Sublette County in 2002, followed by services 

(18.2%) and retail trade (13.5%) (see Table 3.48). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 131 

3.4.4.4 Sweetwater County 

Over the 5-year study period from 1998 to 2002, Sweetwater County' s total sales tax collection 

increased by 13.8% (see Table 3.48). The largest overall increase during that term was seen in 

mining (47.2%), followed by services (41.8%), and transportation (19.0%). Finance (-62.9%), 

construction (-30.9%), manufacturing (-27.4%), and agriculture (-5.1%) experienced declines in 

sales taxes collected over the 5-year study period. 

3.4.5 Use Tax Collections 

Information on use tax collections was obtained from WDAI (2002e) and is presented in Table 3.49. 

3.4.5.1 Wyoming 

Use tax collections increased nearly 29.5% from 1998 to 2002 (Table 3.49). Seven of the nine major 

sectors (wholesale and retail trade sectors are combined and counted as one for use tax reporting) 

realized increases during the 5-year study period. Use tax collections usually fluctuate considerably 

from year to year, and from one sector to another. Unlike collections for sales tax, the 

goods-producing sectors (mining, construction, and manufacturing) typically cover a large portion 

of use tax collections. Public administration is the largest of the industrial sectors in terms of use 

tax, and it collected approximately 29.2% of all Wyoming use tax collections in 2002. From 1998 

to 2002, the service sector exhibited the largest increase (89.0%), followed by wholesale/retail trade 

(62.1%), and mining (37.9%). The manufacturing and finance sectors suffered declines of 33.2% 

and 38.5%, respectively. 

Use tax collections reported in the public administration sector were primarily comprised of taxes 

generated through autom obile purchases m ade out of the state (W DAI 2002e) which increased 

36.5% over the 5-year study period (Table 3.49). Annual total use tax collections for 16 Wyoming 

counties increased over previous year levels and while collections in the rem aining counties 

decreased. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
132 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 3.49 Use Tax Collections in the State and Study Area.1 

Use Tax Collections ($) 

Industrial Sector/Location 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

Wyoming 

Agriculture 93,382 111,663 127,039 152,240 111,850 

Mining2 8,139,021 10,074,628 7,232,766 8,643,343 11,220,244 

Construction 10,532,112 6,717,700 10,488,778 9,951,474 12,265,909 

Manufacturing 2,963,424 2,818,252 3,342,641 2,138,754 1,978,751 

Transportation 6,624,357 6,319,928 7,385,411 7,501,867 8,316,000 

Wholesale and Retail Trade 3,822,364 5,142,008 6,048,701 4,978,284 6,197,634 

Finance 49,164 43,066 31,621 37,531 30,230 

Services 1,186,334 853,229 871,877 1,374,900 2,241,715 

Public Administration 12,788,608 13,208,328 14,312,741 15,920,514 17,454,299 

Total 46,198,767 45,288,804 49,841,575 50,698,909 59,816,633 

Lincoln 

Agriculture 555 0 0 20 11 

Mining2 644,320 799,954 888,052 444,472 1,292,002 

Construction 208,598 170,128 599,236 120,078 157,138 

Manufacturing 3,337 3,362 6,476 12,436 11,747 

Transportation 372,195 406,785 315,849 374,900 572,565 

Wholesale and Retail Trade 50,998 135,608 127,355 99,442 116,337 

Finance 3,223 3,603 2,746 2,205 3,299 

Services 5,951 12,804 6,248 7,587 8,948 

Public Administration 630,704 626,041 791,122 643,870 812,841 

Total 1,919,880 2,158,285 2,737,084 1,705,013 2,974,888 

Sublette 

Agriculture 639 452 903 763 420 

Mining2 218,581 227,655 209,822 520,867 373,000 

Construction 25,641 41,591 43,908 147,526 53,054 

Manufacturing 876 1,727 6,928 2,663 9,570 

Transportation 34,361 -1,653 10,592 85,822 24,937 

Wholesale and Retail Trade 16,529 41,742 40,722 42,935 114,937 

Finance 5 6 -6 -1 0 

Services 747 1,601 237 1,164 2,463 

Public Administration 277,764 246,362 265,268 362,521 390,185 

Total 575,143 559,482 578,375 1,164,262 968,565 

Sweetwater 

Agriculture 4,374 4,000 3,082 3,144 2,559 

Mining2 3,874,717 3,837,244 2,397,057 3,348,485 4,080,921 

Construction 3,049,513 885,748 1,050,060 1,108,792 492,216 

Manufacturing 793,646 535,044 758,768 386,144 394,046 

Transportation 1,022,135 1,003,434 1,175,935 1,086,599 1,128,749 

Wholesale and Retail 158,663 159,346 546,294 615,474 495,225 

Finance 3,499 406 940 412 2,199 

Services 33,534 59,357 136,868 418,210 431,734 

Public Administration 950,775 909,189 877,057 959,182 1,092,998 

Total 9,890,855 7,393,770 6,946,061 7,926,441 8,120,645 

1 WDAI (2002e). In year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 2 Includes oil and gas. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 133 

3.4.5.2 Lincoln County 

Over the 5-year study period (1998-2002), total use tax collections in Lincoln County increased by 

55.0% (see Table 3.49). Manufacturing led sector growth over the 5-year period, with a 252.0% 

increase, followed by wholesale/retail trade (128.1%), and mining (100.5%). Agriculture showed 

the greatest decline (97.9%), followed by construction (24.7%). Mining was the largest of the 

industrial sectors in terms of use tax in 2002, with 43.4% of all Lincoln County use tax collections, 

followed by public administration (27.3%) and transportation (19.3%). 

3.4.5.3 Sublette County 

Over the 5-year study period (1998-2002), total use tax collections in Sublette County increased by 

68.4% (see Table 3.49). Manufacturing led sector growth over the 5-year period, with a 992.7% 

increase, followed by wholesale/retail trade (595.4%), and services (229.7%). Finance (-100.0%), 

agriculture (-34.3%), and transportation (-27.4%) declined over the 5-year study period. In 2002, 

public administration provided the greatest percenta ge (40.3%) of use tax collections in Sublette 

County, followed by mining (38.5%) and wholesale/retail trade (11.9%). 

3.4.5.4 Sweetwater County 

Over the 5-year study period (1998-2002), total use tax collections in Sweetwater County decreased 

by 17.9% (see Table 3.49). Services led sector growth over the 5-year period, with a 1,187.5% 

increase from 1998 to 2002, followed by wholesale/retail trade (212.1%) and public administration 

(15.0%). The greatest declines over the 5-year period occurred in construction (83.9%), 

manufacturing (50.3%), agriculture (41.5%), and finance (37.2%). In 2002, mining contributed the 

greatest percentage (50%) of total use tax co llections in Sweetwater County, followed by TCPU 

(14%) and public administration (13%). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
134 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

3.4.6 Lodging Tax Collections 

Lodging tax information was derived from WDAI (2002e), and data for the study area are presented 

in Table 3.50. All data are provided in year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. All lodging taxes 

are returned to the city/county of origin, and no tax is imposed at the state level; therefore, Wyoming 

is not shown in Table 3.50. Lincoln County does not have a county-wide lodging tax, and the towns 

within Lincoln County that charge a lodging tax are outside the study area; therefore, Lincoln 

County is not shown in Table 3.50. 

3.4.6.1 Sublette County 

Sublette County reinstated a lodging tax in 2001. Lodging taxes collected in Sublette County 

increased 523.2% from 2001 to 2002 (Table 3.50). Collections in Big Piney increased 1,461.5%; 

Marbleton increased 433.5%; and Pinedale increased 1,583.5%. Total collections for the county and 

municipalities combined increased 1,045.1% from 2001 to 2002. 

3.4.6.2 Sweetwater County 

A lodging tax has been imposed in Sweetwater County for the duration of the 5-year study period. 

Lodging tax collections in 2002 were down 33.8% from 1998 (Table 3.50). However, Rock Springs 

lodging tax collections increased by 23.8% over the same period. Total collections for the county 

and municipalities combined increased 9.7% from 1998 to 2002. 

3.5 GRAZING ECONOMICS 

3.5.1 Grazing Allotments 

Table 3.51 summarizes grazing allotment acreages and AUMs in the JIDPA (see BLM 2004c) and 

SPPA (see BLM 2004b). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 135 

Table 3.50 Lodging Tax Collections By County And Local Entity, 2002.1 

Lodging Tax Collections ($) 

Collecting Entity 19982 19992 20002 2001 2002 

Sublette County NA NA NA 2,028 12,641 

Big Piney NA NA NA 261 4,069 

Marbleton NA NA NA 2,176 11,609 

Pinedale 0 0 0 4,236 71,321 

Total 0 0 0 8,701 99,640 

Sweetwater County 63,904 57,619 39,936 41,051 42,336 

Rock Springs 196,257 197,293 204,703 235,747 243,063 

Total 260,161 254,912 239,744 276,798 285,399 

1 WDAI (2002e). In year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 2 NA = no information available. 

Table 3.51 Grazing Allotments and AUMs, JIDPA and SPPA. 

Allotment Size (acres) AUMs Average Acres 

Allotment Name Total In Project Area Total In Project Area per AUM 

JIDPA Grazing Allotments 

Stud Horse Common 15,590 5,490 1,730 670 8.2 

Sand Draw 31,740 20,740 2,324 1,571 13.2 

Boundary1 31,994 3,630 2,996 363 10.0 

Blue Rim Desert 41,273 02 2,826 -- 14.6 

Unalloted private lands 640 640 --.3 --.3 --.3 

Total JIDPA3 121,237 30,500 9,8763 2,6043 11.53 

SPPA Grazing Allotments4 

Beaver Creek Meadows 1,974 519 20 5 98.7 

Beaver Creek Individual 934 707 129 98 7.2 

North LaBarge Common 134,574 7,819 19,398 1,127 6.9 

South Piney Individual 1,697 176 82 9 20.7 

Fish Creek Individual 1,863 1,863 1,687 1,687 1.1 

Budd Fish Creek Individual 1,748 1,748 150 150 11.7 

Springman Creek 1,250 1,250 155 155 8.1 

West Individual 5,446 2,845 1,112 581 4.9 

Total SPPA 149,486 16,927 22,733 3,812 6.6 

1 Sheep are approved for grazing on the Boundary allotment; however, no sheep use of JIDPA lands has occurred in the past 5 years and none 

is anticipated. 2 Approximately 35 acres of this allotment would be affected by the Burma Road upgrade. 3 Total does not include unalloted private lands. 4 Only cattle are approved for grazing on the allotments within the SPPA. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
136 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

3.5.1.1 JIDPA Grazing Allotments 

The majority of the JIDPA (94%, 28,580 acres) consists of federal surface/federal minerals 

administered by the BLM, with the exception of two sections (1,280 acres) of State of Wyoming 

surface/mineral and one section (640 acres) of private surface/federal minerals (BLM 2004c). 

Current land use includes energy production and development (i.e., natural gas), livestock grazing, 

wildlife habitat, and recreation--primarily hunting. Both cattle and sheep are authorized to graze on 

the Boundary allotment, but sheep have not grazed on the allotment within the last 5 years (personal 

communication, February 2004, Jay D'Ewart, BLM, RSFO); therefore, sheep are not discussed 

further. 

The JIDPA includes portions of three grazing allotments--Stud Horse Common, Sand Draw, and 

Boundary--and the Burma Road Upgrade area includes portions the Blue Rim Desert allotment. A 

section of private unalloted grazing land occurs also within the JIDPA. Of the total 121,237 acres 

(supporting 9,876 AUMs) of grazing lands included in these allotments, 30,500 acres (25.2%) 

(supporting 2,604 AUMs; 26.4%) occur within the JIDPA (Table 3.51). Livestock grazing is 

allocated to two permittees each in the Stud Horse Common and Sand Draw allotments and four 

permittees in the Desert Blue Rim allotment (personal communication, January 6, 2003, with Steve 

Laster, BLM PFO) (Table 3.51). The Boundary allotment is allocated to two permittees (personal 

communication, January 6, 2003, with Jay D'Ewart, BLM RSFO). Additionally, approximately 640 

acres (2% of the JIDPA) of fenced private land lie within the boundary of the Sand Draw allotment 

but are not under federal management, and are reportedly not grazed. Permittees have been billed at 

the rate of $1.35/AUM since 1998 (personal communication, January 16, 2003, with Steve Laster, 

BLM PFO). 

Utilization of the grazing allotments on the JIDPA has been lower than the allotted number of 

AUMs due to drought. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 137 

3.5.1.2 SPPA Grazing Allotments 

Lands within the SPPA are used for livestock grazing. Only cattle have been grazed in the SPPA 

in the last 5 years. The SPPA occurs across portions of eight federal grazing allotments that cover 

a total 149,486 acres and provide 22,733 federal AUMs (Table 3.51) (BLM 2004b). The SPPA 

includes 16,927 acres (11.3%) that provide 3,812 AUMs (22.5%) of these allotments. The remainder 

of the SPPA is private surface, with grazing as the primary use. 

3.5.2 Value of Grazing 

The estimated value of grazing in the JIDPA and SPPA is sum marized in Tables 3.52-3.55. The 

method used to determine the value of grazing per AUM is from BLM (2003b). 

The value of cattle and sheep grazing per AUM in W yoming is shown in Tables 3.52 and 3.53. 

AUM values for grazing cattle were determ ined from Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service 

(2003) values of cattle sold in Wyoming from 1997 to 2003 (presented in year 2000 dollars, adjusted 

for inflation) (Table 3.52). Total cattle sales were divided by the number of cows that calved, which 

provided a value per cow. The value per cow was then divided by an AUM conversion factor 

(Workman 1986), resulting in an estimated nominal value per AUM for 2000. The average value 

of these AUMs is used in the impact analyses presented in Chapters 5.0 and 6.0. 

AUM values for grazing sheep were determined from the Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service 

(2003) values of sheep/lambs and wool sold in Wyoming from 1998 to 2002 (presented in year 2000 

dollars, adjusted for inflation) (Table 3.53). Total sheep/lamb and wool sales were divided by the 

number of ewes 1 year and older, which provided a value per ewe. The value per ewe was then 

divided by an AUM conversion factor (Workman 1986), resulting in an estimated nominal value per 

AUM for 2000. Because sheep are approved for grazing on the Boundary allotment of the JIDPA, 

the value of AUMs for sheep was calculated; howeve r, sheep have not been grazed in m ore than 

5 years, therefore, they are not addressed further in this analysis. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
138 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 3.52 Estimated Value of Cattle Grazing AUMs in Wyoming. 

Value of Cattle Production Number of Cows Calved Value of Production Per AUM5 

Year (Thousands of $)1 (Thousands of Head)2 Value Per Cow3 AUM Conversion Factor4 (Year 2000 $) 

1997 474,990 870 545.97 16 34.12 

1998 423,250 880 480.97 16 30.06 

1999 467,253 830 562.96 16 35.18 

2000 497,851 830 599.82 16 37.49 

2001 527,804 850 620.95 16 38.81 

2002 425,776 820 519.24 16 32.45 

Average 468,387 842 556.79 -- 34.80 

1 Thousands of year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. Source: Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service (2003:42). 2 Source: Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service (2003:40). 3 Value per cow = value of cattle production ÷ number of cows that have calved. 4 Workman (1986). 5 Value of production per AUM = value per cow ÷ AUM conversion factor. 

Table 3.53 Estimated Value of Sheep Grazing AUMs in Wyoming.1 

Value of Sheep/ Value of Wool AUM 

Lamb Production2 Production3 Total Value of Ewes 1 Year and Older5 Value per Conversion Value of Production Per AUM8 

Year (Thousands of $) (Thousands of $) Production4 (Thousands of Head) Ewe6 Factor7 (2000 $) 

1998 25,875 4,507 30,382.21 430 70.66 3.2 22.08 

1999 23,245 2,497 25,742.14 385 66.86 3.2 20.89 

2000 23,479 2,143 25,622.00 365 70.20 3.2 21.94 

2001 18,625 1,959 20,584.27 340 60.54 3.2 18.92 

2002 20,496 2,621 23,116.34 320 72.24 3.2 22.57 

Average 22,344 2,745 25,089.39 368 68.10 -- 21.28 

1 Because sheep are approved for grazing on the Boundary allotment in the JIDPA the value of sheep production was calculated; however, sheep 

have not been grazed in more than 5 years; therefore, they are not addressed further herein. 2 Thousands of year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. Source: Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service (2003:51). 3 Thousands of year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. Source: Wyoming Agricultural Statistics (2003:49). 4 Total value of production = value of sheep/lamb production + value of wool production. 5 Source: Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service (2003:49). 6 Value per ewe = value of production ÷ number of ewes 1 year and older. 7 Workman (1986). 8 Value of production per AUM = value per ewe ÷ AUM conversion factor. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 139 

Table 3.54 Estimated Value of Grazing Activities on Project-Affected Lands. 

Allotment Size1 (acres) Estimated AUMs Value of Grazing Cattle2 ($) 

Allotment Within On Project-Affected On Project-Affected 

Allotment Name Total Allotment Project Area Total Lands Total Lands 

JIDPA Grazing Allotments 

Stud Horse Common 15,590 5,490 1,730 670 60,204 23,316 

Sand Draw 31,740 20,740 2,324 1,571 80,875 54,671 

Boundary 31,994 3,630 2,996 363 104,261 12,632 

Blue Rim Desert 41,273 0.3 2,826 2.3 98,345 1,218.3 

Unalloted private lands 640 640 48.4 48.4 1,636.4 1,636.4 

Total JIDPA 121,237 30,500.3 9,924 2,654.3,4 343,685 90,619.3,4 

SPPA Grazing Allotments 

Beaver Creek Meadows 1,974 519 20 5 696 184 

Beaver Creek Individual 934 707 129 98 4,489 3,396 

North LaBarge Common 134,574 7,819 19,398 1,127 675,050 39,223 

South Piney Individual 1,697 176 82 9 2,854 296 

Fish Creek Individual 1,863 1,863 1,687 1,687 58,708 58,718 

Budd Fish Creek Individual 1,748 1,748 150 150 5,220 5,220 

Springman Creek 1,250 1,250 155 155 5,394 5,394 

West Individual 5,446 2,845 1,112 581 38,698 20,215 

Total SPPA 149,486 16,927 22,733 3,812 791,108 132,647 

Total Value Attributable to Grazing on Project Lands in Sublette County 1,134,793 223,266 

1 See Table 3.51. 2 Cattle grazing was valued at $34.80/AUM (see Table 3.52). 3 The JIDPA is 30,500 acres; 35 acres in the Blue Rim Desert allotment outside of the project boundary would be disturbed for the Burma Road 

upgrade (12 mi long x 24 ft wide = 35 acres); AUMs = acres/average acres per AUM (14.6); value excluded from total. 4 Unalloted private lands within the Sand Draw allotment are not under federal control, therefore, they are not shown on Table 3.51; however, 

AUMs the (47) are estimated based on Sand Draw allotment values for the purposes of valuation in this table. 

Table 3.55 Percentage of Agricultural Sales Attributed to Grazing on Project-Affected Lands, 

1997. 

Sales Value ($) Percentage 

Sublette County1 

Total Agricultural2 $29,191,000 

Value from Livestock2 $27,809,000 

Percent from Livestock 95.0% 

JIDPA 

Sales Attributable to Grazing on the JIDPA2,3 $90,619 

Percent of all Sublette County Agricultural Sales arising from Grazing on the JIDPA 0.31% 

Percent of All Livestock Sales in Sublette County Arising from Grazing on the JIDPA 0.33% 

SPPA 

Sales Attributable to Grazing on the SPPA2,3 $132,647 

Percent of all Sublette County Agricultural Sales arising from Grazing on the SPPA 0.45% 

Percent of All Livestock Sales in Sublette County Arising from Grazing on the SPPA 0.48% 

1 Both the JIDPA and SPPA are entirely within Sublette County; therefore, Lincoln and Sweetwater County sales are unlikely to be affected and 

are not evaluated. 2 In year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation (NASS 1999). 3 See Table 3.51. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
140 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Both the JIDPA and SPPA project areas are entirely within Sublette County. Because there would 

be no impact on grazing activities in Lincoln or Sweetwater Counties as a result of the proposed 

projects, Sublette County comprises the total study area for grazing analyses. 

The value of grazing associated with the JIDPA and SPPA was compared to livestock sales during 

1997 for Sublette County. Data on sales was obtained from the 1997 Census of Agriculture 

published by the National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS) (1999). Table 3.55 shows that 

total agricultural sales in Sublette County ex ceeded $29 m illion, of which m ore than 95% was 

associated with livestock sales. Comparing livestock sales in Sublette County with the value of 

grazing on the project areas indicates that JIDPA grazing activities would conservatively account 

for an estimated $90,619 (0.32% of all agricultural sales and 0.33% of all livestock sales in Sublette 

County in 1997) and that SPPA grazing activities would conservatively account for an estim ated 

$132,647 (0.45% of all agricultural sales and 0.48% of all livestock sales in Sublette County in 

1997). Even given these conservative estimates, the JIDPA and SPPA cumulatively provide less than 

1.0% of all agricultural and livestock sales in Sublette County. 

3.6 RECREATION ECONOMICS 

Recreation information is not collected on a county-wide basis in the three-county study area. 

Recreational activities in Lincoln and Sweetwater Counties are unlikely to be affected by the 

proposed projects. The JIDPA and SPPA lie primarily within the PFO area and project activities 

are not expected to affect recreation on any portion of the RSFO area; therefore, recreation 

economics are evaluated only within the PFO area. 

3.6.1 Nonconsumptive Recreation 

The volume of nonconsumptive recreational use within the region of the projects was taken from 

BLM (2003b). In BLM (2003b), recreational use was estim ated using recreational visitor days 

(RVDs) as a unit of measure (a recreational visitor day is defined as a 12-hour period). The RVDs 

for the planning area (PFO) were estim ated w ith data from BLM' s Recreational Managem ent 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 141 

Information System (RMIS) (BLM 2003b). In this system, the BLM tracks recreational use for 

several areas within Wyoming including the PFO area. Using this data, Table 3.56 was constructed, 

which shows the RVDs per activity for the PFO for a 4-year period from 1998 to 2002. During this 

time, over 300,000 RVDs occurred annually within the PFO area. The most popular recreational 

activities were float or raft trips, fishing, cam ping, and hiking/walking/running. Hunting is 

addressed in separately in Section 3.6.2. 

3.6.2 Hunting 

Hunting is also popular within the PFO area. Much of this activity occurs on BLM-managed lands 

since these lands provide habitat for m any species, including big gam e, small game, and upland 

game birds. Big game hunting was estimated from WGFD data since it regulates the sport and keeps 

data on hunting use by anim al and by area throughout W yoming. Hunting days reported in this 

section are not directly comparable with BLM recreation days, given the differences in estimation 

procedures and the definition of a recreation day. 

BLM (2003b) utilized WGFD's Annual Report of Big Game Harvest (published from 1991 to 2000), 

to estimate the average hunting days by big game species over a 10-year period. The WGFD data 

was adjusted for that analysis by the percentage of acreage within each hunt area contained within 

the PFO area. The adjusted data indicate th at, on an average annual basis, residents and 

nonresidents of Wyoming spend an estim ated 40,000 days hunting in the PFO area (Table 3.57) 

(BLM 2003b). 

Over the same 10-year period, BLM estimated that hunters were primarily from Wyoming in the 

PFO area and accounted for over 80% of the hunting days on average. Elk was the most popular 

species hunted--nearly 23,000 hunting days--followed by mule deer, pronghorn, moose, and then 

bighorn sheep (BLM 2003b). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
142 

1 

Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 3.56 Estimated Annual Recreational Visitor Days, PFO.1 

Activity Annual Recreational Visitor Days Percent of Total Activity 

Archery 760 0.24 

Backpacking 4,118 1.29 

Bicycling–Mountain 5,066 1.58 

Bicycling–Road 16 0.01 

Camping 35,168 10.99 

Climbing–Mountain/Rock 458 0.14 

Driving for Pleasure 4,182 1.31 

Environmental Education 55 0.02 

Fishing 73,227 22.89 

Hiking/Walking/Running 30,581 9.56 

Horseback Riding 732 0.23 

Nature Study 880 0.28 

Off-highway vehicles (OHVs)–All-terrain vehicles (ATVs) 1,268 0.40 

OHVs–Cars/Trucks/Sport Utility Vehicles 155 0.05 

Pack Trips 2,746 0.86 

Photography 880 0.28 

Picnicking 1,366 0.43 

Power Boating 789 0.25 

Row/Float/Raft 138,630 43.32 

Skiing – Cross Country 2,123 0.66 

Snowmobiling 12,368 3.87 

Staging/Comfort Stop 829 0.26 

Swimming/Water Play 854 0.27 

Viewing Wildlife 2,727 0.85 

Total Recreational Visitor Days 319,978 100.00 

From BLM (2003b). Source: Annual average of data collected by RMIS from October 1, 1998-September 30, 2002. 

Table 3.57 BLM-Estimated Big Game Hunter-Days, PFO Area.1 

Big Game Hunter-Days per Year 

Hunter Designation Pronghorn Mule Deer2 Elk Moose Bighorn sheep Hunter-Days 

Residents 1,318 11,414 19,811 539 11 33,093 

Non-Residents 433 3,359 3,142 96 2 7,032 

Total Hunter Days 1,750 14,774 22,953 635 13 40,125 

1 Based on 10-year average. From BLM (2003b). 2 Averages for mule deer are for 2000 only. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 143 

Information concerning wildlife, herd units, and surface ownership in the JIDPA and SPPA are from 

BLM (2004b, 2004c) (Table 3.58). Table 3.59 presents a summary of big game hunting in the herd 

units that m ay potentially be im pacted by th e proposed projects. Four species of big gam e--

pronghorn, mule deer, elk, and moose--occur in hunt units that are on or adjacent to the JIDPA or 

SPPA and all these species are likely to frequent the SPPA (BLM 2004b). Pronghorn are the only 

big game species likely to occur on the JIDPA (BLM 2004c). Bighorn sheep may rarely occur on 

the SPPA. Two trophy game species--black bear and mountain lion--also inhabit the area but are 

not managed for hunting on the JIDPA or SPPA (BLM 2004b, 2004c). WGFD determines range 

classifications for big gam e species. It is in the process of revising big gam e range boundaries 

across the state, but the range designations that have been in place for the last several years are used

 herein. Table 3.60 presents a summary of small game and upland bird hunting in those areas that 

may potentially be impacted by the proposed projects. 

Elk. Elk in the SPPA are part of the 2,587-square mile Piney Herd Unit, which extends from the 

east slope of the Wyoming Range east to Highway 189 and the Green River (BLM 2004b). The 

SPPA is completely encompassed within the Piney Herd Unit. BLM is responsible for management 

of 38% of the surface in the Piney Herd Unit; the U.S. Forest Service is responsible for management 

of 30% of the surface; and the rem aining 32% of the surface is in state and private ownership. 

Approximately 23,000 acres (2.3%) of the Piney Herd Unit have been disturbed by wells, roads, 

towns, etc. 

Table 3.58 Herd Units and Landownership in the PFO Area.1 

Ownership/Management (acres) 

Disturbed within Unit 

Herd Unit Name Total Acres Federal State/Private (acres) 

Piney Elk Herd Unit 1,655,680 1,125,862 529,818 23,000 

Wyoming Range Mule Deer Herd Unit 3,577,600 2,683,200 894,400 61,000 

Sublette Antelope Herd Unit 6,749,440 4,994,586 1,754,854 85,000 

Sublette Moose Herd Unit 3,710,720 2,857,254 853,466 87,000 

BLM (2004b). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 

1 
144 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 3.59 Summary of Hunters and Hunter-Days for Potentially Project-Affected Big Gam e 

Species in the PFO Area, 2002.1 

Wyoming Potentially-Affected Herd Units2 

Hunters per Year3 Hunter-Days per Year3,4 Hunters per Year3 Hunter-Days per Year3,4 

Species5 Total Resident Non-resident Total Resident Non-resident Total Resident Non-resident Total Resident Non-resident 

Antelope 33,569 15,776 17,793 101,989 51,208 50,781 4,382 2,881 1,501 13,490 9,356 4,134 

Mule deer 84,589 52,710 31,879 342,670 213,182 129,488 7,158 5,169 1,989 42,752 29,554 13,198 

Elk 67,828 56,087 11,741 423,409 353,022 70,387 2,536 2,279 257 17,535 15,817 1,718 

Moose 1,350 1,136 214 9,071 7,861 1,210 614 522 92 4,008 3,407 601 

Total4 187,336 125,709 61,627 877,139 625,273 251,866 14,690 10,851 3,839 77,785 58,134 19,651 

1 

2 

WGFD (2002, 2003a). 

The proposed project areas are encompassed within several herd units, including: Sublette Antelope Herd Unit, Wyoming Range Mule Deer 

3 

Herd Unit, Piney Elk Herd Unit, Sublette Moose Herd Unit. 

Calculated from Harvest, Hunting Pressure, Hunter Success By Hunt Area 2002 reports for each species. Totals may not match state-wide 

4 

summary tables. 

WGFD defines a "hunter-day" as any day hunting occurred, regardless of actual time spent hunting. This data is based on licensed hunter survey 

5 

reports. 

Species that may occur infrequently within the JIDPA/SPPA hunt areas that WGFD does not manage for hunting in the project areas include 

bighorn sheep, Rocky Mountain goat, black bear, mountain lion, and bison. 

Table 3.60 Summary of Potentially Project-Affected Small Game and Upland Bird Hunters and 

Hunter-Days in the PFO Area, 2002.1 

Area 72 Area 33 Waterfowl Area 5B2,3 

Total Wyoming (Eden) (Bridger) (Upper Green River Basin) 

Number of Number of Number of Number of 

Hunters per Hunter-Days Hunters per Hunter-Days Hunters per Hunter-Days Hunters per Hunter-Days 

Species Year per Year Year per Year Year per Year Year per Year 

Blue grouse 4,898 21,102 73 476 330 2,432 -- --

Bobcat (trap and rifle) 199 6,956 -- -- 63 1,596 -- --

Chukar 1,369 3,921 6 6 -- -- -- --

Cottontail 5,814 25,566 316 1,981 152 535 -- --

Duck 6,239 44,850 -- -- -- -- 185 839 

Goose 5,708 32,110 -- -- -- -- 99 363 

Gray partridge 1,086 3,807 7 7 -- -- -- --

Mourning dove 2,648 14,470 46 73 -- -- -- --

Pheasant 6,816 28,999 26 20 -- -- -- --

Ruffed grouse 2,175 10,565 106 562 350 2,148 -- --

Greater sage-grouse 2,947 7,164 271 938 231 615 -- --

Sharp-tail grouse 821 3,658 7 7 -- -- -- --

Snowshoe hare 385 1,505 7 7 16 192 -- --

Squirrel 455 1,313 7 13 33 119 -- --

Totals 41,560 205,986 872 4,090 1,175 7,637 284 1,202 

1 WGFD (2003b). 2 Encompasses the JIDPA in its entirety. 3 Encompasses the SPPA in its entirety. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 145 

The JIDPA is not within the W GFD-designated range for this species (BLM 2004c). Therefore, 

recreational activity related to elk is unlikely to occur in the JIDPA. Elk hunting on the JIDPA is 

not addressed further herein. 

Mule Deer. Wyoming Range Mule Deer Herd Unit encompasses 5,590 square miles in portions of 

Sublette, Lincoln, and Sweetwater Counties in western Wyoming, and encompasses the entire SPPA 

(BLM 2004b). BLM is responsible for management of 35% of the surface of the Wyoming Range 

Herd Unit; the USFS is responsible for management of 40% of the surface; and the remaining 25% 

is primarily in state and private ownership. Approximately 61,000 acres (1.7%) of the Wyoming 

Range Herd Unit have been disturbed by wells, roads, towns, etc. 

Mule deer have been observed on the JIDPA; however, no WGFD-designated mule deer range has 

been delineated on the project area. Therefore, recreational activity related to mule deer is unlikely 

to occur in the JIDPA (BLM 2004c). Mule deer hunting on the JIDPA is not addressed further 

herein. 

Pronghorn. The JIDPA and SPPA are entirely encompassed within the Sublette Pronghorn Antelope 

Herd Unit, which occupies approximately 10,546 square miles (BLM 2004b, BLM 2004c). BLM 

is responsible for m anagement of 64% of the surface of the Sublette Herd Unit; the USFS is 

responsible for management of 4% of the surface; 4% is managed by the Bureau of Reclamation; 

and 26% is in state and private ownership. Approximately 85,000 acres (1.3%) of the Sublette Herd 

Unit have been disturbed by wells, roads, towns, etc. 

Moose. Moose in the SPPA are part of the 5,798-square mile Sublette Herd Unit, which extends 

roughly from the Continental Divide west to the Wyoming-Utah state line and from approximately 

Jackson south to the northeastern corner of Lincoln County (BLM 2004b). The SPPA is entirely 

encompassed within the Sublette Herd Unit. BLM is responsible for m anagement of 8% of the 

surface in the Sublette Herd Unit; the USFS is responsible for management of 69% of the surface; 

and the remaining 23% is in state and private ownership. Approximately 87,000 acres (2.3%) of the 

Sublette Herd Unit have been disturbed by wells, roads, towns, etc. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
 

146 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

The JIDPA is not within any W GFD-designated range for this species. Therefore, recreational 

activity related to moose is unlikely to occur in the JIDPA (BLM 2004c). Moose hunting on the 

JIDPA is not addressed further herein. 

Bighorn Sheep. No bighorn sheep herd unit occurs within the JIDPA or SPPA and the project areas 

are not within the WGFD-designated range for this species. However, the eastern boundary of the 

Darby Mountain Herd Unit abuts the western boundary of the SPPA, and bighorn sheep m ay 

occasionally occur in the area. Recreational activity related to bighorn sheep is unlikely to occur 

in the project areas (BLM 2004b, 2004c). Bighorn sheep hunting on the JIDPA and SPPA is not 

addressed further herein. 

Black Bear. Black bear may occur in the vicinity of the SPPA but are unlikely to be hunted in the 

vicinity of the project area; black bear are unlik ely to occur in the vicinity of the JIDPA (BLM 

2004b, 2004c). Therefore, black bear hunting on the areas is not addressed further herein. 

Mountain Lion. Mountain lion may infrequently occur on the SPPA but are unlikely to be hunted 

in the vicinity of the project area (BLM 2004b). Mountain lion do not occur on the JIDPA (BLM 

2004a). Therefore, mountain lion hunting on the JIDPA and SPPA is not addressed further herein. 

Furbearers, Small Game, Upland Birds, and W aterfowl. Furbearers are likely occur within the 

JIDPA and SPPA. Weasel, badger, skunk, coyote, red fox, and bobcat are likely to occur and may 

be hunted/trapped in the vicinity of the project areas. However, the WGFD has not collected hunter 

expenditure information for these species (WGFD 2003d); therefore, they are not addressed further 

herein. 

The JIDPA lies entirely within Small Game Management Area 7 (WGFD 2003b); however, due to 

habitat limitations, only greater sage-grouse and desert cottontail are likely to occur and be hunted 

on the JIDPA. The SPPA is within Management Area 4 for bobcats and Management Area 3 for 

other furbearers and the SPPA is within Management Area 3 for small game (WGFD 2003b). Blue 

grouse, bobcat, cottontail, ruffed grouse, greater sage-grouse, snowshoe hare, and squirrel may occur 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 147 

in the vicinity of the project area and may be hunted on the SPPA. The WGFD has not collected 

hunter expenditure inform ation for all sm all game species that m ay potentially occur and m ay 

occasionally be hunted and trapped on th e JIDPA and SPPA (W GFD 2003d); therefore, im pact 

analysis is provided only for cottontail and greater sage-grouse. 

Waterfowl Area 5B encompasses the JIDPA and SPPA, and duck and goose may be hunted in the 

vicinity of the project areas (BLM 2004b, 2004c). The WGFD has not collected hunter expenditure 

information for the waterfowl species that may potentially occur and may occasionally be hunted 

on the JIDPA and SPPA (WGFD 2003d); therefore, these species are not addressed further herein. 

3.6.3 Value of Recreational Use 

Recreational activities (nonconsumptive and hunting) have important economic value both in terms 

of the satisfaction provided to local residents and visitors and the economic activity it generates for 

the regional economy. Recreation generates additional spending in the local economy that supports 

jobs and income. Economic stimuli occur as non-residents visit the area and spend money in the 

local economy, which in turn generates additional spending by local residents. It is assumed that 

if local residents were not participating in recreation, they probably would have spent their money 

on something else in the region' s economy. Thus, expenditures by local residents are seen as a 

shifting of dollars from one sector to another within the local econom y and not a net gain to the 

region. However, dollars that remain within the community when local residents have satisfactory 

recreational opportunities are important. Keeping dollars within the local economy helps maintain 

jobs, thus reducing employment and income fluctuations that may result if those dollars became an 

outflow from (i.e., are spent outside) the local economy. Outdoor recreation in general is important 

to the region both in term s of satisfaction to residents and econom ic stimulus for the regional 

economy. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
148 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

3.6.3.1 Value of Nonconsumptive Recreation 

The value of recreation was estimated using the methods developed for the SWREE (UWAED 1997) 

and JMHCAP (UW AED 2003; BLM 2003a). Nonconsumptive recreation was derived from 

UWAED (1997), and is presented in year 2000 dollars adjusted for inflation. The estimated per day 

value of recreation in the PFO is summarized in Table 3.61. 

3.6.3.2 Value of Hunting 

The method used to determine the value of hunting is based that used by UWAED (1997) updated 

with 2002 hunting and hunter expenditure data from WGFD (2003a, 2003b, 2003c), and is presented 

in year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. The JIDPA and SPPA are fully encom passed by the 

Sublette Antelope Herd Unit, Wyoming Range Mule Deer Herd Unit, and Piney Elk Herd Unit, and 

for the purposes of this report, each species that occurs within a potentially affected herd unit in the 

study area will be assum ed to be evenly hunted across the herd unit because it is not possible to 

derive from existing data exactly where any individual hunts. This method results in a conservative 

overestimate of the value of hunting in a particular area because in actual practice, hunting liekly 

does not occur evenly across all areas of a hunt unit. The value of hunting for each species managed 

for hunting and potentially occurring on the proposed project areas is presented in Table 3.62. 

Species that may occur infrequently within the hunt areas encompassing the JIDPA and SPPA or 

that WGFD does not manage for hunting in the project areas are not analyzed herein (BLM 2004b, 

2004c). 

The value per hunter-day was established by dividing the total estim ated hunter expenditures per 

species by total hunter-days (Table 3.62). The total value of hunter expenditures attributable to the 

potentially affected herd units was determined for each species by multiplying the hunter days for 

each species in the potentially affected hunt areas by the value per hunter day for that species. 

According to WGFD (2003a, 2003b, 2003c), the percentage of hunter expenditures contributed to 

all hunter expenditures in W yoming by each species in the potentially affected hunt areas were 

antelope (13.2%), mule deer (12.5%), elk (4.1%), moose (44.2%), cottontail (9.8%), and greater 

sage-grouse (21.7%). The potentially affected hunting areas contributed 10.0% of all hunting 

expenditures in Wyoming. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
149 

1 

Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 3.61 Value of Recreation, PFO Area, 1997.1 

Recreation Activity Value per Visitor-Day ($) 

General recreation 10.18 

Developed camping 15.73 

Primitive camping 19.85 

Day hiking 33.01 

Picnicking 14.32 

Sightseeing 16.68 

Gathering forest products 15.17 

Wilderness recreation 14.45 

Big game hunting 77.25 

Trout fishing 30.04 

Wildlife watching 30.04 

Snowmobiling 51.50 

Average value per visitor day 27.35 

In Year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. Source: UWAED (1997). Categories defined by this source vary from RMIS categories; therefore, 

some differences may exist in actual value per visitor day. 

Table 3.62 Value of Hunting of Species Potentially Occurring on the Project Area, W yoming 

and Study Area, 2002. 

Wyoming Attributable to Potentially Affected Hunt Areas 

Species5 Total 

Hunter-Days1,2 

Resident Non-resident 

Hunter 

Expenditures3 

($) 

Average Value/ 

Hunter Day 

($) Total 

Hunter-Days4 

Resident Non-resident 

Hunter Expenditures ($) 

Total Resident Non-resident 

Antelope 101,989 51,208 50,781 38,888,895 381.30 13,490 9,356 4,134 5,143,737 3,567,443 1,576,294 

Mule Deer 342,670 213,182 129,488 113,662,555 331.70 42,752 29,554 13,198 14,180,838 9,803,062 4,377,777 

Elk 423,409 353,022 70,387 79,984,175 188.91 17,535 15,817 1,718 3,312,537 2,987,989 324,547 

Moose 9,071 7,861 1,210 1,788,620 197.18 4,008 3,407 601 790,297 671,882 118,416 

Cottontail6 25,566 NA NA 4,424,464 173.06 2,516 NA NA 435,419 -- --

Greater 

sage-grouse6 

7,164 NA NA 933,437 130.30 1,553 NA NA 202,356 -- --

Total 877,139 625,273 251,866 239,682,147 273.25 81,854 NA NA 24,065,185 -- --

1 WGFD (2003a, 2003b). Calculated from Harvest, Hunting Pressure, Hunter Success By Hunt Area 2002 reports for each species. Totals may 

not match state-wide summary tables or WGFD (2003c). 2 WGFD defines a "hunter-day" as any day hunting occurred, regardless of actual time spent hunting. This data is based on licensed hunter survey 

reports. 3 WGFD (2003c). In year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. WGFD does not distinguish between resident and non-resident expenditures. 4 Refer to Tables 3.59 and 3.60. 5 Species that may occur infrequently within the affected areas that WGFD does not manage for hunting in the project areas may include bighorn 

sheep, Rocky Mountain goat, black bear, and mountain lion (BLM 2004b, 2004c). 6 WGFD does not separate resident and non-resident hunter days for small and upland game. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
150 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

The value attributable to each project area was determined by multiplying the percent of the herd 

unit occurring on the project area (Table 3.63) by the number of hunter-days for the entire herd unit. 

That number was multiplied by the average value/hunter-day for a particular species to arrive at the 

potential value of hunting for a particular species likely to be hunted on each project area. The value 

was not calculated for species unlikely to occur or to be hunted on the project areas. 

JIDPA Hunting Value 

Because elk, mule deer, and moose are unlikely to occur on the JIDPA, there is no value attributable 

to the project area for those species. Antelope occur on the JIDPA, and an estimated 61.0 hunter 

days (0.4% of the Sublette Antelope Herd Unit hunter days) are attributed to the JIDPA. At a value 

of approximately $381.30/hunter day, approximately $23,244 of hunter expenditures for antelope 

annually is attributable to hunting on the JIDPA. Approximately 1.0% of hunting in Small Game 

Management Area 7 for cottontail and greater sage-grouse each are attributable to hunting on the 

JIDPA. Cottontail account for 26.4 hunter days for a value of approximately $4,569.84 of hunter 

expenditures attributable to annual cottontail hunting on the JIDPA. Greater sage-grouse account 

for 16.3 hunter days for a value of approximately $2,123.78 of hunter expenditures attributable to 

greater sage-grouse hunting annually on the JIDPA. 

SPPA Hunting Value 

Elk are likely to occur on the SPPA, and an estim ated 330.8 hunter days (1.9% of the Piney Elk 

Herd Unit hunter days) are attributable to the SPPA. At a value of approximately $188.91/hunter 

day, approximately $62,484 of hunter expenditures for elk annually is attributable to hunting on the 

SPPA. Mule deer are likely to occur on the SPPA, and an estimated 373.2 hunter days (0.9% of the 

Wyoming Range Mule Deer Herd Unit hunter days) are attributable to the SPPA. At a value of 

approximately $331.70/hunter day, approximately $123,793 of hunter expenditures for mule deer 

annually is attributable to hunting on the SPPA. Antelope are likely to occur on the SPPA, and an 

estimated 62.4 hunter days (0.5% of the Sublette Antelope Herd Unit hunter days) are attributable 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 151 

Table 3.63 Contribution of JIDPA and SPPA to Hunting Revenues.1 

Annual Value 

Attributable to 

Hunter-Days Average Value/ Project Hunting on Project 

Attributable Hunter-Day Area % Acres of Unit Hunter-Days in Area 

Species Herd Unit Name Total Acres to Unit ($) (acres) in Project Area Project Area ($) 

JIDPA 

Elk --

2 n/a3 n/a3 n/a3 02 -- -- --

Mule deer --

2 n/a3 n/a3 n/a3 02 -- -- --

Antelope Sublette Antelope 6,749,440 13,490 381.30 30,500 0.5% 61.0 23,244.00 

Herd Unit 

Moose --

2 n/a3 n/a3 n/a3 02 -- -- --

Cottontail Small Game 2,906,068 2,516 173.06 30,500 1.0% 26.4 4,569.84 

Management Area 7 

Greater Small Game 2,906,068 1,553 130.30 30,500 1.0% 16.3 2,123.78 

sage-grouse Management Area 7 

Total -- n/a3 n/a3 n/a3 n/a3 n/a 103.7 29,937.63 

SPPA 

Elk Piney Elk Herd Unit 1,655,680 17,535 188.91 31,231 1.9% 330.8 62,484.20 

Mule deer Wyoming Range Mule 

Deer Herd Unit 

3,577,600 42,752 331.70 31,231 0.9% 373.2 123,792.98 

Antelope Sublette Antelope 

Herd Unit 

6,749,440 13,490 381.30 31,231 0.5% 62.4 23,801.09 

Moose Sublette Moose Herd 

Unit 

3,710,720 4,008 197.18 31,231 0.8% 33.7 6,651.48 

Cottontail Small game 

management area 7 

2906068 2,516 173.06 31,231 1.1% 27.0 4,679.37 

Greater 

sage-grouse 

Small game 

management area 7 

2906068 1,553 130.30 31,231 1.1% 16.7 2,174.68 

Total -- n/a3 n/a3 n/a3 n/a3 n/a3 843.9 223,583.81 

1 In year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 2 This species not likely to be hunted on project area. 3 n/a = column is not additive. 

to the SPPA. At a value of approximately $381.30/hunter day, approximately $23,801.09 of hunter 

expenditures for antelope annually is attributable to hunting on the SPPA. Moose are likely to occur 

on the SPPA, and an estimated 33.7 hunter days (0.8% of the Sublette Moose Herd Unit hunter days) 

are attributable to the SPPA. At a value of approximately $197.18/hunter day, approximately $6,651 

of hunter expenditures for moose annually is attributable to hunting on the SPPA. Approximately 

1.1% of hunting in small game management area 7 for cottontail and greater sage-grouse each are 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
152 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

attributable to hunting on the SPPA. Cottontail account for 27.0 hunter days for a value of 

approximately $4,679 of hunter expenditures is attributable to cottontail hunting on the SPPA. 

Greater sage-grouse account for 16.7 hunter days for a value of approxim ately $2,175 of hunter 

expenditures is attributable to greater sage-grouse hunting annually on the SPPA. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 153 

4.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS 

4.1 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OVERVIEW 

Regional economic activity is little influenced by political boundaries. Typically, it is difficult 

to describe anything sm aller than a c ounty, and m ore often a group of counties or a 

metropolitan area, as constituting a functioning economy. 

The economic study area for this analysis includes the counties and communities most likely 

to be affected, including LaBarge in Lincoln County; Pinedale, Big Piney, Marbleton, and 

Boulder in Sublette County; and Eden, Farson, and Rock Springs in Sweetwater County. 

An area's economic base is comprised of industries that are primarily responsible for bringing 

outside incom e into the local econom y. These industries typically export their goods and 

services outside the region and in turn support ancillary industries such as retail trade, housing 

construction, and personal services within the region. The location of important industries in 

certain areas has traditionally been tied to such factors as natural resource base, cost factors 

(transportation and labor), and existing transportation infrastructure. However, technology has 

affected these location factors. 

Existing docum ents and docum ents in preparation that were utilized to estim ate potential and 

cumulative economic impacts for the study area included the following reports: 

• SWREE (UWAED 1997); 

• the economic effect analysis developed for the JMHCAP (UWAED 2003); 

• the JMHCAP Draft EIS (BLM 2003a); 

• BLM's Socioeconomic Profile-Pinedale (BLM 2003b); 

• the economic impact analysis currently being prepared for the PFO RMP (UWAED

 [2004]); 

• BLM's reasonable foreseeable development information; and 

• the existing county planning documents (SCBC and SCPC 2003). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
154 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Additional information was obtained from BLM and Operators as necessary. 

4.1.1 Methods of Economic Analysis 

4.1.1.1 Time Series and Cross-Sectional Analysis 

In econom ic analysis, the two m ost com monly used tools are time series analysis and 

cross-sectional comparisons. Time series analysis, as the name implies, involves plotting data 

trends over time for one or more geographic areas or other units (e.g., industries) of analysis. 

Options for the nature of this analysis include nom inal data (i.e., the actual num bers), 

percentage change over time from some base year (e.g., where the base year figure is converted 

to 100), and the ratio between two figures (e.g., a state’s per capita income as a percentage of 

the national figure). Time series analysis provides the basis for understanding how an economy 

is evolving over time, and in relation to other areas. While time series tracks trends over time, 

cross-sectional analysis examines the distribution of one variable in relation to other variables 

at one point in time. Typical visual tools include bar graphs and pie charts. Examples of crosssectional analysis include the distribution of jobs by industry, of population by race, and of 

income by source. Cross-sectional analysis allows an understanding of the economic structure. 

4.1.1.2 Location Quotient 

Location quotients are used to measure the extent to which the contribution of one subgroup 

of economic factors (e.g., an industry, occupational group) to a regional economy is greater or 

lesser than the contribution of that subgroup to a larger, reference economy (usually, the U.S.). 

For instance, if the m anufacturing sector provided 18% of all jobs in a region, and the U.S. 

figure was 15%, the location quotient would be 1.2 (i.e., 18/15). When used to m easure 

industry concentration, a location quotient is taken as a rough indicator of a region’s 

competitiveness in that industry. The higher the location quotient, the greater the competitive 

advantage a region appears to have. Plotting location quotients over time for key industries in 

an economic base is one visual way to gauge changes in relative competitiveness. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 155 

However, the location quotient can be spurious. For exam ple, if a region suffers a m ajor job 

loss with the closure of a large employer that is not replaced, other economic base industries’ 

share of total jobs (and their location quotients) would rise even if their employment is stable, 

because the total number of jobs (the denominator) has fallen. In this case, an apparent increase 

in competitiveness is in fact illusory. 

To assess the im portance of m ajor industries as a basic industry, BLM calculated location 

quotients on nine major industries as listed in Table 4.1 (BLM 2003a). A location quotient was 

calculated for both employment and income and compares each industry’s share of total local 

employment or income (PFO area) to the industry’s state or national share. This quotient yields 

a value generally between 0 and 2, where 1 indicates an equal share percentage between the 

local and state or national econom ies. Location quotients greater than 2 indicate a strong 

industry concentration while those less than 0.50 indicate a weak concentration. Table 4.1 

indicates the PFO area mirrors the state’s economy as a whole in many ways. However, there 

are industries that show a stronger concentration in the area compared to the state’s economy, 

including mining, manufacturing, and transportation and utilities. 

Two industries that are weak in this area compared with the state are services and FIRE. When 

compared to the national econom y, mining (includes oil and gas) shows an extrem ely high 

concentration in both em ployment and earnings. This is true for the earnings in the 

transportation and utilities sector as well. Alternatively, earnings for farm and agriculture 

services, manufacturing, trade, and FIRE for the area show a weak concentration compared to 

the national economy. 

4.1.1.3 Shift-Share Analysis 

Shift-share analysis is a means of attributing change in a region’s economy (e.g., change in jobs 

or earnings) to various factors--change in the nation’s economy, the particular industry mix in 

the region, and the com petitiveness of the region’s econom ic base industries com pared to 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
156 

1 

Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 4.1 Location Quotients, 2000.1 

Location Quotient 

Employment Earnings 

Industry Wyoming U.S. Wyoming U.S. 

Farm and Agricultural Services 1.12 1.53 0.43 0.23 

Mining 2.22 26.20 2.09 182.63 

Construction 1.17 1.53 0.99 1.80 

Manufacturing 1.79 0.66 1.78 0.27 

Transportation and Utilities 1.54 1.68 1.21 12.55 

Trade 0.96 0.95 0.78 0.31 

FIRE 0.76 0.65 0.59 0.38 

Services 0.74 0.60 0.60 3.86 

Government 0.90 1.30 0.71 1.53 

Source: BLM (2003a). 

similar industries elsewhere. Shift-share analysis is complex and if insufficient data exists for 

particular economic factors, the analysis is meaningless. 

4.1.1.4 Economic Modeling 

Modeling encompasses a variety of analytic approaches, such as input-output analysis and 

economic simulation, that forecast how an economy would behave under certain circumstances. 

These circumstances may be a specific event in the regional economy (e.g., opening of a new 

mill, closure of an old one, building of a convention center), a particular type of policy 

intervention (e.g., change in the property tax rate), or macroeconomic in nature (e.g., shift in 

the prime rate). 

Economic impact analysis is defined as an assessment of change in overall economic activity 

as a result of some change in one or several economic activities. It involves applying a final 

demand change to a predictive I/O model, then analyzing the resulting changes in the economy.

 This study primarily utilizes I/O analysis performed by the UWAED. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 157 

4.2 IMPLAN MODELING SYSTEM 

IMPLAN (IMpact Analysis for PLANning) was originally developed by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS) in cooperation with the Federal Em ergency Managem ent 

Agency and the BLM to assist in land and resource m anagement planning (Minnesota IMPLAN 

Group, Inc. 2000). IMPLAN provides estimates of the additional economic activity associated 

with sales of goods or services. This methodology has been packaged, along with the necessary 

data files, as IMPLAN  Pro by the Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. (MIG) of Stillwater, 

Minnesota, and is the basis for the analysis in this report. Som e of the conventions used by 

IMPLAN are discussed below. 

4.2.1 Database Components 

The IMPLAN databases consist of two m ajor parts: 1) national-level matrices and tables and 

2) economic and physical data at the county and/or state level. The national matrices are combined 

with regional data to create a regional model which can be edited to reflect local conditions. For this 

analysis, UWAED used updated calibrated county-specific data to more accurately reflect activities 

in the study area. 

The IMPLAN data is divided into four main categories: 

1. industry output, 

2. employment, 

3. value added (includes employee compensation), and 

4. final demands. 

Industry output represents the dollar value of an industry’s total production. The data is derived from 

a number of sources including U.S. Census Bureau economic censuses and the BLS employment 

projections. 

Employment is listed as a single number of jobs for each industry. The data is derived from ES202 

employment security data supplem ented by county business patterns and Regional Econom ic 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
158 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Information System (REIS) data. All IMPLAN databases (after 1985) include both full-time and 

part-time workers in employment estimates. 

Value added includes employee compensation, proprietor income, other property type income, and 

indirect business taxes. Employee compensation includes the total payroll costs (including benefits) 

of each industry in the region. Proprietary income consists of payments received by self-employed 

individuals (includes private business owners, doctors, and lawyers). Other property type income 

consists of payments from rents, royalties, dividends, and interest. Indirect business taxes consist 

primarily of excise and sales taxes paid by individuals to businesses. 

Final demands are the dollar value of goods and services purchased by consumers and institutions 

(federal, state, and local government). Personal consumption expenditures are the largest component 

of final demand, and consists of paym ents by individuals/households to industries for goods and 

services used for personal consum ption. IMPLAN final dem ands are m easured in term s of 

producer prices. 

4.2.2 Multipliers 

Each industry that produces goods and services generates dem ands for other goods and services.

 Other producers, in turn, purchase goods and services. These indirect purchases (indirect effects) 

continue until "leakage" from the region (im ports, wages, profits, etc.) stop the cycle. These 

iterations are described by multipliers. 

Each of these multiplier types can be calculated for output, employment, and income (value added). 

Output multipliers are derived by dividing the total (direct, indirect, and induced) output effects by 

the direct output. An output m ultiplier provides an indicator of the total output created (direct, 

indirect, and induced) for each dollar of direct output. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 159 

Income multipliers (or any of the value added components) are derived by dividing the total (direct, 

indirect, and induced) incom e effects by the direct incom e. An income multiplier provides an 

indicator of the total income created (direct, indirect, and induced) for each dollar of direct income. 

Employment m ultipliers are created in the sam e m anner as the incom e m ultiplier, but using 

employment rather than income. An employment multiplier provides an indicator of the total jobs 

(direct, indirect, and induced) for each direct job. 

4.2.3 Key Assumptions 

IMPLAN bases I/O modeling on several assumptions (MIG 2000). 

• Constant returns to scale. Production functions are considered linear; if additional output 

is required, all inputs increase proportionately. 

• No supply constraints. An industry has unlimited access to raw materials and its output is 

limited only by the demand for its products. 

• Fixed commodity input structure. Assumes that price changes will not cause a firm to buy 

substitute goods. This structure assum es that changes in the econom y will affect the 

industry's output, but not the m ix of com modities and services it requires to m ake its 

product. 

• Homogenous sector output . The proportions of all the com modities produced by the 

industry remain the same, regardless of total output (i.e., an industry will not increase the 

output of one product without proportionately increasing the output of all its other 

products). 

• Industry technology. An industry uses the same technology to produce all its products (i.e., 

an industry has a prim ary or m ain product and all other products are byproducts of the 

primary product). 

4.2.4 Wyoming Data and Analysis Conventions 

This analysis makes use of a data set representing Wyoming for the Year 2000. All impact amounts 

expressed in 2000 dollars were adjusted to 2002 dollars using IMPLAN deflators based on the BLS's 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
160 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

CPI. Through IMPLAN, direct em ployment from the m odel was used to estim ate all of the 

associated indirect and induced effects. 

4.3 IMPACT ANALYSIS 

Project-specific economic activity analyses were prepared using the m ethods developed for the 

SWREE (UWAED 1997) and the economic effect analysis developed for the JMHCAP (UWAED 

2003; BLM 2003a). Additional inform ation was obtained from the Operators, BLM, BLM' s 

pertinent reasonable foreseeable development documents, Wyoming Agricultural Statistics, WGFD,

 or other sources as necessary. 

The economic impacts of the JIDP and SPP and alternatives on the econom ic study area were 

analyzed using IMPLAN as directed by BLM (personal communication, October 14 and 17, 2003, 

with Roy Allen, Econom ist, BLM Wyoming State Office). IMPLAN I/O modeling provides a 

mathematical accounting of the flow of dollars and commodities through a region's economy. These 

types of models provide estimates of how a given amount of a particular economic activity translates 

into jobs and income in a region. This I/O analysis used coefficients specifically calibrated by the 

UWAED for the study area. The coefficients were developed as part of the SW REE from a 

combination of primary and secondary data specific to the region. The calibrated county-specific 

coefficients have been updated for Lincoln, Sublette, and Sweetwater Counties for the new Pinedale 

RMP (UWAED 2004; BLM 2004a). The Year 2000 was used as the base year for this analysis. 

TRC Mariah, in consultation with the Operators, BLM, and UW AED, developed estim ates of 

physical outputs for selected commodities associated with the various alternatives and determined 

the appropriate values for these com modities. UWAED then used the output and value data in 

IMPLAN to estimate the economic impacts of the projects on the economic study area. 

The economic analysis for the projects focused on three types of commodities, including natural gas, 

cattle grazing, and recreation activities (nonconsum ptive and hunting). The I/O m odels used 

county-specific calibrated coefficients updated from the model developed for the SWREE (UWAED 

1997) and JMHCAP (UW AED 2003; BLM 2003a). The m odel used 2000 data for Lincoln, 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 161 

Sublette, and Sweetwater Counties, and provides a reasonable estim ate of the structure of the 

economy for the study area. The I/O m odel estimated aggregate changes in em ployment and 

earnings across all counties; however, it is not possible to estimate where these impacts will occur 

within each of the counties. Some secondary and induced impacts may occur outside the study area 

in the state, region, or nation. 

Prior to m odeling, input data was adjusted for inflation and converted to 2000 dollars. After 

modeling, impact dollar values were discounted using a 3.25% real discount rate as recommended 

by the OMB (2004). The OMB recommended using a real discount rate of 3.25% for constant-dollar 

benefit-cost analysis to approximate the marginal pretax rate of return on an average investment in 

the private sector in recent years (BLM 2003a). 

The I/O model required a series of inputs and assumptions specific to the study area. Assumptions 

included the value of production resulting from land uses within the JIDPA and SPPA under each 

alternative (see Sections 3.5 and 3.6). BLM staff and cooperating agencies provided information 

on current project area uses and how those uses may change under each alternative. This provided 

a physical quantitative measure of inputs necessary for the economic impact analysis (e.g., number 

of gas wells, AUMs, RVDs). 

Estimates of inputs, including prices, were used to evaluate the potential sales from uses of the 

JIDPA and SPPA under each alternative. This is the direct sales estimate that serves as the input 

into the I/O model to obtain an estimate of total economic impact for each alternative (changes in 

direct and indirect income and employment). 

The economic impact analysis for the No Action Alternatives was the first m odel prepared to 

provide a baseline for the alternatives analysis. It contains a discussion of impacts that were used 

for comparison with other alternatives. Where impacts are the same among alternatives, reference 

was made to those alternatives so that impact discussions are not repeated. Cumulative impacts for 

the Proposed Actions and each alternative are discussed and include the social and econom ic 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
162 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

impacts of the Proposed Actions and alternatives in combination with other proposed, existing, or 

reasonable foreseeable developments. 

The SPP analysis was based on a 20-year developm ent horizon (2004-2024) and a 47-year 

production horizon (2004-2051), with year 2000 being used as the base year. Cumulative economic 

effects are expressed as both short-term (2004-2013) and long-term (2014-2051). 

The JIDP analysis was based on a 3- to 42-year (2004-2046) developm ent horizon and a 43- to 

85-year (2004-2089) production horizon, with year 2000 being used as the base year. Cumulative 

effects are expressed both as short-term (2004-2013) and long-term (2014-2089). It was assumed 

for the purposes of analysis that production from all wells would follow an average decline curve 

(see Chapter 5) over a 40-year life of well base d on actual Jonah Field production inform ation 

provided by Operators. It was assum ed that 4.2% of production would be derived from state 

minerals (to calculate severance taxes) and 95.8% of production would be derived from federal 

minerals (to calculate federal royalties). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 163 

5.0 JONAH INFILL DRILLING PROJECT

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

EnCana Oil and Gas (USA), Inc. [EnCana], BP America Production Company, and other companies 

(collectively referred to as "Operators") propose to expand existing Jonah Field natural gas drilling 

and development operations in south-central Sublette County approxim ately 32 m i southeast of 

Pinedale, 28 m i northwest of Farson, and 1.5 to 11 m i west of U.S. Highway 191. Expanded 

development is proposed in portions of Townships (T) 28 and 29 North (N), Range (R) 107, 108, 

and 109 West (W). The proposed project is described in detail in BLM (2004c). 

5.1 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS 

The Proposed Action, No Action, and seven alternative actions are evaluated in this document: 

• the No Action Alternative (assum es production only from 533 existing wells on 

497 well pads), 

• the Proposed Action (assum es up to 3,100 new wells [2,825 conventional, 

275 directional] on up to 16,200 acres new disturbance); 

• Alternative A (maximum recovery) (assumes up to 3,100 new [all conventional] from 

3,100 new well pads); 

• Alternative B (assum es up to 3,100 new wells [all directional] from the existing 

497 well pads); 

• Alternative C (assumes up to 1,250 new [975 conventional, 275 directional] wells 

from a maximum of 1,250 new well pads); 

• Alternative D (assumes up to 2,200 new [1,925 conventional, 275 directional] wells 

from a maximum of 2,200 new well pads, respectively); 

• Alternative E (assumes up to 3,100 new [266 conventional, 2,834 directional] wells 

on up to 266 new well pads); 

• Alternative F (assumes up to 3,100 new [1,028 conventional, 2,072 directional] wells 

on up to 1,028 new well pads); 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
164 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

• Alternative G (assumes up to 3,100 new [2,553 conventional, 547 directional] wells 

on up to 2,553 new well pads); and 

• Preferred Alternative (approximately the same as Alternative G). 

A detailed description of the Proposed Action and alternatives is provided in BLM (2004c). 

The PFO and RSFO RMP RODs (BLM 1988b, 1997, 2004a) and land use plans for both the 

state (W SLUC 1979) and local areas (SCBC and SCPC 2003) identify the following 

management objectives associated with socioeconomics: 

• to coordinate land use decisions with economic factors and needs; 

• to mitigate economic, social, and environmental impacts on communities caused 

by rapid or large-scale growth and development; 

• to plan for the provision of public facilities and services, including safe and 

efficient transportation and utility systems, in coordination with local land use 

policies, goals, and objectives; and 

• to provide adequate, suitable land to meet housing needs of all residents. 

BLM (2004a) criteria stipulate that impacts to socioeconomic resources would be considered 

potentially significant if any of the following were to occur: 

• changes in total em ployment in Lincoln, Sublette, and Sweetwater Counties 

exceed an increase or decrease of 1% of the trend or 

• changes in local tax revenues exceed an increase or decrease of 15% of the trend. 

The SCBC and SCPC (2003) emphasize the following values specific to the social traditions and 

socioeconomic base of Sublette County. 

• Sublette County’s unique local culture should be preserved and enriched, a 

culture characterized by a rural W yoming flavor, a thriving private business 

community, an atm osphere friendly to working fam ilies, and the security of 

friendly crime-free communities. 

• There should be an abundance of economic freedom and diverse opportunities 

for residents old and new to pursue prosperity and happiness--complemented and 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 165 

sustained by a business-friendly atmosphere, reasonable taxation, a low cost of 

living, limited regulation, wise development of its natural resources, and a strong 

tradition of a good work ethic. 

BLM defines a significant change as any change that would result in a 15% or greater change of any 

affected factor. The following analyses show that the Proposed Action and alternatives are 

compatible with BLM m anagement objectives. Socioeconomic impacts are anticipated as a 

result of increased local taxes and revenues. Under the No Action Alternative, the effects of 

increased em ployment, econom ic activity, and substantial federal, state, local, and county 

revenues would not occur; therefore, this alternative would not be in accord with BLM, state, 

and local land use plans. Cumulative impacts are likely to have some economic and social in 

the CIAA. 

Depending upon the number of wells authorized (1,250, 2,200, or 3,100) and the number of wells 

developed per year (75, 150, or 250), project construction, drilling, com pletion, and production 

would require from 43 to 82 years to complete (the LOP). The fewer the number of wells and/or 

the faster the pace of development, the shorter the LOP. The estimated number of years to complete 

the project under each alternative is shown in Table 5.1. Production for the LOP could range from 

3,366 billion cubic feet (BCF) under the No Action Alternative (no new development) to 8,191 BCF 

under the Alternative A (3,100 new wells and new well pads). The anticipated gas and condensate 

recovery volumes are shown in Table 5.2. 

The economic impact of the Proposed Action, alternatives, and cumulative actions on the study-area 

economy were analyzed in two phases using the m ethods developed for the SW REE (UWAED 

1997) and JMHCAP (UW AED 2003; BLM 2003a). Phase I was the developm ent phase, which 

considered the economic impacts associated with drilling and completion of infill wells. Due to the 

large price fluctuations in natural gas, the economic impacts of production were estimated based on 

cost of production rather than total output. Phase II considered the economic impact of natural gas 

and condensate production as a result of the production from the wells completed under Phase I. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
166 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 5.1 Estimated Years to Complete Project, All Alternatives.1 

Alternative A 

Proposed (Maximum Alternative 

Wells No Action Action Recovery) Alternative B Alternative Alternative E F 3,100 Alternative G 

Completed/ Alternativ 3,100 Wells/ 3,100 Wells/ 3,100 Wells/ Alternative C D 3,100 Wells/ Wells/ 1,028 3,100 Wells/ 

Year e 2,825 Pads 3,100 Pads No New Pads 1,250 Wells 2,200 Wells 266 Pads Pads 2,553 Pads 

75 NA 42.02 42.0 42.0 17.0 30.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 

150 NA 21.02 21.0 21.0 9.0 15.0 21.0 21.0 21.0 

250 NA 12.5 12.5 12.5 5.0 9.0 12.5 12.5 12.5 

1 Well production operations will continue for an estimate of 40 years post-development; therefore, the estimated LOP is from 43 to 85 years 

(includes final reclamation). 2 Operators propose a 250 well/year development rate; however, BLM may require alternate development rates of 75 or 150 wells/year. 

Table 5.2 Anticipated Gas and Condensate Recovery Volum es for Each Alternative, Jonah 

Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.1 

Alternative 

Approximate Natural Gas Recovered 

(billion cubic feet [BCF])2 

Approximate Condensate (Oil) Recovered2 

(millions of barrels) 

No Action 3,366 31.98 

Proposed Action3 7,947 75.50 

Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) 8,191 77.81 

Alternative B3 6,124 58.18 

Alternative C 6,657 63.24 

Alternative D 7,554 71.76 

Alternative E3 6,302 59.87 

Alternative F3 7,186 68.27 

Alternative G3 7,876 74.82 

1 Data provided by EnCana. 2 Assumes 10,500 BCF of gas in place; 1 BCF corresponds to the annual use by approximately 13,700 residences (EIA 2004). Typical gas field 

recoveries range from 75%-85% of gas in place. 3 Assumes 10% of directional wells do not reach total depth and 1,000 ft of form ation cannot be developed. Does not fully account for 

losses/unrecovered resources associated with undeveloped wells (assumed uneconomic). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 167 

In the long-term, all alternatives would likely result in economic impacts; however, population is 

not likely to be affected over the life of project (LOP), although there m ay be short-term 

(development phase) population im pacts as a resu lt of cum ulative im pacts from in-m igration 

associated with this project in combination with other regional projects (e.g., Pinedale Anticline). 

Secondary em ployment AJEs m ay occur locally [i.e., within the study area], but would be 

distributed across the state, region, and nation, depending on the patterns of production and 

distribution associated with the secondary activity. 

5.2 ASSUMPTIONS 

5.2.1 Labor 

The estimated direct-hire labor force is presented in Table 5.3. An estimated 7,011-16,863 workeryears of direct employment would be provided by the proposed project during the LOP. 

5.2.2 Natural Gas Drilling and Completion Assumptions 

For this analysis, it was assumed that all wells would be drilled and completed and there would be 

no dry holes. 

The cost of drilling, completing, and setting production equipment is shown in Table 5.4. The total 

estimated cost to drill and complete a conventional well in the JIDPA is $2,186,684. Directional 

drilling adds an estimated $243,610 to the cost of drilling and completion; thus, the total estimated 

cost to drill and complete a directionally drilled well in the JIDPA is $2,430,294. 

5.2.3 Natural Gas Production Assumptions 

Natural gas economic activity will depend upon three primary authorizations: 1) total number of 

wells authorized, 2) total number of pads on which wells can be placed, and 3) rate of development. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

168 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 5.3 Estimated Work Force Requirements, All Alternatives, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.1 

Employment Category 

Worker-Days 

per Well 

Worker-Years for 

1,250 Wells2 

Worker-Years for 

2,200 Wells2 

Worker-Years for 

3,100 Wells2 

Well Construction and Development 

Well pad and Access Road Construction (4 days x 4 16 77 136 191 

workers) 

Rig Transportation/Setup (5 days x 15 workers) 75 361 635 895 

Drilling3

 (Straight Hole) (22 days x 11 workers x 2 528 2,539 4,468 6,296 

shifts) 

Completion Testing (17 days x 11 workers) 187 900 1,583 2,230 

Pipeline Construction (4 days x 6 workers) 24 116 203 287 

Total Well Construction and Development 830 3,984 7,025 9,899 

Production and Maintenance Activities 

Production4,5 

Workovers6 (every 10 to 20 years) (10 days x 

7 workers) 

305 

210 

1,767 

1,010 

2,881 

1,777 

3,863 

2,504 

Total Production and Maintenance Activities 515 2,767 4,658 6,367 

Abandonment and Reclamation (5 days x 10 workers) 50 241 423 597 

Total 1,395 7,011 12,106 16,863 

Assumes all wells are drilled and completed as producers.

260 worker-days = 1 worker-year.

Assumes all vertical (straight) wells.

Assumes 1 pumper can visit 20 wells/day, all pads are visited every 3 days, and a productive well life of 40 years.

Assumes six full-time production foremen and six full-time field clerks in addition to pumpers.

Assumes three workovers per well.

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
 

Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 169 

Table 5.4 Average Per W ell Drilling and Com pletion Costs of Natural Gas Developm ent, 

Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming.1,2 

Cost to Drill Cost to Complete Well3 

Cost Item (Dry Hole Without Pipe) ($) ($) 

INTANGIBLE DRILLING COSTS 

Surveys, permits, and fees $ 5,000 --

Location and roads 42,620 --

Drilling contractor services 260,834 --

Drilling rig, mob/demob 59,250 --

Drill bits 43,100 --

Surface cementing service and equipment 16,000 --

BOP testing 1,500 --

Open hole logging 18,000 --

Contract supervision 18,900 --

Company supervision 6,000 --

Mud logging and geology 10,500 --

Drilling mud and chemicals 43,290 --

Surface rentals 19,660 --

Downhole rentals 31,500 --

Casing crews 4,500 --

Drilling water 20,000 --

Contract labor 5,000 --

Drilling admin overhead 7,500 --

Transportation and hauling 7,000 --

Total drilling intangible costs $620,154 --

INTANGIBLE COMPLETION COSTS 

Completion rig and auxiliary services -- $ 16,225 

Snubbing unit -- 18,000 

Contract supervision -- 12,500 

Professional services -- 12,000 

Cased hole slick line service -- 3,000 

Casing crews -- 17,010 

Cementing service and equip -- 50,000 

Cased hole e-line services -- 82,000 

Pumping services -- 36,000 

Stimulation -- 860,048 

Transportation and hauling -- 5,000 

Location and roads -- 4,500 

Completion water -- 106,752 

Installation labor (battery construction) -- 8,500 

Surface rentals -- 43,525 

Downhole rentals -- 32,800 

Frac flowback -- 30,000 

Miscellaneous -- 1,000 

Total intangible completion costs -- $1,338,860 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
170 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table5.4 (Continued) 

Cost to Drill Cost to Complete Well3 

Cost Item (Dry Hole Without Pipe) ($) ($) 

TANGIBLE COSTS (DRILLING AND COMPLETION) 

Tubulars 

Surface4 $ 29,500 --

Production5 -- 63,180 

Tubing6 -- 19,320 

Wellhead equipment 3,920 23,000 

Flowline -- 6,500 

Storage tanks -- 12,500 

Treating equipment (gas dehydrator and -- 62,750 

separator) 

Combustors - emission controls -- 7,000 

Total Tangible Costs 33,420 194,250

Total drilling cost $653,574 --

Total completion cost -- 1,533,110 

Total Cost (Drilling + Completion) for 

Conventional Wells 

-- $2,186,684 

Directional Drilling (average additional cost per 

well) 

Total Cost (Drilling + Completion) for 

Directionally Drilled Wells 

$243,610 

$2,430,294 

1 Source: Operators. Presented in year 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. 2 Source: Operators. Enumerated costs are for conventional drilling. Directional drilling would increase the total by an average of $243,610 per 

well. 3 Average assumed depth of 9,000 ft. 4 2,500 ft of 9 5/8-inch pipe at $11.80/ft. 5 11,700 ft of 4 1/2-inch pipe at $5.40/ft. 6 8,000 ft of 2 3/8-inch pipe at $2.30/ft. 

Total recovery will depend upon the number of wells authorized (1,250, 2,200, or 3,100) and the 

number of pads they are placed on. Some combinations of conventional/directional drilling may 

make full recovery uneconom ical. The fewer th e num ber of wells and the faster the pace of 

development, the shorter the LOP (Table 5.4). An estimated 10,500 billion cubic feet (BCF) of 

natural gas and 99.8 m illion barrels (MBO) of Jonah Field condensate (oil) are assum ed to be 

present beneath the JIDPA (Table 5.2). No alternative anticipates total recovery of all natural gas 

or condensate resources present in the field. Total annual per well cost of operation is estimated to 

be $229,548 (includes $16,831 of direct labor costs), or approximately $0.32/thousand cubic feet 

(MCF) of natural gas (Table 5.5). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
171 

1 

Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 5.5 Annual Cost of Natural Gas Production, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2005.1 

Annual Production Operating Costs Annual Cost per Well 

Annual Production (MCF) 717,232 

Direct Labor and Overhead 16,831 

Nonlabor Annual Costs 

Fuel, Chemicals, and Disposal 9,850 

Surface Maintenance 5,847 

Subsurface Maintenance 5,979 

Electricity --

Gas Compression Costs --

Nonlabor Annual Costs 212,717 

Gas Transportation Costs 191,041 

Total Annual Costs 229,548 

Total Annual Cost Per MCF $0.32

Nonlabor Cost Per MCF $0.30

Source: EnCana. Assumes natural gas recovery costs include recovery of condensate. 

5.3 NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION ECONOMIC ACTIVITY 

Estimates of the econom ic activity resulting from oil and gas developm ent on the southwest 

Wyoming economy in terms of total direct expenditures, secondary (non-project-required) labor 

earnings, and secondary job creation were based on the updated calibrated county-specific model 

from the SWREE and JMHCAP reports. The employment estimates were expressed as AJEs, based 

on BEA m ethodology (personal com munication, February 20, 2004, with David T. Taylor, 

Professor, UWAED) (see Section 2.1.1). Activity is described both in terms of nominal dollars and 

real dollars (i.e., present value calculated by discounting) (see Section 2.2). 

5.3.1 Drilling and Completion 

As shown in Table 5.6, expenditures made to drill and complete one conventional well ($2,186,684), 

would generate econom ic activity (direct and secondary) of $2,719,091 (includes $532,407 of 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
172 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 5.6 Per Well Economic Activity from Natural Gas Development, Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project, Sublette County, Wyoming. 

Estimated Activity Conventional Well Directionally Drilled Well 

Direct Expenditures1,2 

Drilling ($) $653,574 $897,184 

Completion ($) $1,533,110 $1,533,110 

Secondary Labor Earnings 

Drilling ($) $239,402 $328,287 

Completion ($)2 $293,005 $293,005 

Total Direct Expenditures ($) $2,186,684 $2,430,294 

Total Secondary Labor Earnings ($) $532,407 $621,292 

Total Economic Activity per Well $2,719,091 $3,051,586 

Annual Job Equivalents (AJEs) 

Drilling 7.3 3.3 

Completion2 9.4 1.2 

Total AJEs per Well3 16.7 19.4 

Average Earnings Per Created Job4

 ($) $31,881 $32,025 

1 Includes project-required labor costs. 2 Completion includes the cost of completion plus the setting of production equipment (see Table 5.2). 3 AJEs are jobs indirectly created as a result of the activity. Project-required jobs are presented in Table 5.1. 4 This estimated average annual starting wage per job would not necessarily be the actual wage paid for each created job. Actual 

wages are determined on an individual basis by employers as influenced by market forces. 

secondary labor earnings) and would generate 16.7 AJEs (does not include project-required labor 

[see Table 5.1]). Expenditures m ade to drill and com plete one directionally drilled well 

($2,430,294) would generate econom ic activity (direct and secondary) of $3,051,586 (includes 

$621,292 of secondary labor earnings) and would generate 19.4 AJEs (does not include projectrequired jobs). This activity is assumed to remain constant across all alternatives on a per well basis. 

The timing of economic activity would depend on the approved number of wells and the rate of 

development. 

Tables 5.7-5.13 show both the nominal and present value of annual and LOP activity anticipated 

from each development rate scenario. Alternatives are summarized in Table 5.14. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 







1

2345

180 

Table 5.14 Summary of Economic Activity Resulting from Natural Gas Development under Each Alternative over the Life of Field, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Economic Activity Resulting from Development 

No Action Alternative A 

Development Rate2 Alternative1 Proposed Action Maximum Development Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G Preferred Alternative 

NOMINAL VALUE OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY 

75 Wells/Year 

Direct Economic Activity from Development3 -- 6,949.4 6,888.1 7,655.4 2,862.6 5,000.4 7,583.8 7,399.6 7,031.3 -­

(millions of $) Secondary Labor Earnings4 (millions of $) -- 1,699.5 1,677.1 1,957.1 706.0 1,227.2 1,930.9 1,863.7 1,729.3 -­

Total Economic Activity (millions of $) -- 8,648.9 8,565.1 9,612.5 3,568.6 6,227.7 9,514.7 9,263.4 8,760.6 -­

Annual Job Equivalents (AJEs)5 -- 53,285 52,605 61,110 22,119 38,466 60,316 58,275 54,193 -­

150 Wells/Year 

Direct Economic Activity from Development3 -- 6,954.6 6,888.1 7,655.4 3,044.1 5,000.4 7,578.7 12,508.4 7,031.3 -­

(millions of $) Secondary Labor Earnings4 (millions of $) -- 1,701.3 1,677.1 1,957.1 752.3 1,227.2 1,929.1 3,170.3 1,729.3 -­

Total Economic Activity (millions of $) -- 8,655.9 8,565.1 9,612.5 3,796.5 6,227.7 9,507.8 15,678.7 8,760.6 -­

AJEs5 -- 53,342.1 52,605.0 61,110.0 23,565.6 38,466.0 60,259.5 99,071.7 54,192.6 -­

250 Wells/Year 

Direct Economic Activity from Development3 -- 6,900.4 6,833.4 7,594.7 2,800.3 5,001.2 7,524.6 7,341.9 6,973.5 

(millions of $) Secondary Labor Earnings4 (millions of $) -- 1,688.2 1,663.8 1,941.5 690.0 1,227.5 1,916.0 1,849.3 1,714.9 Approximately the same as 

Total Economic Activity (millions of $) -- 8,588.6 8,497.2 9,536.2 3,490.3 6,228.7 9,440.6 9,191.2 8,688.3 Alternative G 

AJEs5 -- 52,930.0 52,187.5 60,625.0 21,617.5 38,474.1 59,848.8 57,823.8 53,740.0 

PRESENT VALUE OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY6 

75 Wells/Year (millions of $) -- 4,496.4 4,452.8 4,997.3 2,655.7 3,818.0 4,946.5 4,815.8 4,554.5 Approximately the 

150 Wells/Year (millions of $) -- 6,058.3 5,994.8 6,727.8 3,209.1 4,781.8 6,654.5 10,973.6 6,131.6 same as 

250 Wells/Year (millions of $) -- 6,631.8 6,561.2 7,363.5 3,151.8 5,265.1 7,289.7 7,097.1 6,708.8 Alternative G 

Assumes no new development would occur under the No Action Alternative. 

Operator propose the 250 well/year development rate; however, BLM may require an alternate development rate.

 See Table 5.3 for development rates for each alternative. 

Also see Tables 5.7-5.13.

 Based on costs presented in Table 5.2. 

Also see Tables 5.7-5.13.

 Nonproject labor earnings resulting from secondary economic activity induced by development. These earnings do not include actual development labor earnings. See Table 5.2 for development wages included in direct costs. Also see Table 5.7-5.13.

 Nonproject-required jobs resulting from secondary economic activity induced by development. These do not include project-required jobs. See Table 5.1 for estimated project workforce requirements. Average earnings per job would be 

approximately $31,881 for conventional drilling-induced jobs and $32,025 for directional drilling-induced jobs. 

See Section 2.2 for a discussion of discounting. 

The discount rate used for this analysis was 3.5%. Conservatively assumes revenues are received as a lump sum at year end. 6
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 181 

5.3.1.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no additional development would occur. This would reduce the 

number of rigs, crews, and associated services operating in the project area. Currently, one oilfield 

service operator employs over 300 people and employs local contractors from over 30 companies 

within the town of Rock Springs (Schlum berger Oil Field Services Com panies [Schlumberger] 

2003). It is estimated that between 1996 and 2002, 59.3% of all exploration and production oilfield 

service fees paid in the state were spent on services in the Jonah Field (Schlumberger 2003). These 

services and associated jobs would likely be reduced or eliminated under the No Action Alternative. 

No additional economic activity from development would occur under this alternative--no additional 

secondary labor earnings or jobs would be created, and no additional taxes or revenues from 

development would be realized. All action alternatives would have im pacts greater than those 

described for the No Action because of increased development and longer LOP. 

5.3.1.2 Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, up to 3,100 new we lls (assum ed at 2,825 conventional and 275 

directional) would be developed. The economic activity under the 250 well/year development rate 

(12.5 years) would be $8,588.6 million ($6,631.8 million present value) ($687.1 million annually) 

including $1,688.2 million secondary labor income ($135.1 million annually) and 52,930.0 AJEs 

(4,234.4 AJEs annually) for the development period (Table 5.7). 

5.3.1.3 Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) 

Under Alternative A, up to 3,100 new conventional wells would be developed. Economic activity 

from Alternative A would be less than that expected from the Proposed Action due to the removal 

of directional drilling. Nominally, the greatest economic activity for Alternative A (not including 

tax revenues) would occur in term s of dollars under either the 75 or 150 well/year development 

rates--resulting in $8,565.1 m illion of econom ic activity ($203.9 and $407.9 m illion annually, 

respectively) including $1,677.1 million secondary labor earnings ($39.9 million and $79.9 million 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
182 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

annually, respectively) over the developm ent period (Table 5.8). The greatest num ber of AJEs 

(52,605) would occur under both the 75 and 150 well/year developm ent rate [1,252.5 and 

2,505.0 annually, respectively]). The greatest annual econom ic activity ($679.8 m illion [$133.1 

million secondary labor earnings]) would occur under the 250 well/year development rate. The 

greatest real (present) value of econom ic activity ($6,561.2 million) would occur under the 

250 well/year development rate because dollars would flow into the community in a shorter period 

of time (12.5 years); however, the num ber of AJEs (52,187.5) would be reduced as a result of 

efficiencies realized by a compressed development schedule (Table 5.8). 

5.3.1.4 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, up to 3,100 new directionally drilled wells would be developed. Economic 

activity from Alternative B would be more than that expected from the Proposed Action due to the 

increased amount of directional drilling. The greatest nominal economic activity for Alternative B 

(not including tax revenues) would most likely occur in terms of dollars under the either the 75 or 

150 well/year development rates--resulting in $9,612.5 million of economic activity ($228.9 million 

[$46.6 m illion secondary labor earnings] and $457.7 m illion [$93.2 m illion secondary labor 

earnings] annually, respectively) over the developm ent period; however, the greatest annual 

economic activity ($762.9 million [$155.3 million secondary labor earnings]) would occur under 

the 250 well/year development rate (Table 5.8). The greatest number of AJEs (61,110) would occur 

under both the 75 and 150 well/year developm ent rate [1,455 and 2,910 annually, respectively]). 

The greatest real (present) value of econom ic activity ($7,363.5 million) would occur under the 

250 well/year development rate because dollars would flow into the community in a shorter period 

of tim e (12.5 years); however, the num ber of AJEs (60,625) would be reduced as a result of 

efficiencies realized by a compressed development schedule (Table 5.8). 

5.3.1.5 Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, up to 1,250 new wells (assumed to be 975 conventional and 275 directional) 

would be developed. Economic activity from Alternative C would be less than half that expected 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 183 

from the Proposed Action due to the reduced num ber of wells developed. The greatest nominal 

economic activity for Alternative C (not including tax revenues) for the development period would 

most likely occur in terms of dollars and jobs under the 150 well/year development rate--resulting 

in $3,796.5 m illion ($421.8 m illion annually) of econom ic activity (including $752.3 m illion 

[$83.6 million annually]) of secondary labor earnings (Table 5.9). The greatest annual activity 

($698.1 million [$138.0 million secondary labor earnings]) would occur under the 250 well/year 

development rate. The greatest number of AJEs (23,565.6 [2,618.4 annually]) would occur under 

the 150 well/year development rate; however, on an annual basis, the 250 well/year development 

rate would create 4,323.5 AJEs. The greatest real (present) value of econom ic activity 

($3,209.1 million) over the LOP would occur under the 150 well/year development rate because of 

the combination of time (9.0 years) and effort (Table 5.9). 

5.3.1.6 Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, up to 2,200 new wells (assumed to be 1,925 conventional and 275 directional) 

would be developed. Economic activity from Alternative D would be less than that expected from 

the Proposed Action due to the reduced number of wells developed. The greatest nominal economic 

activity for Alternative D (not including tax revenues) for the development period, would most likely 

occur in term s of dollars and jobs under the 250 well/year developm ent rate--resulting in 

$6,228.7 million ($692.1 million annually) of econom ic activity including $1,227.5 m illion 

($136.4 million annually) of secondary labor earnings and 38,474 AJEs (4,274.9 annually) 

(Table 5.10). The greatest real (present) value of economic activity ($5,265.1 million) would occur 

under the 250 well/year development rate because of the compressed rate of time (9.0 years) over 

which dollars would flow into the community (Table 5.10). 

5.3.1.7 Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, up to 3,100 new wells (assumed to be 266 conventional and 2,834 directional) 

would be developed. Economic activity from Alternative E would be more than that expected from 

the Proposed Action due to the increased num ber of directionally drilled wells. The greatest 

nominal economic activity for Alternative E (not including tax revenues) for the developm ent 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
184 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

period, would most likely occur in terms of dollars and jobs under the 75 well/year development 

rate--resulting in $9,514.7 m illion ($226.5 m illion annually) of econom ic activity (including 

$1,930.9 m illion [$46.0 million annually]) of secondary labor earnings and 60,316.2 AJEs 

(4,274.9 annually) (Table 5.11). However, the greatest annual economic activity ($755.2 million 

[153.3 million secondary labor earnings], 4,787.9 AJEs) would occur under the 250 well/year 

development rate. The greatest real (present) value of economic activity ($7,289.7 million) over the 

LOP would occur under the 250 well/year development rate because of the compressed rate of time 

(12.5 years) over which dollars would flow into the community (Table 5.11). 

5.3.1.8 Alternative F 

Under Alternative F, up to 3,100 new wells (assumed to be 1,028 conventional and 2,072 

directional) would be developed. Economic activity from Alternative F would be more than that 

expected from the Proposed Action due to the increased number of directionally drilled wells. The 

greatest nominal economic activity from development for all alternatives would m ost likely be 

realized from Alternative F (not including tax revenues) for the developm ent period, in term s of 

dollars and jobs under the 150 well/year development rate--resulting in $15,678.7 million ($746.6 

million annually) of economic activity (including $3,170.3 m illion [$151.0 million annually]) of 

secondary labor earnings and 99,071.7 AJEs (4,717.7 annually) (Table 5.12). The greatest real 

(present) value of econom ic activity ($10,973.6 million) also occurs under the 150 well/year 

development rate. This development rate (when compared to all other alternatives) optimizes the 

combination of straight and directional drilling as well as tim e of developm ent to m aximize 

economic activity (Table 5.12) 

5.3.1.9 Alternative G 

Under Alternative G, up to 3,100 new wells (assumed to be 2,553 conventional and 574 directional) 

would be developed. Economic activity from Alternative G would similar to but slightly higher than 

that described for the Proposed Action due to the slightly increased number of directionally drilled 

wells. The greatest nominal economic activity for Alternative G (not including tax revenues) for 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 185 

the developm ent period, would occur in term s of dollars and jobs under either the 75 or 

150 well/year development rate--resulting in $8,760.6 m illion ($1,729.3 million secondary labor 

earnings) and 54,192.6 AJEs (208.6 and 417.2 AJEs annually, respectively) (Table 5.13). However, 

the highest annual econom ic activity ($695.1 million [including $137.2 m illion secondary labor 

earnings] and 4,299.2 AJEs would most likely occur under the 250 wells/year rate. The greatest real 

(present) value of econom ic activity ($6,708.8 million) over the LOP would occur under the 

250 well/year development rate because of the com pressed rate of tim e (12.5 years) over which 

dollars would flow into the community (Table 5.13). 

5.3.1.10 Preferred Alternative 

Under the Preferred Alternative, up to 3,100 new wells (assum ed to be 2,553 conventional and 

574 directional) would be developed. Economic activity from the Preferred Alternative would be 

approximately the same as that described for Alternative G at the 250 wells/year development rate. 

5.3.2 Natural Gas Production Impacts 

The value of natural gas production is based on revenues less cost of operation. Table 5.15 shows 

that production from one BCF of natural gas would generate total economic activity (direct and 

secondary) of $3,632,083 (includes $132,083 of secondary labor earnings) and would create 

3.92 AJEs. One million barrels of condensate are assum ed to generate total econom ic activity 

(direct and secondary) of $21,792,498 (includes $792,498 of secondary labor earnings) and would 

create 23.52 AJEs. The econom ic activity associated with condensate production is likely 

conservatively underestimated because condensate from the Jonah Field is of particularly high 

quality and generally sells for a price higher than the price of crude oil. Assumed production rates, 

decline curves, and discounting tables are presented in Appendix A. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 

-------- --------

187 

Table 5.16 Economic Activity Resulting from Natural Gas Production Over the Life of Field, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 2005.

Impact No Action Alternative2 Proposed Action1 Alternative A1 Alternative B1 Alternative C1 Alternative D1 Alternative E1 Alternative F1 Alternative G1 Preferred Alternative1 Total Anticipated Natural Gas Recovery over the LOF (BCF) 3,366 7,947 8,191 6,124 6,657 7,554 6,302 7,186 7,876 Same as Alternative G

Total Anticipated Condensate Recovery over the LOF (million bbls) 31.98 75.50 77.81 58.18 63.24 71.76 59.87 68.27 74.82 

MAXIMUM ANNUAL ACTIVITY (250 WELLS/YEAR DEVELOPMENT RATE)

Value of Natural Gas Production3 (millions of $) 294.5 529.8 546.1 408.3 517.8 539.6 420.1 479.1 525.1 

Value of Condensate Production4 (millions of $) 16.8 30.2 31.1 23.3 29.5 30.8 23.9 27.3 29.9 Approximately the same as

Secondary Labor Earnings5 (millions of $) 11.7 21.1 21.8 16.3 20.7 21.5 16.8 19.1 20.9 Alternative G

Total Economic Activity (millions of $) 323.1 581.1 599.0 447.8 567.9 591.8 460.8 525.5 575.9 

NOMINAL VALUE OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

Value of Natural Gas Production3 (millions of $) 11,781.0 27,814.5 28,668.5 21,434.0 23,299.5 26,439.0 22,057.0 25,151.0 27,566.0 

Value of Condensate Production4 (millions of $) 671.6 1,585.5 1,634.0 1,221.8 1,328.0 1,507.0 1,257.3 1,433.7 1,571.2 

Secondary Labor Earnings5 (millions of $) 469.9 1,109.5 1,143.6 855.0 929.4 1,054.6 879.8 1,003.3 1,099.6 Approximately the same as Total Economic Activity (millions of $) 12,922.5 30,509.5 31,446.1 23,510.8 25,556.9 29,000.6 24,194.1 27,587.9 30,236.8 Alternative G 

AJEs 13,947 32,928 33,939 25,374 27,583 31,299 26,112 29,775 32,634 

Average Earnings Per Job $47,173 $47,173 $47,173 $47,173 $47,173 $47,173 $47,173 $47,173 $47,173 

PRESENT VALUE OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY6 

75 WELLS PER YEAR DEVELOPMENT RATE2 

Value of Natural Gas Production3 (millions of $) 8,473.0 11,053.8 11,093.6 8,518.1 12,907.2 12,065.7 8,765.6 9,995.2 10,955.0 

Value of Condensate Production4 (millions of $) 483.0 630.1 632.3 485.5 735.7 687.7 499.6 569.7 624.4 

Secondary Labor Earnings5 (millions of $) 319.8 417.1 418.7 321.5 487.1 455.3 330.8 377.2 413.4 

Total Economic Activity (millions of $) 9,275.7 12,101.0 12,144.6 9,325.1 14,130.0 13,208.8 9,596.1 10,942.1 11,992.8 

150 WELLS PER YEAR DEVELOPMENT RATE2 

Value of Natural Gas Production3 (millions of $) 8,473.0 14,491.3 14,935.0 11,167.1 14,660.7 15,111.4 11,491.7 13,103.6 14,361.9 

Value of Condensate Production4 (millions of $) 483.0 826.0 851.3 636.5 835.7 861.4 655.0 746.9 818.6 

Secondary Labor Earnings5 (millions of $) 319.8 546.9 563.6 421.4 553.3 570.3 433.7 494.5 542.0 

Total Economic Activity (millions of $) 9,275.7 15,864.2 16,349.9 12,225.0 16,049.7 16,543.1 12,580.4 14,345.1 15,722.5 

250 WELLS PER YEAR DEVELOPMENT RATE2 

Value of Natural Gas Production3 (millions of $) 8,473.0 16,409.2 16,909.2 12,644.7 15,661.6 16,636.1 13,012.4 14,837.6 16,262.4 

Value of Condensate Production4 (millions of $) 483.0 935.3 963.8 720.8 892.7 948.3 741.7 845.7 927.0 Approximately the same as

Secondary Labor Earnings5 (millions of $) 319.8 619.3 638.1 477.2 591.0 627.8 491.1 559.9 613.7 Alternative G 

Total Economic Activity (millions of $) 9,275.7 17,963.8 18,511.2 13,842.7 17,145.3 18,212.2 14,245.2 16,243.3 17,803.0 

1

 Includes wells currently in production (i.e., No Action Alternative wells). 2 All wells under the No Action Alternative are currently under production, therefore, the rate of development will not affect the production values. Well life is assumed to be 40 years.

2 Price is $3.50/MCF of natural gas based on CREG (2004). The value of production is based on revenues less cost of operation.4

 Price is $21.00/bbl of condensate based on CREG (2004). 

No additional cost of operation and no additional labor earnings or employment are attributable to condensate.

5 Nonproject labor earnings resulting from secondary economic activity induced by production. These earnings do not include actual production labor earnings. See Table 5.5 for production wages included in direct costs.6

 Based on annual production calculated using decline curves provided by Operators. 

All wells are assumed to have a 40-year life. See Appendix B for decline curves and expected annual production. Present value is the real value of production with

discounting applied. 

See Section 2.2 for a discussion of discounting. 
188 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

employment. A declining population would result in a reduction in housing pressure. Potential 

increases in taxes and revenues would not be realized, and population-based disbursements (some 

royalties, severance, and PILT paym ents based on county and city populations) would likely 

decrease. Production impacts from all action alternatives would be higher than that described for 

the No Action Alternative due to the increased number of wells, higher production volume rates, and 

extended LOP. 

5.3.2.2 Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, it is assumed that recovery for the LOP would be up to 7,947 BCF of 

natural gas and 75.50 MBO, which would result in nominal economic activity of $30,509.5 million 

(including $1,109.5 million of secondary labor earnings) and 32,928 AJEs (Table 5.16). Production 

would result in $17,963.8 million present value in economic activity (including $619.3 million in 

labor earnings) to the local econom y over the LOP (Table 5.16). The LOP (excluding final 

reclamation) for the Proposed Action could be up to 52.5 years (12.5 years to develop, 40-year life 

of well). 

This alternative would have m ore nominal economic activity in terms of production than the No 

Action Alternative because of the higher level of resource recovery. 

5.3.2.3 Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) 

Under Alternative A (maximum recovery), it is assumed that recovery for the LOP would be up to 

8,191 BCF of natural gas and 77.81 MBO, which would result in nom inal economic activity of 

$31,446.1 m illion (including $1,143.6 m illion of secondary labor earnings) and 33,939 AJEs 

(Table 5.16). The greatest economic activity from this alternative would result in $18,511.2 million 

in present value economic activity (including $638.1 million in labor earnings) to the local economy 

over the LOP under the 250 well/year developm ent rate (52.5-year LOP, excluding final 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 189 

reclamation) (Table 5.16). The LOP, excluding final reclamation, for Alternative A could be up to 

82 years (42 years to develop, 40-year life of well) under the 75 well/year development rate. This 

alternative would have more nominal economic activity in terms of production than the Proposed 

Action because of the higher level of resource recovery. 

5.3.2.4 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, it is assumed that recovery for the LOP would be up to 6,124 BCF of natural 

gas and 58.18 MBO, which would result in nom inal econom ic activity of $23,510.8 m illion 

(including $855.0 million of secondary labor earnings) and 25,374 AJEs (Table 5.16). The greatest 

economic activity from this alternative would result in $13,842.7 million in present value economic 

activity (including $477.2 million in labor earnings) to the local economy over the LOP under the 

250 well/year development rate (52.5-year LOP, excluding final reclam ation) (Table 5.16). The 

LOP, excluding final reclamation, for Alternative B could be up to 82 years (42 years to develop, 

40-year life of well) under the 75 well/year development rate (Table 5.16). This alternative would 

have less nominal economic activity in terms of production than the Proposed Action because of the 

lower level of resource recovery. 

5.3.2.5 Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, it is assumed that recovery for the LOP would be up to 6,657 BCF of natural 

gas and 63.24 MBO, which would result in nom inal econom ic activity of $25,556.9 m illion 

(including $929.4 million of secondary labor earnings) and 27,583 AJEs (Table 5.16). The greatest 

economic activity from this alternative would result in $17,145.3 million in present value economic 

activity (including $591.0 million in labor earnings) to the local economy over the LOP under the 

250 well/year development rate (45-year LOP, excluding final reclamation) (Table 5.16). The LOP, 

excluding final reclamation, for Alternative C could be up to 57 years (17.0 years to develop, 40-

year life of well) under the 75 well/year development rate. This alternative would have ess nominal 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
190 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

economic activity in terms of production than the Proposed Action because of the lower level of 

resource recovery. 

5.3.2.6 Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, it is assumed that recovery for the LOP would be up to 7,554 BCF of natural 

gas and 71.76 MBO, which would result in nom inal econom ic activity of $29,000.6 m illion 

(including $1,054.6 m illion of secondary labor earnings) and 31,299 AJEs (Table 5.16). The 

greatest economic activity from this alternative would result in $18,212.2 million in present value 

economic activity (including $627.8 million in labor earnings) to the local economy over the LOP 

under the 250 well/year development rate (49-year LOP, excluding final reclamation) (Table 5.16). 

The maximum anticipated LOP, excluding final reclamation, for Alternative D could be up to 

70 years (30 years to develop, 40-year life of well) under the 75 well/year development rate. This 

alternative would have less nom inal economic activity in term s of production than the Proposed 

Action because of the lower level of resource recovery. 

5.3.2.7 Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, it is assumed that recovery for the LOP would be up to 6,302 BCF of natural 

gas and 59.87 MBO, which would result in nom inal econom ic activity of $24,191.1 million 

(including $879.8 million of secondary labor earnings) and 26,112 AJEs (Table 5.16). The greatest 

economic activity from this alternative would result in $14,245.2 million in present value economic 

activity (including $491.1 million in labor earnings) to the local economy over the LOP under the 

250 well/year development rate (52.5-year LOP, excluding final reclam ation) (Table 5.16). The 

maximum anticipated LOP, excluding final reclamation, for Alternative E could be up to 82 years 

(42 years to develop, 40-year life of well) under the 75 well/year development rate. This alternative 

would have less nominal economic activity in terms of production than the Proposed Action because 

of the lower level of resource recovery. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 191 

5.3.2.8 Alternative F 

Under Alternative F, it is assumed that recovery for the LOP would be up to 7,186 BCF of natural 

gas and 68.27 MBO, which would result in nom inal econom ic activity of $27,587.9 million 

(including $1,003.3 m illion of secondary labor earnings) and 29,775 AJEs (Table 5.16). The 

greatest economic activity from this alternative would result in $16,243.3 million in present value 

economic activity (including $559.9 million in labor earnings) to the local economy over the LOP 

under the 250 well/year development rate (52.5-year LOP, excluding final reclamation) (Table 5.16). 

The maximum anticipated LOP, excluding final reclamation, for Alternative F could be up to 

82 years (42 years to develop, 40-year life of well) under the 75 well/year developm ent rate 

(Table 5.16). This alternative would have less nominal economic activity in terms of production 

than the Proposed Action because of the lower level of resource recovery. 

5.3.2.9 Alternative G 

Under Alternative G, it is assumed that recovery for the LOP would be up to 7,876 BCF of natural 

gas and 74.82 MBO, which would result in nom inal econom ic activity of $30,236.8 million 

(including $1,099.6 m illion of secondary labor earnings) and 32,634 AJEs (Table 5.16). The 

greatest economic activity from this alternative would result in $17,803.0 million in present value 

economic activity (including $613.7 million in labor earnings) to the local economy over the LOP 

under the 250 well/year development rate (52.5-year LOP, excluding final reclamation) (Table 5.16).

 The maximum anticipated LOP, excluding final reclamation, for Alternative G could be up to 82 

years (42 years to develop, 40-year life of well) under the 75 well/year developm ent rate 

(Table 5.16). This alternative would have less nominal economic activity in terms of production 

than the Proposed Action because of the lower level of resource recovery. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
192 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

5.3.2.10 Preferred Alternative 

Under the Preferred Alternative, it recovery and economic impacts from production for the LOP 

would be approxim ately the sam e as that described for Alternative G at the 250 wells/year 

development rate. This alternative would have less nom inal econom ic activity in term s of 

production than the Proposed Action because of the lower level of resource recovery. 

5.3.3 Government Revenues 

The project would generate substantial revenues for state, county, and local governments, as well 

as area school districts, through state sales tax, federal incom e tax, ad valorem taxes, severance 

taxes, federal m inerals royalties, and other taxes on facilities and production. The assum ed 

severance tax rates for both natural gas (base rate) and condensate is 6%, and approximately 4.2% 

of production is expected to come from state lands and would result in revenues from severance tax. 

The other 95.8% of production would be from federal lands and would result in revenues from 

federal mineral royalties at the rate of 12.5%. Secondary labor earnings would be subject to federal 

income tax at an assumed rate of 15% based on estim ated average wages and the current (2004) 

Internal Revenue Service tax rate tables. 

The estimated revenues and taxes resulting from the project, as well as their present value, for the 

LOP are presented in Table 5.17. The likely distribution of those funds to the U.S., W yoming, 

affected counties, cities, and towns based on current statutes and distribution trends presented in 

Chapter 3 are presented in Table 5.18. For the purposes of this analysis, the rate of development and 

an average decline curve for individual well produc tion was used to estim ate total annual field 

production; well life was assumed to be 40 years (see Appendix A). Increases in taxes and revenues 

would have the effect of providing counties and communities with more discretionary dollars to 

develop infrastructure and provide for the needs of low-income residents; thus, the dependence on 

federal or state grant monies would be reduced. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
---------------- ----------------

193 

Table 5.17 Government Taxes and Revenues Resulting from the Jonah Infill Drilling Project (Life of Field), Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.

Economic Activity Resulting from Development (LOF)

Alternative A

No Action Maximum Preferred

Development Rate1 Alternative3 Proposed Action2 Recovery2 Alternative B2 Alternative C2 Alternative D2 Alternative E2 Alternative F2 Alternative G2 Alternataive 

NOMINAL VALUE OF TAX REVENUES FROM ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

75 Wells/Year

State Sales Taxes from Development3 (millions of $) 0.0 266.9 264.5 294.0 109.9 192.0 291.2 284.1 270.0 

Federal Income Tax from Development Labor4 (millions of $) 0.0 41.7 41.3 45.9 17.2 30.0 45.5 44.4 42.2 

Taxes from Secondary Development Labor Earnings4 (millions of $) 0.0 254.9 251.6 293.6 105.9 184.1 289.6 279.6 259.4 

Severance Revenues from Production5 (millions of $) 31.4 74.1 76.4 57.1 62.1 70.4 58.8 67.0 73.4 

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production5 (millions of $) 1,491.2 3,520.7 3,628.7 2,713.0 2,949.1 3,346.5 2,791.9 3,183.5 3,489.2 

Ad Valorem Taxes on Production6 (millions of $) 741.8 1,751.4 1,805.1 1,349.6 1,467.1 1,664.7 1,388.8 1,583.6 1,735.7 

Federal Income Taxes from Secondary Production Labor Earnings4 70.5 166.4 171.5 128.2 139.4 158.2 132.0 150.5 164.9 

(millions of $)

Total Taxes and Revenues7 (millions of $) 2,334.9 6,076.0 6,239.1 4,881.4 4,850.7 5,646.0 4,997.8 5,592.7 6,034.8 

150 Wells/Year

State Sales Taxes from Development3 (millions of $) 0.0 267.1 264.5 294.0 116.9 192.0 291.0 480.3 270.0 

Federal Income Tax from Development Labor4 (millions of $) 0.0 41.7 41.3 45.9 18.3 30.0 45.5 75.1 42.2 

Taxes from Secondary Development Labor Earnings4 (millions of $) 0.0 255.2 251.6 293.6 112.9 184.1 289.4 475.5 259.4 

Severance Revenues from Production5 (millions of $) 31.4 74.1 76.4 57.1 62.1 70.4 58.8 67.0 73.4 

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production5 (millions of $) 1,491.2 3,520.7 3,628.7 2,713.0 2,949.1 3,346.5 2,791.9 3,183.5 3,489.2 

Ad Valorem Taxes on Production6 (millions of $) 741.8 1,751.4 1,805.1 1,349.6 1,467.1 1,664.7 1,388.8 1,583.6 1,735.7 

Federal Income Taxes from Secondary Production Labor Earnings4 70.5 166.4 171.5 128.2 139.4 158.2 132.0 150.5 164.9 

(millions of $)

Total Taxes and Revenues7 (millions of $) 2,334.9 6,076.5 6,239.1 4,881.4 4,865.7 5,646.0 4,997.3 6,015.6 6,034.8 

250 Wells/Year

State Sales Taxes from Development3 (millions of $) 0.0 265.0 262.4 291.6 107.5 192.0 288.9 281.9 267.8 

Federal Income Tax from Development Labor4 (millions of $) 0.0 41.4 41.0 45.6 16.8 30.0 45.1 44.1 41.8 

Taxes from Secondary Development Labor Earnings4 (millions of $) 0.0 253.2 249.6 291.2 103.5 184.1 287.4 277.4 257.2 

Severance Revenues from Production5 (millions of $) 31.4 74.1 76.4 57.1 62.1 70.4 58.8 67.0 73.4 Approximately the

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production5 (millions of $) 1,491.2 3,520.7 3,628.7 2,713.0 2,949.1 3,346.5 2,791.9 3,183.5 3,489.2 same as

Ad Valorem Taxes on Production6 (millions of $) 741.8 1,751.4 1,805.1 1,349.6 1,467.1 1,664.7 1,388.8 1,583.6 1,735.7 Alternative G 

Federal Income Taxes from Secondary Production Labor Earnings4 70.5 166.4 171.5 128.2 139.4 158.2 132.0 150.5 164.9 

(millions of $)

Total Taxes and Revenues7 (millions of $) 2,334.9 6,072.1 6,234.7 4,876.4 4,845.5 5,646.1 4,992.9 5,588.0 6,030.1 
---------------- ----------------

194 

Table 5.17 (Continued)

Economic Activity Resulting from Development (LOF)

Alternative A

No Action Maximum Preferred

Development Rate1 Alternative3 Proposed Action2 Recovery2 Alternative B2 Alternative C2 Alternative D2 Alternative E2 Alternative F2 Alternative G2 Alternataive 

PRESENT VALUE OF REVENUES AND TAXES FROM ECONOMIC ACTIVITY8 

75 Wells/Year

State Sales Taxes from Development (millions of $) 0.0 145.7 144.4 160.5 60.0 104.8 159.0 155.1 147.4 

Federal Income Tax from Development Labor (millions of $) 0.0 22.8 22.6 25.1 9.4 16.4 24.8 24.2 23.0 

Taxes from Secondary Development Labor Earnings (millions of $) 0.0 139.2 137.3 160.2 57.8 100.5 158.1 152.6 141.6 

Severance Revenues from Production (millions of $) 22.6 29.4 29.5 22.7 34.4 32.1 23.3 26.6 29.2 

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production (millions of $) 1,072.5 1,399.1 1,404.2 1,078.2 1,633.7 1,527.2 1,109.5 1,265.2 1,386.6 

Ad Valorem Taxes on Production (millions of $) 533.5 696.0 698.5 536.3 812.7 759.7 551.9 629.4 689.8 

Federal Income Taxes from Secondary Production Labor Earnings 125.1 125.1 125.1 125.1 125.1 125.1 125.1 125.1 125.1 

(millions of $)Total Taxes and Revenues (millions of $) 1,753.7 2,557.3 2,561.7 2,108.2 2,733.2 2,665.9 2,151.9 2,378.2 2,542.8 

150 Wells/Year

State Sales Taxes from Development (millions of $) 0.0 98.1 97.2 108.0 43.0 70.6 106.9 176.5 99.2 

Federal Income Tax from Development Labor (millions of $) 0.0 15.3 15.2 16.9 6.7 11.0 16.7 27.6 15.5 

Taxes from Secondary Development Labor Earnings (millions of $) 0.0 93.8 92.4 107.9 41.5 67.6 106.3 174.7 95.3 

Severance Revenues from Production (millions of $) 22.6 38.6 39.8 29.7 39.1 40.3 30.6 34.9 38.3 

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production (millions of $) 1,072.5 1,834.2 1,890.4 1,413.5 1,855.7 1,912.7 1,454.6 1,658.6 1,817.9 

Ad Valorem Taxes on Production (millions of $) 533.5 912.5 940.4 703.1 923.1 951.5 723.6 825.1 904.3 

Federal Income Taxes from Secondary Production Labor Earnings 125.1 164.1 164.1 164.1 164.1 164.1 164.1 164.1 164.1 

(millions of $)Total Taxes and Revenues (millions of $) 1,753.7 3,156.6 3,239.5 2,543.2 3,073.1 3,217.8 2,602.8 3,061.5 3,134.5 

250 Wells/Year

State Sales Taxes from Development (millions of $) 0.0 63.9 63.3 70.4 25.9 46.3 69.7 68.0 64.6 

Federal Income Tax from Development Labor (millions of $) 0.0 10.0 9.9 11.0 4.1 7.2 10.9 10.6 10.1 

Taxes from Secondary Development Labor Earnings (millions of $) 0.0 61.1 60.2 70.3 25.0 44.4 69.3 66.9 62.1 

Severance Revenues from Production (millions of $) 22.6 43.7 45.0 33.7 41.7 44.3 34.7 39.5 43.3 Approximately the

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production (millions of $) 1,072.5 2,077.0 2,140.3 1,600.5 1,982.4 2,105.7 1,647.1 1,878.1 2,058.4 same asAd Valorem Taxes on Production (millions of $) 533.5 1,033.2 1,064.7 796.2 986.1 1,047.5 819.3 934.3 1,024.0 Alternative G Federal Income Taxes from Secondary Production Labor Earnings 125.1 185.8 191.4 143.2 177.3 188.3 147.3 168.0 184.1 

(millions of $)Total Taxes and Revenues (millions of $) 1,753.7 3,474.7 3,574.9 2,725.2 3,242.5 3,483.9 2,798.3 3,165.4 3,446.6 

1

 Assumes no new development. 2 Includes wells currently in production (i.e., No Action Alternative wells). 3 Based on costs presented in Table 5.2. Assumes 96% of development cost is materials and supplies subject to state sales tax. Assumes state sales tax rate is 4%. Counties where materials are purchased may impose additional sales tax. 4 Nonproject labor earnings resulting from secondary economic activity are assumed to be taxed at a federal income tax rate of 15% (rate for head of household in 2004, assuming average wage of $37,228.

5 Assumes 4.2% of production is from state minerals with severance taxes at a rate of 6% on production value; 95.8% of production is from federal minerals and with federal royalty at a rate of 12.5% on production value.6

 Assumes 59.57 mills levied as ad valorem tax rate on production in Sublette County. 7 This analysis does not present an exhaustive analysis of all possible taxes and revenues. This is an estimate of most likely consistent taxes and revenues.

8

 See Section 2.2 for a discussion of discounting. The discount rate used for this analysis was 3.5%. Conservatively assumes revenues are received as a lump sum at year end. 
195 

Table 5.18 Taxes and Revenues Received by Governments From the Jonah Infill Drilling Project (Life of Project), Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.1 

Taxes and Revenues Received by Governments 

Alternative A 

No Action Maximum Preferred 

Development Rate/Government Alternative Proposed Action Recovery Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G Alternative 

75 Wells/Year Federal 

Federal Income Tax from All Labor (millions of $) 70.49 463.04 464.42 467.74 262.49 372.28 467.12 474.45 466.53 -­

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production (millions of $) 1,491.20 3,520.65 3,628.73 2,713.03 2,949.15 3,346.53 2,791.88 3,183.51 3,489.18 -­

Total Federal Taxes and Revenues 1,561.69 3,983.69 4,093.15 3,180.77 3,211.64 3,718.81 3,259.00 3,657.96 3,955.71 -­State 

State Sales Taxes from Development2 (millions of $) 0.00 266.86 264.50 293.97 109.92 192.02 291.22 284.15 270.00 -­

Severance Revenues from Production (millions of $) 31.38 74.09 76.36 57.09 62.06 70.42 58.75 66.99 73.43 -­Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Returned to State (millions of $) 745.60 1,760.33 1,814.36 1,356.51 1,474.57 1,673.26 1,395.94 1,591.76 1,744.59 -­

Total State Taxes and Revenues 776.98 2,101.27 2,155.23 1,707.58 1,646.56 1,935.70 1,745.91 1,942.90 2,088.02 --

Sublette County 

State Sales Taxes from Development Returned to County2 (millions of $) 0.00 88.06 87.29 97.01 36.27 63.37 96.10 93.77 89.10 -­

Severance Revenues from Production Returned to County3 (millions of $) 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 -­

Ad Valorem Taxes on Production5 (millions of $) 741.80 1,751.36 1,805.12 1,349.60 1,467.06 1,664.74 1,388.83 1,583.65 1,735.70 -­

Total County Taxes and Revenues 741.82 1,839.47 1,892.45 1,446.65 1,503.37 1,728.15 1,484.97 1,677.46 1,824.85 -­

Lincoln County 

Severance Revenues from Production Returned to County3 (millions of $) 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.11 --

Sweetwater County 

Severance Revenues from Production Returned to County3 (millions of $) 0.12 0.28 0.29 0.22 0.24 0.27 0.22 0.25 0.28 --

LaBarge 

Severance Revenues from Production Returned Cities and Towns3 (millions of $) 0.10 0.01 0.26 0.19 0.21 0.24 0.20 0.22 0.25 -­

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Returned to Cities and Towns4 (millions of $) 0.20 4.60 4.75 0.35 0.39 0.44 0.37 0.42 0.46 -­

Total Town Taxes and Revenues 0.30 4.61 5.00 0.55 0.59 0.67 0.56 0.64 0.70 -­

Big Piney 

Severance Revenues from Production Returned Cities and Towns3 (millions of $) 0.10 0.01 0.24 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.19 0.21 0.23 -­

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Returned to Cities and Towns4 (millions of $) 0.19 4.54 4.68 0.35 0.38 0.43 0.36 0.41 0.45 -­

Total Town Taxes and Revenues 0.29 4.55 4.92 0.53 0.58 0.66 0.55 0.62 0.68 --

Marbleton 

Severance Revenues from Production Returned Cities and Towns3 (millions of $) 0.18 0.02 0.43 0.32 0.35 0.39 0.33 0.38 0.41 -­

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Returned to Cities and Towns4 (millions of $) 0.30 7.10 7.31 0.55 0.59 0.67 0.56 0.64 0.70 -­

Total Town Taxes and Revenues 0.48 7.11 7.74 0.87 0.94 1.07 0.89 1.02 1.11 -­
196 

Table 5.18 (Continued) 

Taxes and Revenues Received by Governments 

Alternative A 

No Action Maximum Preferred 

Development Rate/Government Alternative Proposed Action Recovery Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G Alternative 

Pinedale 

Severance Revenues from Production Returned Cities and Towns3 (millions of $) 0.34 0.01 0.26 0.62 0.68 0.77 0.64 0.73 0.80 -­

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Returned to Cities and Towns4 (millions of $) 0.54 4.60 4.75 0.98 1.06 1.21 1.01 1.15 1.26 -­

Total Town Taxes and Revenues 0.88 4.61 5.00 1.60 1.74 1.98 1.65 1.88 2.06 -­

Rock Springs 

Severance Revenues from Production Returned Cities and Towns3 (millions of $) 4.56 0.01 0.26 8.30 9.02 10.24 8.54 9.74 10.67 -­

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Returned to Cities and Towns4 (millions of $) 3.47 4.60 4.75 6.32 6.87 7.80 6.50 7.42 8.13 -­

Total Town Taxes and Revenues 8.04 4.61 5.00 14.62 15.89 18.03 15.05 17.16 18.80 -­Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Allocated to School Capital Account4 (millions of $) 20.13 47.53 48.99 36.63 39.81 45.18 37.69 42.98 47.10 -­

150 Wells/Year Federal 

Federal Income Tax from All Labor (millions of $) 70.49 463.35 464.42 467.74 270.53 372.28 466.81 701.09 466.53 -­

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production (millions of $) 1,491.20 3,520.65 3,628.73 2,713.03 2,949.15 3,346.53 2,791.88 3,183.51 3,489.18 -­

Total Federal Taxes and Revenues 1,561.69 3,984.00 4,093.15 3,180.77 3,219.67 3,718.81 3,258.69 3,884.60 3,955.71 -­State 

State Sales Taxes from Development2 (millions of $) 0.00 267.06 264.50 293.97 116.89 192.02 291.02 480.32 270.00 -­

Severance Revenues from Production (millions of $) 31.38 74.09 76.36 57.09 62.06 70.42 58.75 66.99 73.43 -­Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Returned to State(millions of $) 745.60 1,760.33 1,814.36 1,356.51 1,474.57 1,673.26 1,395.94 1,591.76 1,744.59 -­

Total State Taxes and Revenues 776.98 2,101.47 2,155.23 1,707.58 1,653.53 1,935.70 1,745.72 2,139.07 2,088.02 --

Sublette County 

State Sales Taxes from Development Returned to County2 (millions of $) 0.00 88.13 87.29 97.01 38.57 63.37 96.04 158.51 89.10 -­

Severance Revenues from Production Returned to County3 (millions of $) 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 -­

Ad Valorem Taxes on Production5 (millions of $) 741.80 1,751.36 1,805.12 1,349.60 1,467.06 1,664.74 1,388.83 1,583.65 1,735.70 -­

Total County Taxes and Revenues 741.82 1,839.53 1,892.45 1,446.65 1,505.67 1,728.15 1,484.90 1,742.20 1,824.85 -­

Lincoln County 

Severance Revenues from Production Returned to County3 (millions of $) 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.11 --

Sweetwater County 

Severance Revenues from Production Returned to County3 (millions of $) 0.12 0.28 0.29 0.22 0.24 0.27 0.22 0.25 0.28 --

LaBarge 

Severance Revenues from Production Returned Cities and Towns3 (millions of $) 0.10 0.01 0.26 0.19 0.21 0.24 0.20 0.22 0.25 -­

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Returned to Cities and Towns4 (millions of $) 0.20 4.60 4.75 0.35 0.39 0.44 0.37 0.42 0.46 -­

Total Town Taxes and Revenues 0.30 4.61 5.00 0.55 0.59 0.67 0.56 0.64 0.70 -­
197 

Table 5.18 (Continued)

Taxes and Revenues Received by Governments

Alternative A

No Action Maximum Preferred

Development Rate/Government Alternative Proposed Action Recovery Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G Alternative 

Big Piney

Severance Revenues from Production Returned Cities and Towns3 (millions of $) 0.10 0.01 0.24 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.19 0.21 0.23 -­

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Returned to Cities and Towns4 (millions of $) 0.19 4.54 4.68 0.35 0.38 0.43 0.36 0.41 0.45 -­

Total Town Taxes and Revenues 0.29 4.55 4.92 0.53 0.58 0.66 0.55 0.62 0.68 --

Marbleton

Severance Revenues from Production Returned Cities and Towns3 (millions of $) 0.18 0.02 0.43 0.32 0.35 0.39 0.33 0.38 0.41 -­

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Returned to Cities and Towns4 (millions of $) 0.30 7.10 7.31 0.55 0.59 0.67 0.56 0.64 0.70 -­

Total Town Taxes and Revenues 0.48 7.11 7.74 0.87 0.94 1.07 0.89 1.02 1.11 --

Pinedale

Severance Revenues from Production Returned Cities and Towns3 (millions of $) 0.34 0.01 0.26 0.62 0.68 0.77 0.64 0.73 0.80 -­

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Returned to Cities and Towns4 (millions of $) 0.54 4.60 4.75 0.98 1.06 1.21 1.01 1.15 1.26 -­

Total Town Taxes and Revenues 0.88 4.61 5.00 1.60 1.74 1.98 1.65 1.88 2.06 -­

Rock Springs

Severance Revenues from Production Returned Cities and Towns3 (millions of $) 4.56 0.01 0.26 8.30 9.02 10.24 8.54 9.74 10.67 -­

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Returned to Cities and Towns4 (millions of $) 3.47 4.60 4.75 6.32 6.87 7.80 6.50 7.42 8.13 -­

Total Town Taxes and Revenues 8.04 4.61 5.00 14.62 15.89 18.03 15.05 17.16 18.80 -­Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Allocated to School Capital Account4 (millions of $) 20.13 47.53 48.99 36.63 39.81 45.18 37.69 42.98 47.10 -­

250 Wells/YearFederal

Federal Income Tax from All Labor (millions of $) 70.49 461.06 462.10 465.05 259.70 372.33 464.52 471.94 464.01 

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production (millions of $) 1,491.20 3,520.65 3,628.73 2,713.03 2,949.15 3,346.53 2,791.88 3,183.51 3,489.18 

Total Federal Taxes and Revenues 1,561.69 3,981.71 4,090.83 3,178.08 3,208.85 3,718.86 3,256.40 3,655.45 3,953.19 State

State Sales Taxes from Development2 (millions of $) 0.00 264.97 262.40 291.64 107.53 192.04 288.95 281.93 267.78 

Severance Revenues from Production (millions of $) 31.38 74.09 76.36 57.09 62.06 70.42 58.75 66.99 73.43 Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Returned to State(millions of $) 745.60 1,760.33 1,814.36 1,356.51 1,474.57 1,673.26 1,395.94 1,591.76 1,744.59 

Total State Taxes and Revenues 776.98 2,099.39 2,153.13 1,705.24 1,644.17 1,935.73 1,743.64 1,940.68 2,085.80 Sublette County

State Sales Taxes from Development Returned to County2 (millions of $) 0.00 87.44 86.59 96.24 35.49 63.37 95.35 93.04 88.37 

Severance Revenues from Production Returned to County3 (millions of $) 0.12 0.28 0.29 0.22 0.24 0.27 0.22 0.25 0.28 

Ad Valorem Taxes on Production5 (millions of $) 741.80 1,751.36 1,805.12 1,349.60 1,467.06 1,664.74 1,388.83 1,583.65 1,735.70 

Total County Taxes and Revenues 741.92 1,839.08 1,892.00 1,446.06 1,502.78 1,728.38 1,484.41 1,676.94 1,824.35 Lincoln County

Severance Revenues from Production Returned to County3 (millions of $) 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.10 0.11 

Approximately the same as Alternative G 
198 

Table 5.18 (Continued)

Taxes and Revenues Received by Governments

Alternative A

No Action Maximum Preferred

Development Rate/Government Alternative Proposed Action Recovery Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G Alternative 

Sweetwater County

Severance Revenues from Production Returned to County3 (millions of $) 0.12 0.28 0.29 0.22 0.24 0.27 0.22 0.25 0.28 

LaBarge

Severance Revenues from Production Returned Cities and Towns3 (millions of $) 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Returned to Cities and Towns4 (millions of $) 0.20 4.60 4.75 0.35 0.39 0.44 0.37 0.42 0.46 

Total Town Taxes and Revenues 0.20 4.61 4.76 0.36 0.39 0.45 0.37 0.43 0.47 

Big Piney

Severance Revenues from Production Returned Cities and Towns3 (millions of $) 0.10 0.01 0.24 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.19 0.21 0.23 

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Returned to Cities and Towns4 (millions of $) 0.19 4.54 4.68 0.35 0.38 0.43 0.36 0.41 0.45 

Total Town Taxes and Revenues 0.29 4.55 4.92 0.53 0.58 0.66 0.55 0.62 0.68 

Marbleton

Severance Revenues from Production Returned Cities and Towns3 (millions of $) 0.18 0.02 0.43 0.32 0.35 0.39 0.33 0.38 0.41 

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Returned to Cities and Towns4 (millions of $) 0.30 7.10 7.31 0.55 0.59 0.67 0.56 0.64 0.70 

Total Town Taxes and Revenues 0.48 7.11 7.74 0.87 0.94 1.07 0.89 1.02 1.11 

Pinedale

Severance Revenues from Production Returned Cities and Towns3 (millions of $) 0.34 0.01 0.26 0.62 0.68 0.77 0.64 0.73 0.80 

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Returned to Cities and Towns4 (millions of $) 0.54 4.60 4.75 0.98 1.06 1.21 1.01 1.15 1.26 

Approximately the same as Alternative G 

Total Town Taxes and Revenues 0.88 4.61 5.00 1.60 1.74 1.98 1.65 1.88 2.06 

Rock Springs

Severance Revenues from Production Returned Cities and Towns3 (millions of $) 4.56 0.01 0.26 8.30 9.02 10.24 8.54 9.74 10.67 

Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Returned to Cities and Towns4 (millions of $) 3.47 4.60 4.75 6.32 6.87 7.80 6.50 7.42 8.13 

Total Town Taxes and Revenues 8.04 4.61 5.00 14.62 15.89 18.03 15.05 17.16 18.80


Federal Mineral Royalties from Production Allocated to School Capital Account4 (millions of $) 20.13 47.53 48.99 36.63 39.81 45.18 37.69 42.98 47.10


1

 This analysis does not present all possible taxes and revenues; it is an estimate of the most likely taxes and revenues. 

See Table 5.17 for present value of taxes.

2

 Sales tax returns to the county of origin. 

It is likely that some taxable development costs will occur in other counties; for purposes of this analysis, all sales taxes are attributed to Sublette County.

3

 Based on 2003 proportions. 

Counties would also receive a percentage of severance for road construction funds (see Table 3.23).

4

 Based on 2003 proportions. See Table 3.27 for distribution formulas. For the purposes of this analysis all revenues are allocated to Sublette County; however, actual distribution is likely to vary. 5

 Assumes 59.57 mills levied as ad valorem tax rate on production in Sublette County. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 199 

All counties in the study area would benefit from increased revenues from federal royalties, 

severance taxes, sales taxes, and presum ably use and lodging taxes, although the latter are not 

discussed further herein. 

Because development and production would occur within Sublette County, directly related increases 

in ad valorem production and property taxes would im pact only Sublette County and its 

communities. Ad valorem taxes on production were estimated herein; however, real property values 

are likely to change if populations fluctuate, which could result in fluctuating receipts from ad 

valorem taxes on property. Real property value changes are beyond the scope of this analysis and 

are not addressed further. 

5.3.3.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, total nom inal taxes and royalties would am ount to 

$2,334.9 million over the LOP (Table 5.17). These returns would provide $741.82 m illion to 

Sublette County (Table 5.18). Based on a population of 6,024 (year 2002), this would be equivalent 

to the county receiving funds of $123,144 (approximately $3,079 annually) for each person in the 

county. This alternative would generate approximately $20.13 million for the school capital account 

to be distributed by the state (Table 5.18). 

This alternative would result in a lower recovery of resources and a lower supply of natural gas over 

the long-term than under the Proposed Action and other alternatives and m ay result in higher 

consumer prices and increased dependence on foreign supplies over the long term. The additional 

taxes and revenues generated by the Proposed Action and other alternatives would rem ain 

unrealized. Local community government operating budgets would likely remain essentially static 

under this alternative. 

Because revenues from development would not be realized under the No Action Alternative, this 

alternative would return the least amount of revenues ($2,334.9 million nominal; $1,753.7 million 

present value) to affected governments (Table 5.17). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
200 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

5.3.3.2 Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, total nom inal taxes and royalties would am ount to $6,072.1 m illion 

($3,474.7 million present value) over the LOP (Table 5.17). Nominal taxes and royalties to Sublette 

County would be $1,839.08 million (Table 5.18). Based on a population of 6,024 (year 2002), this 

would be equivalent to the county receiving funds of $305,292 (approximately $5,815 annually) for 

each person in the county. This alternative would generate approximately $47.53 million for the 

school capital account to be distributed by the state (Table 5.18). 

In addition, property tax revenues would likely increase due to the increased tax base resulting from 

capital improvements in the JIDPA. Additional natural gas production could affect consum ers 

because retail prices for natural gas are driv en by supply and dem and. As supply increases in 

relation to demand, prices of natural gas tend to fall. Reduced energy costs would also affect the 

local, state, and national economies. While, conceptually, changes in production for this field could 

impact pricing of natural gas for consum ers, given the size of the m arket it is not likely that a 

measurable change in market price would be associated with this alternative due to the length of the 

LOP. 

Tables 5.19-5.21 present speculative examples of what budgets for Big Piney, Pinedale, and Sublette 

County may be in year 10 of development under the Proposed Action. These budgets are calculated 

on a straight line annual average increase based on the current budgets for these governm ents as 

presented in Chapter 3, adjusted for the expected increase in revenues resulting from project 

activities. Expenses were calculated as a percentage of total revenues based on the last budget year 

(2003-2004) presented in Chapter 3. While these budgets are m erely speculative due to the 

variability of appropriations and taxes within governments from year to year, they are illustrative 

of the potential funds that could be available to the towns and county as natural gas development 

and production proceeds. 

5.3.3.3 Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) 

Under Alternative A, nominal taxes and royalties under the 250 well/year development rate would 

most likely amount to $6,234.7 million ($3,574.9 million present value) over the LOP (Table 5.17). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 201 

Table 5.19 Speculative Big Piney Budget in Year 10 under the Proposed Action. 

2003-20041 Project Year 102

Government/Line Item (Estimated--Approved by Board) ($) (Estimated Available $) 

REVENUES 

Taxes 

Property Taxes 14,000 40,667 

Gasoline Tax 11,501 9,643 

Sales and Use Tax 414,080 3,733,739 

Electric Franchise 3,000 3,000 

Telephone Franchise 1,000 1,000 

Cable TV Franchise 600 600 

Special Fuels Tax 2,364 2,782 

Severance Tax 17,397 14,391 

Mineral Royalty Allocation 53,418 231,678 

Cigarette Tax 4,288 5,044 

Motor Vehicle Tax 5,000 3,028 

Total Tax Revenues 526,648 4,045,574 

Licenses and Permits 

Business Licenses 500 45 

Building Permits 50 92 

Animal Licenses 50 50 

Totals Licenses and Permits 600 73 

Other Revenues 

Liquor License Fees 3,750 3,750 

Fines and Forfeitures 1,000 328 

Interest Earnings 20,000 65,391 

PP&L Collection Services 600 600 

Sundry Revenues 100 100 

Contributions and Transfers 386,102 1,211,840 

Total Other Revenues 411,552 1,282,009 

TOTAL REVENUES 938,800 5,327,656 

EXPENDITURES 

Legislative 3,715 3,145 

Court 8,240 25,963 

Administrative 104,560 1,221,150 

Social Services/Holidays 33,678 262,349 

Buildings 28,637 840,620 

Time and Temperature 200 2,459 

Parks3 18,077 857,624 

Health and Safety 5,696 8,508 

Police Department 68,866 160,983 

Fire Protection 17,000 31,076 

Airport Board 4,000 7,312 

Streets 146,545 189,902 

Total Expenditures 439,214 3,611,092 

1 Only line items that had sufficient data to calculate annual average growth rates appear in this table. It does not entirely reflect the actual Big 

Piney Budget shown in Table 3.35. 2 Assumes straight line annual average growth rate of revenues from 1999 to 2003 except where otherwise noted, then adds additional revenues 

from sales tax, severance, and federal mineral royalties distributed in the same proportion as in year 2003 (see Chapter 3); however, it is unlikely 

that budget growth or budget items will remain constant over time. 3 Applied growth rate from 2001-2003. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
202 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 5.20 Speculative Pinedale Budget in Year 10 under the Proposed Action. 

2003-20041 Project Year 102

Government/Line Item (Estimated--Approved by Board) ($) (Estimated Available $) 

REVENUES 

Motor Vehicle Tax 37,000 361,645 

Sales and Use Tax 1,433,043 29,823,528 

Cigarette Tax 6,400 458 

Gasoline Tax 42,127 747,967 

Mineral Royalties 147,420 750,591 

Mineral Severance 60,256 187,863 

Property Tax 107,000 343,692 

Dog Licenses 2,500 10,186 

Building Permits 5,000 62,131 

Liquor Licenses 12,200 16,631 

Franchise Fees 30,000 91,490 

Court Costs and Fines 10,100 7,517 

Interest 37,500 17,000 

Fire Department3 140,120 12,575,008 

Miscellaneous 3,000 3,000 

Total Revenues 2,073,666 44,998,706 

EXPENDITURES 

Administration 325,255 2,685,201 

Municipal Court 15,874 61,604 

Animal Control 52,312 593,251 

Police Department 227,237 1,550,822 

Fire Protection 194,060 21,689,385 

Streets4 381,840 1,411,560 

Pest4 25,137 496,190 

Recreation 11,000 9,039 

Parks 56,900 305,727 

Planning 4,500 113,848 

Maintenance 219,500 2,339,106 

Airport 32,500 139,962 

Sanitation5 3,000 13,958 

Total Expenditures 1,764,115 31,409,651 

1 Only line items that had sufficient data to calculate annual average growth rates appear in this table. It does not entirely reflect the actual 

Pinedale Budget shown in Table 3.36. 2 Assumes straight line annual average growth rate of revenues from 1999 to 2003 except where otherwise noted, then adds additional revenues 

from sales tax, severance, and federal mineral royalties distributed in the same proportion as in year 2003 (see Chapter 3); however, it is unlikely 

that budget growth or budget items will remain constant over time. 3 Applied growth rate from 1999-2002. 4 Applied growth rate from 2002-2003. 5 Assumes 5% annual growth rate. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
203 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 5.21 Speculative Sublette County Budget in Year 10 under the Proposed Action. 

2003-20041 Project Year 102

Government/Line Item (Estimated--Approved by Board) ($) (Estimated Available $) 

NONPROPERTY TAX REVENUES 

Gas Tax 275,000 526,899 

Forest Service 187,202 372,584 

Severance Tax 64,016 83,742 

PILT 410,577 1,791,253 

County Attorney 23,000 23,000 

Emergency Management & S&R 25,000 50,114 

County Clerk Fees 120,000 556,309 

Clerk of Court Fees 12,000 24,217 

Planning and Zoning Fees 19,500 49,962 

Sheriff's Fees 24,000 13,744 

Sales and Use Tax 3,000,000 44,623,297 

Cigarette Tax 4,098 4,207 

Interest 300,000 276,626 

Liquor Licenses 6,750 14,179,286 

Big Piney & Pinedale Metro 352,882 623,163 

Miscellaneous Fees 30,000 2,958 

Special Fuel 350,000 679,440 

5% 20,000 43,138 

Nurse 35,000 58,172 

Motor Vehicles 250,000 468,587 

Landfill 400,000 715,679 

Federal Mineral Royalty3 10,000 --

U.S. Forest-Law Enforcement 9,500 7,586 

Contract-Prisoners from Other Counties4 168,000 287,337 

Sales Tax Penalty 8,000 11,321 

Fuel Reimbursement (W&P, Fair) 6,000 9,939 

COPS Universal Grant 48,000 757 

E-911 Reimbursement 30,000 47,169 

Search and Rescue 12,000 67,395 

County Court Jury and Reimbursement 2,000 15,403 

State-County Road Fund 298,688 1,149,016 

Total Revenue Other than Property Taxes 6,501,213 66,751,669 

PROPERTY TAX REVENUES 

General Fund 9,616,995 164,047,243 

Fair 276,436 3,279,593 

Airport 115,500 570,173 

Library 520,495 1,552,068 

Museum 198,865 555,903 

Fire 487,688 1,362,201 

Total Revenue from Property Taxes 11,215,979 171,367,182 

Total Revenues 17,717,192 238,118,851 

GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS5 

Specific Appropriations 

County Commissioners 204,700 2,876,186 

County Clerk 169,615 861,671 

County Treasurer 160,378 1,331,521 

County Assessor 230,503 1,230,122 

County Attorney 214,807 1,596,578 

Clerk of Court 174,547 1,355,335 

Recycling6 123,672 4,499,627 

GIS 48,171 388,311 

County Engineer 10,000 282,198 

Courthouse and Jail7 3,382,200 6,943,137 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
204 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 5.21 (Continued) 

2003-20041 Project Year 102

Government/Line Item (Estimated--Approved by Board) ($) (Estimated Available $) 

Specific Appropriations (Cont.) 

Election 2,225 2,397 

Zoning and Land Planning 120,168 816,840 

Detention 1,278,212 146,968,141 

Communication 315,363 1,485,479 

Law Enforcement 1,843,227 16,163,833 

County Coroner 26,857 1,518,178 

County Health 124,147 1,246,237 

Health Officer and Sanitarian 86,740 5,434,407 

Road and Bridge 3,651,063 70,508,929 

Transfer Station 48,200 58,733 

Sanitary Landfill 735,023 26,744,797 

Emergency Management 108,112 6,617,404 

County Extension Office 96,484 2,825,494 

Total Specific Appropriations 11,999,864 301,755,554 

Other General Fund Appropriations 

Financial Administration 60,000 820,460 

FICA, Insurance, Retirement 1,200,000 15,357,363 

County Officer's Expense 20,000 596,120 

Printing and Publication 40,000 119,581 

Postage 27,000 154,235 

Telephone 4,000 11,716 

CPA Audit 22,500 76,875 

Grant-Historic Survey 10,023 177,523 

Senior Citizens-Big Piney 35,000 386,638 

Senior Citizens-Pinedale 45,000 992,194 

SAFV Task Force 13,950 95,928 

Office Rent 1,968 4,666 

Worker's Compensation 125,000 4,590,925 

Unemployment Compensation 10,000 24,237 

Pre-School Grant 15,000 13,393 

Learning Center 20,000 470 

Soil Conservation 164,000 5,238,877 

County Court Jury 2,000 9,643 

Total Other General Fund Appropriations 1,815,441 28,670,841 

Total General Fund Appropriations 13,815,305 330,426,395 

1 Only line items that had sufficient data to calculate annual average growth rates appear in this table. It does not entirely reflect the actual Sublette 

County Budget shown in Table 3.37. 2 Assumes straight line annual average growth rate of revenues from 1999 to 2003 except where otherwise noted, then adds additional revenues 

from sales tax, severance, and production ad valorem distributed in the same proportion as in year 2003 (see Chapter 3). However, it is unlikely 

that budget growth or budget items will remain constant over time. 3 Although Sublette County budgets from 1999-2004 indicate that federal mineral royalties have been received, the state disbursements do not 

indicate such distributions to counties. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that no such distributions will take place. 4 Assumes 5% annual growth rate. 5 Assumes appropriations occur as a constant percentage of total revenue based on the assumed straight line annual average growth rates from 

1999 to 2003. 6 Applied same growth rate as sanitary landfill. 7 Applied growth rate from 2001-2003. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 205 

Nominal taxes and royalties to Sublette County would be $1,892.00 million (Table 5.18). Based on 

a population of 6,024 (year 2002), this would be equivalent to the county receiving funds of 

$314,077 (approximately $5,982 annually) for each person in the county. This alternative would 

generate approximately $48.99 million for the school capital account to be distributed by the state 

(Table 5.17). 

Property tax revenues would likely be higher under this alternative than under the Proposed Action 

due to the greater am ount of construction involved with developm ent, which would result in an 

increased tax base resulting from capital im provements in the JIDPA. Because Alternative A 

maximizes resource recovery, benefits to consumers and local, state, and national economies would 

likely be higher than under the Proposed Action. Local area government operating budgets would 

likely increase but be less under this alternative than under the Proposed Action due to reduced 

development expenditures. Alternative A would generate the m ost overall taxes and revenues 

($6,234.7 million) and the most funds ($48.99 million) for the school capital account over the LOP 

compared to the other alternatives (Table 5.18). 

5.3.3.4 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, nominal taxes and royalties under the 250 well/year development rate would 

most likely amount to $4,876.4 million ($2,725.2 million present value) over the LOP (Table 5.17).

 Nominal taxes and royalties to Sublette County would be $1,446.06 million (Table 5.18). Based 

on a population of 6,024 (year 2002), this would be equivalent to the county receiving funds of 

$240,050 (approximately $5,334 annually) for each person in the county. This alternative would 

generate approximately $36.63 million for the school capital account to be distributed by the state 

(Table 5.18). 

In addition, property tax revenues would increase due to the increased tax base resulting from capital 

improvements in the JIDPA but at a lower am ount than under the Proposed Action due to the 

decreased number of well pads. However, this alternative would result in a lower recovery of 

resources and a lower supply of natural gas over the long-term than under the Proposed Action. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
206 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Conceptually, this m ay result in higher consum er prices and increased dependence on foreign 

supplies, although given the size of the market it is not likely that a measurable change in market 

price would be associated with this alternative due to the length of the LOP. Local area government 

operating budgets would likely increase but be less under this alternative than under the Proposed 

Action due to reduced development expenditures and lower recovery of resources. 

5.3.3.5 Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, nominal taxes and royalties under the 250 well/year development rate would 

most likely amount to $4,845.5 million ($3,242.5 million present value) over the LOP (Table 5.17).

 Nominal taxes and royalties to Sublette County would be $1,502.78 million (Table 5.18). Based 

on a population of 6,024 (year 2002), this would be equivalent to the county receiving funds of 

$249,465 (approximately $5,091 annually) for each person in the county. This alternative would 

generate approximately $39.81 million for the school capital account to be distributed by the state 

(Table 5.18). 

In addition, property tax revenues would increase due to the increased tax base resulting from capital 

improvements in the JIDPA but at a lower am ount than under the Proposed Action due to the 

decreased number of wells. However, this alternative would result in a lower recovery of resources 

and a lower supply of natural gas over the long-term than under the Proposed Action. Conceptually, 

this may result in higher consumer prices and increased dependence on foreign supplies, although 

given the size of the m arket it is not likely that a m easurable change in m arket price would be 

associated with this alternative due to the length of the LOP. Local area governm ent operating 

budgets would likely increase but be less under this alternative than under the Proposed Action due 

to reduced development expenditures and lower recovery of resources. 

5.3.3.6 Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, nominal taxes and royalties under the 250 well/year development rate would 

most likely amount to $5,646.1 million ($3,483.9 million present value) over the LOP (Table 5.17). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 207 

 Nominal taxes and royalties to Sublette County would be $1,728.38 million (Table 5.18). Based 

on a population of 6,024 (year 2002), this would be equivalent to the county receiving funds of 

$286,915 (approximately $5,855 annually) for each person in the county. This alternative would 

generate approximately $45.18 million for the school capital account to be distributed by the state 

(Table 5.18). 

In addition, property tax revenues would increase due to the increased tax base resulting from capital 

improvements in the JIDPA but at a lower am ount than under the Proposed Action due to the 

decreased number of wells. However, this alternative would result in a lower recovery of resources 

and a lower supply of natural gas over the long-term than under the Proposed Action. Conceptually, 

this may result in higher consumer prices and increased dependence on foreign supplies, although 

given the size of the m arket it is not likely that a m easurable change in m arket price would be 

associated with this alternative due to the length of the LOP. Local area governm ent operating 

budgets would likely increase but be less under this alternative than under the Proposed Action due 

to lower recovery of resources. 

5.3.3.7 Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, nominal taxes and royalties under the 250 well/year development rate would 

most likely amount to $4,992.9 million ($2,798.3 million present value) over the LOP (Table 5.17). 

Nominal taxes and royalties to Sublette County would be $1,484.41 million (Table 5.18). Based on 

a population of 6,024 (year 2002), this would be equivalent to the county receiving funds of 

$246,416 (approximately $4,694 annually) for each person in the county. This alternative would 

generate approximately $37.69 million for the school capital account to be distributed by the state 

(Table 5.18). 

In addition, property tax revenues would increase due to the increased tax base resulting from capital 

improvements in the JIDPA, but at a lower am ount than under the Proposed Action due to the 

decreased number of well pads. However, this alternative would result in a lower recovery of 

resources and a lower supply of natural gas over the long-term than under the Proposed Action. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc.
208 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Conceptually, this m ay result in higher consum er prices and increased dependence on foreign 

supplies, although given the size of the market it is not likely that a measurable change in market 

price would be associated with this alternative due to the length of the LOP. Local area government 

operating budgets would likely increase but be less under this alternative than under the Proposed 

Action due to lower recovery of resources. 

5.3.3.8 Alternative F 

Under Alternative F, nominal taxes and royalties under the 250 well/year development rate would 

most likely amount to $5,588.0 million ($3,165.4 million present value) over the LOP (Table 5.17).

 Nominal taxes and royalties to Sublette County would be $1,676.94 million (Table 5.18). Based 

on a population of 6,024 (year 2002), this would be equivalent to the county receiving funds of 

$278,376 (approximately $5,302 annually) for each person in the county. This alternative would 

generate approximately $42.98 million for the school capital account to be distributed by the state 

(Table 5.18). 

In addition, property tax revenues would increase due to the increased tax base resulting from capital 

improvements in the JIDPA but at a lower am ount than under the Proposed Action due to the 

decreased number of well pads. However, this alternative would result in a lower recovery of 

resources and a lower supply of natural gas over the long-term than under the Proposed Action. 

Conceptually, this m ay result in higher consum er prices and increased dependence on foreign 

supplies, although given the size of the market it is not likely that a measurable change in market 

price would be associated with this alternative due to the length of the LOP. Local area government 

operating budgets would likely increase but be less under this alternative than under the Proposed 

Action due to lower recovery of resources. 

5.3.3.9 Alternative G 

Under Alternative G, nominal taxes and royalties under the 250 well/year development rate would 

most likely amount to $6,030.1 million ($3,446.6 million present value) over the LOP (Table 5.17). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 209 

Nominal taxes and royalties to Sublette County would be $1,824.35 million (Table 5.18). Based on 

a population of 6,024 (year 2002), this would be equivalent to the county receiving funds of 

$302,847 (approximately $5,769 annually) for each person in the county. This alternative would 

generate approximately $47.10 million for the school capital account to be distributed by the state 

(Table 5.17). 

In addition, property tax revenues would increase due to the increased tax base resulting from capital 

improvements in the JIDPA but at a lower am ount than under the Proposed Action due to the 

decreased number of well pads. However, this alternative would result in a lower recovery of 

resources and a lower supply of natural gas over the long-term than under the Proposed Action. 

Conceptually, this m ay result in higher consum er prices and increased dependence on foreign 

supplies, although given the size of the market it is not likely that a measurable change in market 

price would be associated with this alternative due to the length of the LOP. Local area government 

operating budgets would likely increase but be less under this alternative than under the Proposed 

Action due to lower recovery of resources. 

5.3.3.10 Preferred Alternative 

Under the Preferred Alternative, impacts from increased taxes and revenues on local governments 

would approxim ately the sam e as those described under Alternative G at the 250 wells/year 

development rate. at the 250 wells/year development rate. 

5.4 RECREATION IMPACTS 

5.4.1 Nonconsumptive Recreation 

No developed recreation sites or facilities are present in or im mediately adjacent to the JIDPA; 

therefore, no impacts to recreation sites or facilities are anticipated under the Proposed Action or 

any alternative. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
210 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

There would likely be som e unquantifiable long-te rm displacem ent or elim ination of existing 

dispersed recreation due to an increased level of gas field developm ent activities, but given the 

existing environm ent already contains these activ ities, m uch of this im pact m ay have already 

occurred. That is, potential recreational visito rs m ay already avoid the JIDPA because of a 

perceived reduction in the quality of the recreational experience in the area. 

Information on the number of resident versus nonresident nonconsumptive recreational visitors is 

not collected for the JIDPA. Economic losses could result if recreationists were displaced from the 

JIDPA and moved their activities out of the study area. Losses would be proportional to the number 

of displaced recreationists. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that all recreation would 

be lost from the JIDPA for the LOP. (It is likely that most of this loss has already occurred due to 

extant development effects.) 

Direct impacts from displaced nonconsumptive recreationists (per visitor day) could result in a loss 

of $29.62 (including $6.80 of labor incom e) and 0.000518 AJEs each (Table 5.22). If all 

3,396 RVDs (see Table 3.43) were lost (regardless of the authorized alternative), there would be an 

annual loss of direct expenditures of $100,590 (i ncluding $23,093 labor earnings) and an annual

 loss of 1.8 AJEs for the LOP (Table 5.23). 

Table 5.22 Economic Activity per RVD from Nonconsumptive Recreation, Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Item Economic Activity per RVD 

Direct Expenditures $22.82 

Secondary Labor Earnings $6.80 

Total Economic Activity per RVD $29.62 

AJEs per RVD 0.000518 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
211 

Table 5.23 Economic Activity from Nonconsumptive Recreation for the Life of Field, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, Wyoming, 2005.

No Action Preferred

Economic Activity Alternative Proposed Action Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G Alternative 

Affected RVDs (Assumed Lost for LOF) -- 3,396 3,396 3,396 3,396 3,396 3,396 3,396 3,396 

Economic Activity/RVDDirect Expenditures ($) 22.8 22.8 22.8 22.8 22.8 22.8 22.8 22.8 22.8 

Secondary Labor Earnings ($) 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 

Total Economic Effect ($) 29.6 29.6 29.6 29.6 29.6 29.6 29.6 29.6 29.6 

Total AJEs 0.000518 0.000518 0.000518 0.000518 0.000518 0.000518 0.000518 0.000518 0.000518 Annual Economic ActivityDirect Expenditures ($) -- 77,496.7 77,496.7 77,496.7 77,496.7 77,496.7 77,496.7 77,496.7 77,496.7 

Secondary Labor Earnings ($) -- 23,092.8 23,092.8 23,092.8 23,092.8 23,092.8 23,092.8 23,092.8 23,092.8 

Total Economic Effect ($) -- 100,589.5 100,589.5 100,589.5 100,589.5 100,589.5 100,589.5 100,589.5 100,589.5


Total Annual AJEs -- 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8


Approximately the same as Alternative G

Nominal Value of LOF Recreation

75 Wells/Year Development RateDirect Expenditures (millions of $) -- 6.4 6.4 6.4 4.4 5.4 6.4 6.4 6.4 -­

Secondary Labor Earnings (millions of $) -- 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.3 1.6 1.9 1.9 1.9 -­

Total Economic Effect (millions of $) -- 8.2 8.2 8.2 5.7 7.0 8.2 8.2 8.2 -­


Total LOF AJEs2 -- 144.2 144.2 144.2 100.3 123.1 144.2 144.2 144.2 -­


150 Wells/Year Development RateDirect Expenditures (millions of $) -- 4.7 4.7 4.7 3.8 4.3 4.7 4.7 4.7 -­

Secondary Labor Earnings (millions of $) -- 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 -­

Total Economic Effect (millions of $) -- 6.1 6.1 6.1 4.9 5.5 6.1 6.1 6.1 -­

Total LOF AJEs2 -- 107.3 107.3 107.3 86.2 96.8 107.3 107.3 107.3 -­

250 Wells/Year Development RateDirect Expenditures (millions of $) -- 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.5 3.8 4.1 4.1 4.1 

Secondary Labor Earnings (millions of $) -- 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 Approximately the

Total Economic Effect (millions of $) -- 5.3 5.3 5.3 4.5 4.9 5.3 5.3 5.3 same as Alternative

G 

Total LOF AJEs2 -- 92.4 92.4 92.4 79.2 86.2 92.4 92.4 92.4 
212 

Table 5.23 (Continued) 

No Action Preferred 

Economic Activity Alternative Proposed Action Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G Alternative 

Present Value of LOF Recreation2 

75 Wells/Year Development Rate Direct Expenditures (millions of $) -- 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 -­

Secondary Labor Earnings (millions of $) -- 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 -­

Total Economic Effect (millions of $) -- 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 -­

150 Wells/Year Development Rate Direct Expenditures (millions of $) -- 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 -­

Secondary Labor Earnings (millions of $) -- 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 -­

Total Economic Effect (millions of $) -- 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 -­

250 Wells/Year Development Rate Direct Expenditures (millions of $) -- 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 Approximately the 

Secondary Labor Earnings (millions of $) -- 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 same as Alternative 

Total Economic Effect (millions of $) -- 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 G 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 213 

However, it is likely that any recreationists discouraged from engaging in activities in the JIDPA 

as a result of natural gas development would relocate their activities to other locations in the vicinity 

that would provide sim ilar recreational opportunities unique to the PFO area. Individuals may 

experience impacts in term s of lessened enjoym ent and satisfaction from relocated recreational 

activities. 

5.4.1.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no change in econom ic activity from current conditions for 

recreation would be expected. No additional developm ent would occur; therefore, current 

recreationists would not likely relocate their activities (Table 5.23). Impacts from all action 

alternatives would likely be higher than those described for the No Action Alternative due to 

increased disturbance and longer LOP. 

5.4.1.2 Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, if it is assumed that all 3,396 RVDs are relocated for the LOP, reduced 

recreation economic activity would amount to $2.4 million present value (including $0.5 m illion 

present value secondary labor earnings) and up to 92.4 AJEs (Table 5.23). 

5.4.1.3 Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) 

Under Alternative A, if it is assum ed that all 3,396 RVDs are relocated for the LOP, the greatest 

reduction in economic activity would occur under the 75 well/year development rate due to project 

duration (up to 82 years) (Table 5.23). This option could result in the loss of recreational economic 

activity of up to $2.7 million present value (including $0.6 million present value in secondary labor 

earnings) and up to 144.2 AJEs for the 82-year LOP (Table 5.23). The least reduction in economic 

activity would occur under the 250 well/year development rate (52.5-year LOP) and would amount 

to $2.4 million present value (including $0.5 million present value secondary labor earnings) and 

up to 92.4 AJEs (Table 5.23). The loss of econom ic activity would be increased under longer 

development rates due to the extended period that RVDs would be displaced. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
214 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

5.4.1.4 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, losses to econom ic activity from recreation would be the sam e as those 

described for Alternative A (Table 5.23). Impacts would be less than for the Proposed Action due 

to reduced disturbance over the LOP. 

5.4.1.5 Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, the greatest reduction in economic activity from recreation losses would most 

likely occur under the 75 well/year development rate due to project duration (up to 57 years). This 

option could result in the accum ulated loss of up to $2.5 m illion present value (including 

$0.6 million present value in secondary labor earnings) and up to 100.3 AJEs for the 57-year LOP 

(Table 5.23). The least reduction in econom ic activity would occur under the 250 well/year 

development rate (45-year LOP) and would am ount to $2.3 million present value (including 

$0.5 million present value secondary labor earnings) and up to 79.2 AJEs (Table 5.23). Impacts 

would be less than for the Proposed Action due to reduced disturbance over the LOP. 

5.4.1.6 Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the greatest reduction in economic activity would most likely occur under the 

75 well/year development rate due to project duration (up to 70 years). This option could result in 

the accumulated loss of up to $2.6 million present value (including $0.6 m illion present value in 

secondary labor earnings) and up to 123.1 AJEs for the 70-year LOP (Table 5.23). The least 

reduction in economic activity would most likely occur under the 250 well/year development rate 

(49-year LOP) and would amount to $2.3 million present value (including $0.5 million present value 

secondary labor earnings) and up to 86.2 AJEs (Table 5.23). Impacts would be less than for the 

Proposed Action due to reduced disturbance over the LOP. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 215 

5.4.1.7 Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, changes to economic activity would likely be the same as those described for 

Alternative A. 

5.4.1.8 Alternative F 

Under Alternative F, changes to economic activity would likely be the same as those described for 

Alternative A. 

5.4.1.9 Alternative G 

Under Alternative G, changes to economic activity would likely be the same as those described for 

Alternative A. 

5.4.1.10 Preferred Alternative 

Under the Preferred Alternative, changes to econom ic activity would approximately the same as 

same as those described for Alternative G at the 250 wells/year development rate. 

5.4.2 Hunting 

Economic activity from hunting could be reduced if hunters were displaced from the JIDPA and 

moved their activities out of the study area. Losses would be proportional to the num ber of 

displaced hunters. Under the Proposed Action and alternatives, populations of pronghorn antelope 

and/or greater sage-grouse, which are the two principle species hunted on the JIDPA, would likely 

be displaced to such an extent that recreational hunting on the JIDPA m ay no longer occur. 

Cottontail rabbits are also hunted on the JIDPA, but are unlikely to be displaced. However, it is 

likely that hunters already avoid the area due to extant development. Lands adjacent to the JIDPA 

may absorb displaced hunting pressure since displaced wildlife (most notably pronghorn antelope 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
216 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

and greater sage-grouse) may also move to adjacent lands; thus, no economic loss may result from 

loss of hunting due to the project. However, for the purposes of this econom ic analysis, it is 

conservatively assumed that all hunting on the JIDPA would be lost for the LOP. 

Only cottontail, greater sage-grouse, and pronghorn are likely to be hunted on the JIDPA. WGFD 

does not collect resident versus nonresident inform ation for cottontail and greater sage-grouse 

hunting; therefore, it will be conservatively assumed for the purposes of this analysis that all hunters 

are nonresident. Direct impacts from displaced pronghorn hunters (61.0 hunter days per year 

attributable to JIDPA lands) could result in a loss of $536.46/hunter day (including $155.16 of labor 

income) and 0.012087 AJEs each (Table 5.24). Direct impacts from displaced cottontail hunters 

(26.4 hunter days per year) could result in a loss of $243.48/hunter day (including $70.42 of labor 

income) and 0.005486 AJEs each. Direct impacts from displaced greater sage-grouse hunters 

(16.3 hunter days per labor) could result in a loss of $183.32 (including $53.02 of labor income) and 

0.004131 AJEs each. If all hunters relocate their activities away from the JIDPA could result in an 

annual economic activity loss of $42,140 ($12,188 of labor income) and an annual loss 0.95 AJEs 

(Table 5.25). 

Table 5.24 Economic Activity per Hunter Day, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 

Wyoming, 2005. 

Economic Activity from Hunting 

Item Pronghorn Cottontail Greater Sage-grouse Total 

Economic Activity Per Hunter Day 

Direct Expenditures $381.30 $173.06 $130.30 $684.66 

Total Economic Activity $536.46 $243.48 $183.32 $963.26 

per Hunter Day 

Secondary Labor Earnings $155.16 $70.42 $53.02 $278.60 

AJEs 0.012087 0.005486 0.004131 0.021704 

Annual Economic Activity 

No. Hunter Days 61.0 26.4 16.3 103.70 

Direct Expenditures $23,259 $4,569 $2,124 $29,952 

Secondary Labor Earnings $9,465 $1,859 $864 $12,188 

Total Annual Economic $32,724 $6,428 $2,988 $42,140 

Activity 

AJEs 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.95 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
217 

Table 5.25 Economic Activity Resulting from Hunting Over the Life of Field, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 2005.

No Action 

Economic Activity Alternative Proposed Action Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G Preferred Alternative

Affected Hunter Days1 (Assumed Lost for L -- 103.7 103.7 103.7 103.7 103.7 103.7 103.7 103.7 

Economic Activity/AUMDirect Expenditures ($) 684.66 684.66 684.66 684.66 684.66 684.66 684.66 684.66 684.66 

Secondary Labor Earnings ($) 278.60 278.60 278.60 278.60 278.60 278.60 278.60 278.60 278.60 

Total Economic Effect ($) 963.26 963.26 963.26 963.26 963.26 963.26 963.26 963.26 963.26 

Total AJEs 0.021704 0.021704 0.021704 0.021704 0.021704 0.021704 0.021704 0.021704 0.021704 

Annual Economic ActivityDirect Expenditures ($) -- 29,952.0 29,952.0 29,952.0 29,952.0 29,952.0 29,952.0 29,952.0 29,952.0 

Secondary Labor Earnings ($) -- 12,188.0 12,188.0 12,188.0 12,188.0 12,188.0 12,188.0 12,188.0 12,188.0 

Total Economic Effect ($) -- 42,140.0 42,140.0 42,140.0 42,140.0 42,140.0 42,140.0 42,140.0 42,140.0


Total Annual AJEs -- 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95


Approximately the same as Alternative G

Nominal Value of LOF Hunting

75 Wells/Year Development RateDirect Expenditures (millions of $) -- 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.7 2.1 2.5 2.5 2.5 -­

Secondary Labor Earnings (millions of $) -- 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 -­

Total Economic Effect (millions of $) -- 3.5 3.5 3.5 2.4 2.9 3.5 3.5 3.5 -­


Total Annual AJEs -- 77.9 77.9 77.9 54.2 66.5 77.9 77.9 77.9 -­


150 Wells/Year Development RateDirect Expenditures (millions of $) -- 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.8 -­

Secondary Labor Earnings (millions of $) -- 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 -­

Total Economic Effect (millions of $) -- 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.1 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.6 -­

Total Annual AJEs -- 58.0 58.0 58.0 46.6 52.3 58.0 58.0 58.0 -­

250 Wells/Year Development RateDirect Expenditures (millions of $) -- 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 

Secondary Labor Earnings (millions of $) -- 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 Approximately the same Total Economic Effect (millions of $) -- 2.2 2.2 2.2 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 as Alternative G 

Total Annual AJEs -- 49.9 49.9 49.9 42.8 46.6 49.9 49.9 49.9 
218 

Table 5.25 (Continued) 

1

No Action 

Economic Activity Alternative Proposed Action Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G Preferred Alternative 

Present Value of LOF Hunting 

75 Wells/Year Development Rate Direct Expenditures (millions of $) -- 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 -­

Secondary Labor Earnings (millions of $) -- 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 -­

Total Economic Effect (millions of $) -- 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 -­

150 Wells/Year Development Rate Direct Expenditures (millions of $) -- 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 -­

Secondary Labor Earnings (millions of $) -- 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 -­

Total Economic Effect (millions of $) -- 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 -­

250 Wells/Year Development Rate Direct Expenditures (millions of $) -- 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 Approximately the same Secondary Labor Earnings (millions of $) -- 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 as Alternative G 

Total Economic Effect (millions of $) -- 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 

Includes pronghorn, cottontail, and greater sage-grouse (assumed lost for LOF) (see Table 5.24). 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 219 

5.4.2.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no change in econom ic activity from current conditions for 

hunting would be expected. No additional development would occur; therefore, current hunters 

would not likely relocate their activities m ore than has already occurred (Table 5.25). Under all 

action alternatives, impacts to hunting would likely be greater than that described for the No Action 

Alternative due to increased disturbance and longer LOP. 

5.4.2.2 Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, if it is assumed that all 103.7 hunter days per year are relocated for the 

LOP, reduction in economic activity from hunting expenditures would likely amount to $1.0 million 

present value (including $0.3 million present value secondary labor earnings) and up to 49.9 AJEs 

(Table 5.25). 

5.4.2.3 Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) 

Under Alternative A, if it is assumed that all 103.7 hunter days per year are relocated for the LOP, 

the greatest reduction in economic activity would likely occur under the 75 well/year development 

rate due to project duration under this development rate (up to 82 years). This option could result 

in the accumulated loss of up to $1.1 million present value (including $0.3 million present value in 

secondary labor earnings) and up to 77.9 AJEs for the 82-year LOP (Table 5.25). The least 

reduction in economic activity would occur under the 250 well/year developm ent rate (52.5-year 

LOP) and would am ount to $1.0 million present value (including $0.3 m illion present value 

secondary labor earnings) and up to 49.9 AJEs (Table 5.25). Longer development periods under the 

75 and 150 well/year development rates would result in greater reductions in hunting-generated 

economic activity than under the Proposed Action. 

Nominally, the greatest total reduction in economic activity ($3.5 million) from any alternative from 

loss of hunting would likely occur under the 75 well/year development rate under this alternative. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
220 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

5.4.2.4 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, changes to economic activity would likely be the same as those described for 

Alternative A. Impacts would be less than for the Proposed Action due to reduced disturbance over 

the LOP. 

5.4.2.5 Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, the greatest reduction in economic activity would likely occur under the 75 

well/year development rate due to project duration (up to 57 years). This option could result in the 

accumulated loss of up to $1.0 m illion present value (including $0.3 m illion present value in 

secondary labor earnings) and up to 54.2 AJEs for the 57-year LOP (Table 5.25). The least 

reduction in economic activity would occur under the 250 well/year development rate (45-year LOP) 

and would amount to $0.9 million present value (including $0.3 million present value secondary 

labor earnings) and up to 42.8 AJEs (Table 5.25). Impacts would be less than for the Proposed 

Action due to reduced disturbance over the LOP. 

5.4.2.6 Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, the greatest reduction in economic activity would likely occur under the 

75 well/year development rate due to project duration (up to 70 years). This option could result in 

the accumulated loss of up to $1.1 million present value (including $0.3 m illion present value in 

secondary labor earnings and up to 66.5 AJEs for the 70-year LOP (Table 5.25). The least reduction 

in economic activity would occur under the 250 well/year developm ent rate (49-year LOP) and 

would amount to $1.0 million present value (including $0.3 million present value secondary labor 

earnings) and up to 46.6 AJEs (Table 5.25). Impacts would likely be less than for the Proposed 

Action due to reduced disturbance over the LOP. 

5.4.2.7 Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, changes to economic activity would likely be the same as those described for 

Alternative A. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 221 

5.4.2.8 Alternative F 

Under Alternative F, changes to economic activity would likely be the same as those described for 

Alternative A. 

5.4.2.9 Alternative G 

Under Alternative G, changes to economic activity would likely be the same as those described for 

Alternative A. 

5.4.2.10 Preferred Alternative 

Under the Preferred Alternative, changes to econom ic activity would approximately the same as 

those described for Alternative G at the 250 wells/year development rate. 

5.5 GRAZING IMPACTS 

There would be a reduction in available forage on grazing allotments within the JIDPA due to road, 

pipeline, and well pad construction (BLM 2004c). For the purposes of this analysis, it is 

conservatively assumed that, based on the reduction in forage, BLM would reduce the number of 

permitted AUMs during initial disturbance and for the LOP; these estimated reductions are presented 

in Table 5.26. The economic activity from these AUMs is presented in Table 5.27. The assumed 

reduction in AUMs does not take into consideration the possibility that areas reclaimed shortly after 

initial disturbance--areas not needed for the LOP--could potentially provide more forage (primarily 

grass) for livestock than the previously undisturbed range. Total economic impact per AUM lost 

is estimated at $114.99 (including $18.46 labor earnings) and 0.000709 AJEs annually (Table 5.27). 

Additionally, fees paid to the BLM by permittees ($1.35/AUM) would not be realized if the number 

of permitted AUMs were reduced. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
222 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 5.26 Number of AUMs Potentially Affected under Each Alternative and Cum ulatively 

Including Existing Disturbance, Jonah Infill Drill Project, 2004. 

Number of AUMs 

Cumulative 

(Newly Affected + Reasonably 

Newly Affected Foreseeable Disturbance) 

Alternative (Assumed Lost for LOP) (Assumed Lost for LOP) 

Proposed Action 1,720 1,761 

Alternative A 1,720 1,761 

Alternative B 618 659 

Alternative C 909 950 

Alternative D 1,325 1,366 

Alternative E 881 968 

Alternative F 1,227 1,268 

Alternative G 1,531 1,490 

No Action 342 383 

Total acres in All Allotments -- 120,597

Total Permitted AUMs in All Allotments -- 9,876

Table 5.27 Economic Activity from Grazing per AUM, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette 

County, Wyoming, 2005. 

Item/AUM Economic Activity per AUM 

Value of Production $35.29 

Indirect Economic Activity (not labor) $61.24 

Secondary Labor Earnings $18.46 

Total Economic Activity per AUM $114.99 

AJEs per AUM 0.000709 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 223 

For the purposes of this econom ic analysis, it is conservatively assum ed that all affected AUMs 

(cumulative plus reasonably foreseeable disturbance) would be lost under each alternative for the 

LOP (Tables 5.26 and 5.28). Total losses would depend on the LOP (ranging from 40 to up to 

82 years), which depends on the num ber of wells and rate of developm ent ultimately approved. 

Some AUMs would return to productivity during the LOP as reclam ation proceeds and forage 

production increases. Removal and reinstatem ent of any perm itted AUMs would be at the 

discretion of the BLM. 

5.5.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, it is assumed no new surface disturbance would occur except for 

that which is already authorized; however, 383 AUMs that are currently affected plus reasonably 

foreseeable disturbance would rem ain lost for the LOP. The reduction could result in the 

accumulated loss of up to $0.9 m illion present value (including $0.2 m illion present value in 

secondary labor earnings) and up to 10.9 AJEs for the 40-year LOP (Table 5.28). The least change 

in grazing would occur under this alternative due to the shorter project duration and reduced 

disturbance. Impacts to grazing under all action alternatives would likely be higher than that 

described for the No Action Alternative due to increased disturbance and longer LOP. 

5.5.2 Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, if it is assumed that 1,761 AUMs would be lost for the LOP, reduction 

in economic activity would amount to $6.6 million present value (including $4.0 million present 

value secondary labor earnings) and up to 65.5 AJEs (Table 5.28) for the 40-year LOP. 

Impacts would be greater than for the No Action Alternative due to increased disturbance and longer 

project duration. 

5.5.3 Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) 

Under Alternative A, if it is assum ed that 1,761 AUMs would be lost for the LOP, the least 

reduction in economic activity would likely occur under the 150 well/year development rate due to 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
224 

Table 5.28 Economic Activity Resulting from Grazing Over the Life of Field, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 2005.

No Action Preferred

Economic Activity Alternative Proposed Action Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G Alternative Affected AUMs1 (Assumed Lost for LOF) 383 1,761 1,761 659 950 1,366 968 1,268 1,490 

Economic Activity/AUMValue of Production ($) 35.3 35.29 35.29 35.29 35.29 35.29 35.29 35.29 35.29 

Indirect Economic Activity (not labor) ($) 61.2 61.24 61.24 61.24 61.24 61.24 61.24 61.24 61.24 

Secondary Labor Earnings ($) 18.5 18.46 18.46 18.46 18.46 18.46 18.46 18.46 18.46 

Total Economic Effect ($) 115.0 114.99 114.99 114.99 114.99 114.99 114.99 114.99 114.99 

Total AJEs 0.000709 0.000709 0.000709 0.000709 0.000709 0.000709 0.000709 0.000709 0.000709 

Annual Economic ActivityValue of Production ($) 13,516.1 62,145.7 62,145.7 23,256.1 33,525.5 48,206.1 34,160.7 44,747.7 52,582.1 

Indirect Economic Activity (not labor) ($) 23,454.9 107,843.6 107,843.6 40,357.2 58,178.0 83,653.8 59,280.3 77,652.3 91,247.6 

Secondary Labor Earnings ($) 7,070.2 32,508.1 32,508.1 12,165.1 17,537.0 25,216.4 17,869.3 23,407.3 27,505.4 

Approximately the same as Alternative G

Total Economic Effect ($) 44,041.2 202,497.4 202,497.4 75,778.4 109,240.5 157,076.3 111,310.3 145,807.3 171,335.1


Total Annual AJEs 0.3 1.2 1.2 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.9 1.1


Nominal Value of LOF Grazing

75 Wells/Year Development RateValue of Production (millions of $) 0.9 8.8 8.8 3.3 3.3 5.9 4.9 6.4 7.5 -­

Indirect Economic Activity (not labor) (millions of $) 0.3 2.7 2.7 1.0 1.0 1.8 1.5 1.9 2.3 -­

Secondary Labor Earnings (millions of $) 0.3 2.7 2.7 1.0 1.0 1.8 1.5 1.9 2.3 -­

Total Economic Effect (millions of $) 1.5 14.2 14.2 5.3 5.3 9.4 7.8 10.2 12.0 -­

Total Annual AJEs 10.9 102.4 102.4 38.3 38.4 67.8 56.3 73.7 86.6 -­

150 Wells/Year Development RateValue of Production (millions of $) 0.9 6.6 6.6 2.5 2.9 4.6 3.6 4.7 5.6 -­

Indirect Economic Activity (not labor) (millions of $) 0.3 2.0 2.0 0.7 0.9 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.7 -­

Secondary Labor Earnings (millions of $) 0.3 2.0 2.0 0.7 0.9 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.7 -­

Total Economic Effect (millions of $) 1.5 10.5 10.5 3.9 4.6 7.4 5.8 7.6 8.9 -­

Total Annual AJEs 10.9 76.2 76.2 28.5 33.0 53.3 41.9 54.8 64.4 -­

250 Wells/Year Development RateValue of Production (millions of $) 0.9 5.7 5.7 2.1 2.6 4.1 3.1 4.1 4.8 

Indirect Economic Activity (not labor) (millions of $) 0.3 1.7 1.7 0.6 0.8 1.2 0.9 1.2 1.4 Approximately

Secondary Labor Earnings (millions of $) 0.3 1.7 1.7 0.6 0.8 1.2 0.9 1.2 1.4 the same as Total Economic Effect (millions of $) 1.5 9.1 9.1 3.4 4.2 6.6 5.0 6.5 7.7 Alternative G Total Annual AJEs 10.9 65.5 65.5 24.5 30.3 47.5 36.0 47.2 55.5 
225 

Table 5.28 (Continued) 

1

No Action Preferred 

Economic Activity Alternative Proposed Action Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G Alternative 

Present Value of LOF Grazing 

75 Wells/Year Development Rate Value of Production (millions of $) 0.3 1.7 1.7 0.6 0.8 1.3 0.9 1.2 1.4 -­

Indirect Economic Activity (not labor) (millions of $) 0.5 2.9 2.9 1.1 1.4 2.2 1.6 2.1 2.5 -­

Secondary Labor Earnings (millions of $) 0.2 0.9 0.9 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.7 -­

Total Economic Effect (millions of $) 0.9 5.4 5.4 2.0 2.7 4.1 3.0 3.9 4.6 -­

150 Wells/Year Development Rate Value of Production (millions of $) 0.3 1.6 1.6 0.6 0.7 1.2 0.9 1.1 1.3 -­

Indirect Economic Activity (not labor) (millions of $) 0.5 2.7 2.7 1.0 1.4 2.0 1.5 1.9 2.3 -­

Secondary Labor Earnings (millions of $) 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.7 -­

Total Economic Effect (millions of $) 0.9 5.1 5.1 1.9 2.4 3.8 2.8 3.7 4.3 -­

250 Wells/Year Development Rate Value of Production (millions of $) 0.3 1.3 1.3 0.5 0.8 1.1 0.7 0.9 1.1 

Indirect Economic Activity (not labor) (millions of $) 0.5 1.3 1.3 0.5 1.3 1.9 0.7 0.9 1.1 Approximately the same as 

Secondary Labor Earnings (millions of $) 0.2 4.0 4.0 1.5 0.4 0.6 2.2 2.9 3.4 Alternative G Total Economic Effect (millions of $) 0.9 6.6 6.6 2.5 2.5 3.7 3.6 4.7 5.6 

Cumulative AUMs (newly affected + RFD) (assumed lost for LOF). 
226 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

project duration (up to 61 years). This option could result in the accum ulated loss of up to 

$5.1 million present value (including $0.8 million present value in secondary labor earnings) and 

up to 76.2 AJEs for the 61-year LOP (Table 5.28). Under the 250 well/year developm ent rate, 

impacts would be the same as under the Proposed Action. Losses would be greater than under the 

Proposed Action during the longer project durations due to the longer periods the AUMs would be 

unavailable. 

The greatest loss in grazing from all alternatives would likely occur under Alternative A at a 

75 well/year development rate. 

5.5.4 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, if it is assum ed that 659 AUMs would be reduced for the LOP, the least 

reduction in economic activity would likely occur under the 150 well/year development rate due to 

project duration (up to 61 years). This option could result in the accum ulated loss of up to 

$1.9 million present value (including $0.3 million present value in secondary labor earnings) and 

up to 38.3 AJEs for the 82-year LOP (Table 5.28). The greatest reduction in econom ic activity 

would occur under the 250 well/year developm ent rate (52.5-year LOP) and would am ount to 

$2.5 million present value (including $1.5 million present value secondary labor earnings) and up 

to 24.5 AJEs (Table 5.28). Impacts would be less than for the Proposed Action due to reduced 

disturbance over the LOP. 

5.5.5 Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, if it is assumed that 950 AUMs would be reduced for the LOP, the greatest 

reduction in economic activity would likely occur under the 75 well/year development rate due to 

project duration (up to 57 years). This option could result in the accum ulated loss of up to 

$2.7 million present value (including $0.4 million present value in secondary labor earnings) and 

up to 38.4 AJEs for the 57-year LOP (Table 5.28). The least reduction in economic activity would 

occur under the 150 well/year development rate (45-year LOP) and would amount to $2.4 million 

present value (including $0.4 million present value secondary labor earnings) and up to 30.3 AJEs 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 227 

(Table 5.28). Impacts would be less than for the Proposed Action due to reduced disturbance over 

the LOP. 

5.5.6 Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, if it is assumed that 1,366 AUMs would be reduced for the LOP, the greatest 

reduction in economic activity would likely occur under the 75 well/year development rate due to 

project duration (up to 70 years). This option could result in the accum ulated loss of up to 

$4.1 million present value (including $0.7 million present value in secondary labor earnings) and 

up to 67.8 AJEs for the 70-year LOP (Table 5.28). The least reduction in economic activity would 

occur under the 250 well/year development rate (49-year LOP) and would amount to $3.7 million 

present value (including $0.6 million present value secondary labor earnings) and up to 47.5 AJEs 

(Table 5.28). Impacts would be less than for the Proposed Action due to reduced disturbance over 

the LOP. 

5.5.7 Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, if it is assumed that 968 AUMs would be reduced for the LOP, the least 

reduction in economic activity would likely occur under the 150 well/year development rate due to 

project duration (up to 61 years). This option could result in the accum ulated loss of up to 

$2.8 million present value (including $0.4 million present value in secondary labor earnings) and 

up to 41.9 AJEs for the 61-year LOP (Table 5.28). The most reduction in economic activity would 

occur under the 250 well/year development rate (52.5-year LOP) and would amount to $3.6 million 

present value (including $2.2 million present value secondary labor earnings) and up to 36.0 AJEs 

(Table 5.28). Impacts would be less than for the Proposed Action due to reduced disturbance over 

the LOP. 

5.5.8 Alternative F 

Under Alternative F, if it is assum ed that 1,268 AUMs would be reduced for the LOP, the least 

reduction in economic activity would likely occur under the 150 well/year development rate due to 

project duration (up to 61 years) (Table 5.28). This option could result in the accumulated loss of 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
228 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

up to $3.7 million present value (including $0.6 million present value in secondary labor earnings) 

and up to 54.8 AJEs for the 61-year LOP. The most reduction in economic activity would occur 

under the 250 well/year developm ent rate (52.5-year LOP) and would am ount to $4.7 million 

present value (including $2.9 million present value secondary labor earnings) and up to 47.2 AJEs.

 Impacts would be less than for the Proposed Action due to reduced disturbance over the LOP. 

5.5.9 Alternative G 

Under Alternative G, if it is assumed that 1,490 AUMs would be reduced for the LOP, the greatest 

reduction in economic activity would likely occur under the 150 well/year development rate due to 

project duration (up to 61 years). This option could result in the accum ulated loss of up to 

$4.3 million present value (including $0.7 million present value in secondary labor earnings) and 

up to 64.4 AJEs for the 61-year LOP (Table 5.28). The most reduction in economic activity would 

occur under the 250 well/year development rate (52.5-year LOP) and would amount to $5.6 million 

present value (including $3.4 million present value secondary labor earnings) and up to 55.5 AJEs 

(Table 5.28). Impacts would be less than for the Proposed Action due to reduced disturbance over 

the LOP. 

5.5.10 Preferred Alternative 

Under the Preferred Alternative, changes to economic activity would be approximately the same as 

those described for Alternative G at the 250 wells/year development rate. 

5.6 POPULATION AND LABOR ACTIVITY 

5.6.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no additional development would occur and the pace of production 

would likely be slowed. This would reduce the num ber of rigs, crews, and associated services 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 229 

currently operating in the area. Services and associated jobs would likely be reduced or eliminated 

under the No Action Alternative. No additional secondary labor earnings or jobs would occur from 

development under this alternative; m inimal additional secondary labor and jobs m ay be created 

from production activities, but this em ployment is not expected to affect population in the study 

area. 

5.6.2 Proposed Action 

Project-required direct em ployment is not expected to affect population in the study area. 

Project-required natural gas workers would likely be primarily obtained from the existing pool of 

workers employed in the area because drilling and production in the JIDPA continue year-round, 

thus providing continuous employment for these workers and would likely attract m ature, settled 

workers that have already permanently relocated to the CIAA. These jobs would likely be lost under 

the No Action Alternative. Increased potential for em ployment from secondary (non-project -

required) jobs created as a result of the project m ay attract out-of-area job seekers, which could 

affect population in the study area; however, it is likely that these job seekers would already live in 

the area but work in adjoining counties, thus population changes are anticipated to be minimal. If 

the demographic of workers attracted to the project area were young unm arried or married males 

who did not move their families into the region, there could be a short-term impact related to the inmigration of these workers. Additionally, secondary employment AJEs would likely be distributed 

throughout the study area, state, region, and nation. If population increases would occur, pressure 

on housing would likely increase, which could induce additional residential construction and 

development in the study area. A longer development period would reduce the present value of the 

economic activity in term s of the dollars that could be derived from development but a longer 

development period would be less likely to affect population and job trends over the long term. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
230 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

5.6.3 Alternative A (Maximum Recovery) 

Population changes from secondary employment would likely be similar to but reduced from that 

described for the Proposed Action because only conventional wells would be drilled; therefore, 

fewer AJEs would be created to attract new workers. The potential for population changes from 

secondary employment would likely be lowest under Alternative A when com pared to all other 

alternatives that contain a development component. 

5.6.4 Alternative B 

Population changes from secondary employment would likely be similar to but increased from that 

described for the Proposed Action because all wells would be directionally drilled; therefore, more 

AJEs would be created to attract new workers. 

5.6.5 Alternative C 

Population changes from secondary employment would likely be less than that described for the 

Proposed Action due to the creation of fewer AJEs as a result of fewer wells being developed. 

5.6.6 Alternative D 

Population changes from secondary employment would likely be similar to but decreased from that 

described for the Proposed Action due to fewer numbers of AJEs being created as a result of fewer 

wells being developed. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 231 

5.6.7 Alternative E 

Population changes from secondary employment would likely be similar to but somewhat higher 

than that described for the Proposed Action due to the increased number of AJEs created because 

of the higher level of directional drilling. 

5.6.8 Alternative F 

Population changes from secondary employment would likely be higher than that described for the 

Proposed Action. Under the 75 and 250 well/year development rate the number of AJEs created 

would be similar to but slightly higher than the Proposed Action, but more AJEs are created under 

the 150 well/year development rate due to the combination of straight and directional wells being 

drilled, which would likely attract som e workers to com e to the area seeking em ployment. The 

potential for population changes from secondary em ployment would likely be highest under 

Alternative F when compared to all other alternatives. 

5.6.9 Alternative G 

Population changes from secondary employment would likely be similar to but somewhat higher 

than that described for the Proposed Action due to the increased number of AJEs created as a result 

of the higher number of directionally drilled wells. 

5.6.10 Preferred Alternative 

Population changes from secondary employment would likely be approximately the same as that 

described for Alternative G at the 250 wells/year development rate. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
232 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

5.7 SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY 

5.7.1 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the least am ount of change in econom ic activity from current 

conditions would be expected when com pared to all other alternatives; because no additional 

development would occur, no economic activity from development would occur. Production would 

be limited to the life of currently producing wells; therefore, only up to 3,366 BCF of gas and 

31.98 MBO would be recovered under this alternative (Table 5.29). Over the LOP, the No Action 

Alternative would generate up to $15,255.9 m illion ($11,028.5 m illion present value) and 

13,947 AJEs with an average wage of $47,173 (Table 5.29). Up to $2,334.9 million in taxes and 

revenues would be realized over the LOP (Table 5.29). Grazing could be reduced by up to 

$1.5 million (Table 5.29). No effect would be expected to occur on recreation or hunting resources. 

The least total economic activity would occur under the No Action Alternative of all alternatives, 

and this alternative would create the least num ber of AJEs. Impacts from all action alternatives 

would likely be higher than those described under the No Action Alternative due to increased 

development and production, increased disturbance, and longer LOP. 

5.7.2 Proposed Action 

Under the Proposed Action, change in economic activity from current conditions would be expected 

from the developm ent of up to 3,100 wells and the recovery of up to 7,947 BCF of gas and 

75.50 MBO (Table 5.29). Over the LOP of 52.5 years (12.5 years to develop), economic activity 

would be $45,153.7 million ($28,060.4 million present value), including $6,072.1 million in taxes 

and revenues (Table 5.29). The number of AJEs that would be created would be up to 85,945.2 with 

an average wage ranging from $31,881 to $47,173 (Table 5.29). This action could result in a loss 

of economic activity from recreation of $5.3 million, hunting of $2.2 million, and grazing of $9.1 

million over the LOP (Table5.29). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
233 

Table 5.29 Summary of Total Economic Activity Resulting from Natural Gas Development and Production Over the Life of Field, Jonah Infill Drilling Project, Sublette County, 2004.

Economic Activity Resulting from Development (LOF) 

Preferred

Economic Effect No Action Proposed Action Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G Alternative 

Total Anticipated Natural Gas Recovery over the LOF (BCF) 3,366 7,947 8,191 6,124 6,657 7,554 6,302 7,186 7,876 

Total Anticipated Condensate Recovery over the LOF 31.98 75.50 77.81 58.18 63.24 71.76 59.87 68.27 74.82 (million bbls)Potential Range of Change in EmploymentSecondary Development Employment (AJEs) -- 52,930 to 53,342 52,187.5 to 52,605.0 60,625 to 61,110 21,617 to 22,119 38,466 to 38,474 59,848 to 60,316 57,823 to 99,071 53,740 to 54,193

Average Earnings Per Job -- $31,881 to $32,025 $31,881 to $32,025 $31,881 to $32,025 $31,881 to $32,025 $31,881 to $32,025 $31,881 to $32,025 $31,881 to $32,025 $31,881 to $32,025

Secondary Production Employment (AJEs) 13,947 32,928 33,939 25,374 27,583 31,299 26,112 29,775 32,634 

Average Earnings Per Job $47,173 $47,173 $47,173 $47,173 $47,173 $47,173 $47,173 $47,173 $47,173 

Recreation AJEs -- -92.4 to -144.2 -92.4 to -144.3 -92.4 to -144.4 -79.2 to -100.3 -86.2 to -123.1 -92.4 to -144.4 -92.4 to -144.4 -92.4 to -144.4

Hunting AJEs -- -49.9 to -77.9 -49.9 to -77.9 -49.9 to -77.9 -42.8 to -54.2 -46.6 to -66.5 -49.9 to -77.9 -49.9 to -77.9 -49.9 to -77.9 Grazing AJEs -- -65.7 to -102.7 -65.7 to -102.7 -24.4 to -38.1 -30.5 to -38.6 -47.6 to -68.0 -34.5 to -53.9 -47.4 to -74.1 -58.7 to -91.7

Potential Range of Change in Employment 13,947 85,110.0 to 85,945.2 85,918.5 to 86,219.1 85,832.3 to 86,223.6 59,047.5 to 49,508.9 69,584.6 to 69,515.4 85,732.2 to 86,151.8 87,408.3 to 128,549.0 86,173.0 to 86,513.0 

Approximately the same as Alternative G

NOMINAL VALUE OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

75 Wells Per Year Development Rate

Value of Development1 (millions of $) 0.0 8,655.9 8,565.1 9,612.5 3,568.6 6,227.7 9,514.7 9,263.4 8,760.6 -­

Value of Production1,2 (millions of $) 12,922.5 30,509.5 31,446.1 23,510.8 25,556.9 29,000.6 24,194.1 27,587.9 30,236.8 -­

Taxes/royalties from proposed project (millions of $) 2,334.9 6,076.0 6,239.1 4,881.4 4,850.7 5,646.0 4,997.8 5,592.7 6,034.8 -­

Recreation (millions of $) 0.0 -8.2 -8.2 -8.2 -5.7 -7.0 -8.2 -8.2 -8.2 -­

Hunting (millions of $) 0.0 -3.5 -3.5 -3.5 -2.4 -2.9 -3.5 -3.5 -3.5 -­

Grazing (millions of $) -1.5 -14.2 -14.2 -5.3 -5.3 -9.4 -7.8 -10.2 -12.0 -­

Total Nominal Economic Activity (millions of $) 15,255.9 45,215.5 46,224.5 37,987.7 33,962.7 40,854.9 38,687.2 42,422.1 45,008.6 -­

150 Wells Per Year Development Rate

Value of Development1 (millions of $) 0.0 8,655.9 8,565.1 9,612.5 3,796.5 6,227.7 9,507.8 15,678.7 8,760.6 -­

Value of Production1,2 (millions of $) 12,922.5 30,509.5 31,446.1 23,510.8 25,556.9 29,000.6 24,194.1 27,587.9 30,236.8 -­

Taxes/royalties (millions of $) 2,334.9 6,076.5 6,239.1 4,881.4 4,865.7 5,646.0 4,997.3 6,015.6 6,034.8 -­

Recreation (millions of $) 0.0 -6.1 -6.1 -6.1 -4.9 -5.5 -6.1 -6.1 -6.1 -­

Hunting (millions of $) 0.0 -2.6 -2.6 -2.6 -2.1 -2.3 -2.6 -2.6 -2.6 -­

Grazing (millions of $) -1.5 -10.5 -10.5 -3.9 -4.6 -7.4 -5.8 -7.6 -8.9 -­

Total Nominal Economic Activity (millions of $) 15,255.9 45,222.7 46,231.1 37,992.0 34,207.5 40,859.0 38,684.7 49,265.9 45,014.7 -­

250 Wells Per Year Development Rate

Value of Development1 (millions of $) 0.0 8,588.6 8,497.2 9,536.2 3,490.3 6,228.7 9,440.6 9,191.2 8,688.3 

Value of Production1,2 (millions of $) 12,922.5 30,509.5 31,446.1 23,510.8 25,556.9 29,000.6 24,194.1 27,587.9 30,236.8 

Taxes/royalties (millions of $) 2,334.9 6,072.1 6,234.7 4,876.4 4,845.5 5,646.1 4,992.9 5,588.0 6,030.1 

Recreation (millions of $) 0.0 -5.3 -5.3 -5.3 -4.5 -4.9 -5.3 -5.3 -5.3 

Hunting (millions of $) 0.0 -2.2 -2.2 -2.2 -1.9 -2.1 -2.2 -2.2 -2.2 

Grazing (millions of $) -1.5 -9.1 -9.1 -3.4 -4.2 -6.6 -5.0 -6.5 -7.7 

Total Nominal Economic Activity (millions of $) 15,255.9 45,153.7 46,161.4 37,912.5 33,882.1 40,861.8 38,615.2 42,353.2 44,940.1 

Approximately the 

same as Alternative G 
234 

Table 5.29 (Continued)

Economic Activity Resulting from Development (LOF)

Preferred

Economic Effect No Action Proposed Action Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Alternative G Alternative 

PRESENT VALUE OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY3 

75 Wells Per Year Development Rate

Value of Development2 (millions of $) 0.0 4,496.4 4,452.8 4,997.3 2,655.7 3,818.0 4,946.5 4,815.8 4,554.5 -­

Value of Production2 (millions of $) 9,275.7 12,101.0 12,144.6 9,325.1 14,130.0 13,208.8 9,596.1 10,942.1 11,992.8 -­

Taxes/royalties (millions of $) 1,753.7 2,557.3 2,561.7 2,108.2 2,733.2 2,665.9 2,151.9 2,378.2 2,542.8 -­

Recreation (millions of $) 0.0 -2.7 -2.7 -2.7 -2.5 -2.6 -2.7 -2.7 -2.7 -­

Hunting (millions of $) 0.0 -1.1 -1.1 -1.1 -1.0 -1.1 -1.1 -1.1 -1.1 -­

Grazing (millions of $) -0.9 -5.4 -5.4 -2.0 -2.7 -4.1 -3.0 -3.9 -4.6 -­

Total Present Value of Economic Activity (millions of $) 11,028.5 19,145.4 19,149.8 16,424.7 19,512.7 19,684.9 16,687.6 18,128.4 19,081.6 -­

150 Wells Per Year Development Rate

Value of Development2 (millions of $) 0.0 6,058.3 5,994.8 6,727.8 3,209.1 4,781.8 6,654.5 10,973.6 6,131.6 -­

Value of Production2 (millions of $) 9,275.7 15,864.2 16,349.9 12,225.0 16,049.7 16,543.1 12,580.4 14,345.1 15,722.5 -­

Taxes/royalties (millions of $) 1,753.7 3,156.6 3,239.5 2,543.2 3,073.1 3,217.8 2,602.8 3,061.5 3,134.5 -­

Recreation (millions of $) 0.0 -2.5 -2.5 -2.5 -2.3 -2.4 -2.5 -2.5 -2.5 -­

Hunting (millions of $) 0.0 -1.1 -1.1 -1.1 -1.0 -1.0 -1.1 -1.1 -1.1 -­

Grazing (millions of $) -0.9 -5.1 -5.1 -1.9 -2.4 -3.8 -2.8 -3.7 -4.3 -­

Total Present Value of Economic Activity (millions of $) 11,028.5 25,070.4 25,575.5 21,490.6 22,326.1 24,535.3 21,831.3 28,372.9 24,980.7 -­

250 Wells Per Year Development Rate

Value of Development2 (millions of $) 0.0 6,631.8 6,561.2 7,363.5 3,151.8 5,265.1 7,289.7 7,097.1 6,708.8


Value of Production2 (millions of $) 9,275.7 17,963.8 18,511.2 13,842.7 17,145.3 18,212.2 14,245.2 16,243.3 17,803.0


Taxes/royalties (millions of $) 1,753.7 3,474.7 3,574.9 2,725.2 3,242.5 3,483.9 2,798.3 3,165.4 3,446.6


Recreation (millions of $) 0.0 -2.4 -2.4 -2.4 -2.3 -2.3 -2.4 -2.4 -2.4


Hunting (millions of $) 0.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -0.9 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0 -1.0


Grazing (millions of $) -0.9 -6.6 -6.6 -2.5 -2.5 -3.7 -3.6 -4.7 -5.6


Total Present Value of Economic Activity (millions of $) 11,028.5 28,060.4 28,637.3 23,925.5 23,533.9 26,954.2 24,326.2 26,497.8 27,949.5 

Approximately the 

same as Alternative G 

1 Includes nonproject labor earnings resulting from secondary economic activity induced by project activities. These earnings do not include project labor earnings.2 Natural gas plus condensate; Proposed Action and Alternatives A-F include wells currently in production (i.e., No Action Alternative wells); natural gas price is assumed at $3.50/mcf and condensate price is assumed at $21/bbl.3 Number of years to develop varies for each alternative; well life is assumed to be 40 years; see Section 2.2 for a discussion of discounting. The discount rate used for this analysis was 3.5%. Conservatively assumes revenues are received as a lump

sum at year end. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 235 

5.7.3 Alternative A 

Under Alternative A, change in economic activity from current conditions would be expected from 

the development of up to 3,100 wells and the recovery of up to 8,191 BCF of gas and 77.81 MBO. 

Economic activity could range from $46,224.5 million ($19,149.8 million present value), including 

$6,239.1 million in taxes and revenues to $46,161.4 m illion ($28,637.3 m illion present value), 

including $6,234.7 million in taxes and revenues (Table 5.29). The number of AJEs that would be 

created in the study area could range from 85,918.5 to 86,219.1 with an average wage ranging from 

$31,881 to $47,173 (Table 5.29). This alternative could result in a loss of economic activity from 

recreation ranging from $5.3 m illion to $8.2 million, hunting ranging from $2.2 m illion to 

$3.5 million, and grazing ranging from $9.1 million to $14.2 million over the LOP (Table 5.29). 

5.7.4 Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, change in economic activity from current conditions would be expected from 

the development of up to 3,100 wells and the recovery of up to 6,124 BCF of gas and 58.18 MBO 

(Table 5.29). LOP could range from 82 years (42 years to develop) to 52.5 years (12.5 years to 

develop). Economic activity could range from $37,992.0 million ($21,490.6 million present value), 

including $4,881.4 million in taxes and revenues to $37,912.5 million ($23,925.5 million present 

value), including $4,876.4 million in taxes and revenues (Table 5.29). The number of AJEs that 

would be created in the study area could range from 85,832.3 to 86,223.6 with an average wage 

ranging from $31,881 to $47,173 (Table 5.29). This alternative could result in a loss of economic 

activity from recreation ranging from $5.3 million to $8.2 million, hunting ranging from $2.2 million 

to $3.5 million, and grazing ranging from $3.4 million to $5.3 million over the LOP (Table 5.29). 

5.7.5 Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, change in economic activity from current conditions would be expected from 

the development of up to 1,250 wells and the recovery of up to 6,657 BCF of gas and 63.24 MBO 

(Table 5.29). LOP could range from 57 years (17 years to develop) to 45 years (5 years to develop). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
236 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Economic activity could range from $33,882.1 million ($23,533.9 million present value), including 

$4,845.5 million in taxes and revenues to $34,207.5 m illion ($22,326.1 m illion present value), 

including $4,865.7 million in taxes and revenues. The number of AJEs that would be created in the 

study area could range from 59,047.5 to 49,508.9 with an average wage ranging from $31,881 to 

$47,173. This alternative could result in a loss of economic activity from recreation ranging from 

$4.5 million to $5.7 million, hunting ranging from $1.9 million to $2.4 million, and grazing ranging 

from $4.2 million to $5.3 million over the LOP. 

5.7.6 Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, change in economic activity from current conditions would be expected from 

the development of up to 2,200 wells and the recovery of up to 7,554 BCF of gas and 71.76 MBO 

(Table 5.29). LOP could range from 70 years (30 years to develop) to 49 years (9 years to develop). 

Economic activity could range from $40,861.8 million ($26,954.2 million present value), including 

$5,646.1 million in taxes and revenues to $40,854.9 m illion ($19,684.9 million present value), 

including $5,646.0 million in taxes and revenues (Table 5.29). The number of AJEs that would be 

created in the study area could range from 69,584.6 to 69,515.4 with an average wage ranging from 

$31,881 to $47,173 (Table 5.29). This alternative could result in a loss of economic activity from 

recreation ranging from $4.9 m illion to $7.0 million, hunting ranging from $2.1 m illion to 

$2.9 million, and grazing ranging from $6.6 million to $9.4 million over the LOP (Table 5.29). 

5.7.7 Alternative E 

Under Alternative E, change in economic activity from current conditions would be expected from 

the development of up to 3,100 wells and the recovery of up to 6,302 BCF of gas and 59.87 MBO 

(Table 5.29). LOP could range from 82 years (42 years to develop) to 52.5 years (12.5 years to 

develop). Economic activity could range from $38,615.2 million ($24,326.2 million present value), 

including $4,992.9 million in taxes and revenues to $38,687.2 million ($16,687.6 million present 

value), including $4,997.8 million in taxes and revenues (Table 5.29). The number of AJEs that 

would be created in the study area could range from 85,732.2 to 86,151.8 with an average wage 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 237 

ranging from $31,881 to $47,173 (Table 5.29). This alternative could result in a loss of economic 

activity from recreation ranging from $5.3 million to $8.2 million, hunting ranging from $2.2 million 

to $3.5 million, and grazing ranging from $5.0 million to $7.8 million over the LOP (Table 5.29). 

5.7.8 Alternative F 

Under Alternative F, change in economic activity from current conditions would be expected from 

the development of up to 3,100 wells and the recovery of up to 7,186 BCF of gas and 68.27 MBO 

(Table 5.29). LOP could range from 82 years (42 years to develop) to 52.5 years (12.5 years to 

develop). Economic activity could range from $42,353.2 million ($26,497.8 million present value), 

including $5,588.0 million in taxes and revenues to $49,265.9 million ($28,372.9 million present 

value), including $6,015.6 million in taxes and revenues (Table 5.29). The number of AJEs that 

would be created in the study area could range from 87,408.3 to 128,549.0 with an average wage 

ranging from $31,881 to $47,173 (Table 5.29). This alternative could result in a loss of economic 

activity from recreation ranging from $5.3 million to $8.2 million, hunting ranging from $2.2 million 

to $3.5 million, and grazing ranging from $6.5 million to $10.2 million over the LOP (Table 5.29). 

The greatest total economic activity in terms of dollars and jobs would occur under the Alternative 

F under the 150 well/year development rate (Table 5.29). 

5.7.9 Alternative G 

Under Alternative G, change in economic activity from current conditions would be expected from 

the development of up to 3,100 wells and the recovery of up to 7,876 BCF of gas and 74.82 MBO 

(Table 5.29). LOP could range from 82 years (42 years to develop) to 52.5 years (12.5 years to 

develop). Economic activity could range from $44,940.1 million ($27,949.5 million present value), 

including $6,030.1 million in taxes and revenues to $45,014.7 million ($24,980.7 million present 

value), including $6,034.8 million in taxes and revenues (Table 5.29). The number of AJEs that 

would be created in the study area could range from 86,173 to 86,513 with an average wage ranging 

from $31,881 to $47,173 (Table 5.29). This alternative could result in a loss of economic activity 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
238 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

from recreation ranging from $5.3 million to $8.2 m illion, hunting ranging from $2.2 million to 

$3.5 million, and grazing ranging from $7.7 million to $12.0 million over the LOP (Table 5.29). 

5.7.10 Preferred Alternative 

Under the Preferred Alternative, impacts would likely be approximately the same as those described 

for Alternative G at the 250 wells/year development rate. 

5.8 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

The cum ulative im pacts assessm ent area for so cioeconomics includes Sublette, Lincoln, and 

Sweetwater Counties. All of these counties depend upon the oil and gas industry for a portion of 

their economic activity and tax base (refer to Section 3.0), and the Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

along with other oil and gas developments, would increase employment opportunities, expand the 

tax base, and im prove the abilities for the counties to m aintain and increase services and 

infrastructure for residents. When considering em ployment, tax base/revenues, and general 

economic health, increased oil and gas development produces impacts. Wells developed as part of 

this project would add proportionately to the econom ic benefits realized from the area. Local 

communities would experience economic impacts from an increase in consumption of local goods 

and services and increased sales tax revenues. For instance, construction of well pads and roads is 

usually contracted to local construction com panies, and it is likely that m any employees would 

spend some of their payroll in these com munities. Actual im pacts would depend on the rate of 

development and the number of wells authorized. 

Increases in regional oil and gas developm ent activity in a short period of tim e can cause 

notable changes in em ployment and incom e. These variables can in turn cause changes in 

population trends, which could have detrim ental effects on com munity services, social 

structures and lifestyles. Increased oil and gas development is expected, under all alternatives, 

to cause an increase in taxes and revenues to all governments in the study area. Increases to 

ad valorem taxes would be expected to occur in Sublette County. Conversely, under the No 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 239 

Action Alternative, these increases would not be realized, which could result in negative 

impacts to local governm ents. Additional revenues would accrue to the U.S. in the form of 

personal and corporate income taxes. Wyoming, and especially Sublette, Sweetwater, and Lincoln 

Counties are highly dependent on mineral revenues, and the revenue anticipated from the proposed 

project would add to those revenues. 

Where the surface is in private ownership and the minerals are in federal ownership, a lease holder 

has the right of ingress and egress on the private surface and the right to disturb whatever is 

reasonably necessary to recover the minerals. This does not prevent the private owner and the lease 

holder from entering into mutually acceptable terms regarding surface use to facilitate the process. 

When both the surface and minerals are in private ownership, negotiations for a lease--including 

financial considerations--are between the private owner and the potential lessee, and the terms of 

the lease--financial and otherwise--are negotiated by the two parties. It is usual for the private 

mineral owner to share in the profits from the recovery of the mineral resource. 

Some portion of the resident population, as well as m any non-residents, prioritize preserving the 

naturalness of the area above all else and ar e not in favor of the high level of oil and gas 

development proposed in JIDPA. These individuals may be affected on a personal aesthetic and 

moral level by the proposed project. 

5.9 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

There would be avoidable adverse short-term and/or long-term im pacts to socioeconom ic 

resources as a result of the proposed project. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
240 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

This page intentionally left blank. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 241 

6.0 SOUTH PINEY IMPACT ANALYSIS

Infinity Oil and Gas of W yoming, Inc. (Infinity) and W illiams Production RMT Com pany 

(Williams) (hereinafter referred to as "the Com panies") have notified the BLM PFO that they 

propose to drill and development natural gas resources in approximately 31,231 acres in portions 

of T29N and T30N, R114W approximately 13 mi west of Big Piney in Sublette County, Wyoming.

 Infinity would develop natural gas from the coals in the Upper Cretaceous Mesaverde Formation 

to a maximum depth of approximately 4,000 ft, whereas Williams would develop natural gas from 

the Frontier Form ation to a m aximum depth of approximately 10,000 ft. The project would be 

referred to as the South Piney Natural Gas Development Project (South Piney Project), and would 

include private (47%), state (4%) and federal (49%) surface and private (8.5%), state (6%) and 

federal (85.5%) minerals. 

6.1 SPP PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS 

The Proposed Action and three alternative actions are evaluated herein: 

• the Proposed Action (up to 210 wells/well pads and associated facilities--see Section 6.3); 

• Alternative A (up to 420 wells/well pads and associated facilities--see Section 6.4); 

• Alternative B (up to 210 wells from 160 well pads and associated facilities--see Section 6.5); 

and 

• the No Action Alternative (see Section 6.6). 

Additional alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail are discussed in BLM (2004b). 

The following analyses show that the Proposed Action and Alternatives are com patible with 

BLM management objectives. Socioeconomic impacts are anticipated as a result of increased 

local taxes and revenues. Under the No Action Alternative the affects of increased employment, 

economic activity, and substantial federal, state, local, and county revenues would not occur; 

therefore, this alternative would not be in accord with BLM, state, and local land use plans. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
242 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

The economic impact of the Proposed Action, alternatives, and cumulative impacts on the study-area 

economy were analyzed in two phases using the m ethods developed for the SW REE (UWAED 

1997) and JMHCAP (UW AED 2003; BLM 2003a). Phase I was the developm ent phase, which 

considered the econom ic impacts associated with drilling and com pletion of infill wells in the 

JIDPA. Due to the large price fluctuations in natural gas prices, the economic impacts of production 

were estimated based on cost of production rather than total output. 

Phase II considered the economic impact of natural gas production as a result of the production from 

the wells completed under Phase I. 

BLM defines a significant change as any change that would result in a 15% or greater change of any 

affected factor. In the long-term, all alternatives would likely result in significant economic impacts; 

however, population is not likely to be significantly affected over the LOP, although there may be 

short-term population impacts as a result of cumulative impacts from in-migration not associated 

with the project. 

6.2 ASSUMPTIONS 

6.2.1 Labor 

An estimated 736.5-768.8 worker-years of direct employment would be provided by the Proposed 

Action during a 20-year life of project (LOP) (BLM 2004b) (Table 6.1). 

6.2.2 Natural Gas Drilling and Completion 

For this analysis, it was assumed that all wells would be drilled but only 93% would be completed 

(per estim ates from the Reservoir Managem ent Group for the Pinedale RMP) (personal 

communication, February 12, 2004, with David T. Taylor, Professor, UWAED). The anticipated 

rate of development for the Proposed Action would be 30 wells per year for 7 years. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 243 

Table 6.1 Estimated Effort Required to Develop and Operate the South Piney Project. 

Infinity Wells Williams Wells 

Total Worker 

Worker-Years for Worker-Years for Years for Full 

Item 

Worker-Days 

per Well 

Full Development 

(160 Wells)1 

Worker-Days 

per Well 

Full Development 

(50 Wells)1 

Development 

(210 Wells)1 

Well Construction/Development 

Well pad/access road construction 15 9.2 15 2.9 12.1 

Rig transport/rig-up operations 60 36.9 60 11.5 48.4 

Drilling 160 98.5 250 48.0 146.5 

Completion/testing 60-100 36.9-61.5 60-100 11.5-19.2 48.4-80.7 

Pipeline/ancillary facility installation 60 36.9 60 11.5 48.4 

Operations/Maintenance 

Production2 487 299.5 487 93.6 393.1 

Workovers3 24 14.8 24 4.6 19.4 

Abandonment/Reclamation 

Abandonment 15 9.2 15 2.9 12.1 

Reclamation 10 6.2 10 1.9 8.1 

Total 891-991 548.1-572.7 981-1,021 188.4-196.1 736.5-768.8 

1 One worker-year equals 260 worker-days. 2 Assumes one visit per day to each well for 20-year life of well, with one worker visiting 15 wells per day. 3 Assumes two workovers per well, 12 worker-days per workover. 

Infinity 

The cost of drilling, com pleting, and setting production equipm ent for an Infinity well to the 

Mesaverde Formation would average $300,000, $100,000, and $100,000, respectively, for a total 

cost of $500,000. The cost of annual production operations is assum ed to be $141,663 per well 

(Table 6.2). 

Williams 

The cost of drilling, completing, and setting production equipment on a Williams well to the Frontier 

Formation would average $600,000, $350,000, and $150,000, respectively, for a total cost of 

$1.1 million. The costs of annual production operations are assumed to be $141,663 per well. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
244 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 6.2 Direct Annual Operating Cost Assumptions.1 

Operating Cost Item Cost ($)2 

Direct labor and overhead 5,371 

Fuel, chemicals, and disposal 7,560 

Surface maintenance 11,240 

Subsurface maintenance 2,785 

Electricity3 3,581 

Gas compression costs4,5 47,625 

Gas transportation costs4,6 63,501 

Total annual costs5 141,663 

Non-labor annual costs5 136,292 

(Total annual costs - Direct labor and overhead) 

Total annual cost per MCF5 0.89 

Non-labor cost per MCF5 0.86 

1 Source: EIA (2000).

2 In 2000 dollars, adjusted for inflation. Assumes one 8,000-ft well. 

3 Assumes 5,000 kilowatts per month at $0.06 per kilowatt for 12 months. 

4 Assumes $0.31/MCF. 

5 Assumes annual production of 159,600 MCF. 

6 Assumes $0.41/MCF. 

6.2.3 Natural Gas Production 

Infinity 

Infinity anticipates that each well (160 drilled, 93% completed, total 149 producing) would produce 

of 172.15 MMCF/year and 513,000 MMCF for the LOP. This is a best estim ate of production 

because sufficient data are not available to determine initial or LOP production. The annual cost 

of production operations used for the analysis is presented in Table 6.3. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 245 

Williams 

Williams anticipates that each well (50 drilled, 93% completed, total 47 producing) would produce 

of 63.83 MMCF/year and 60,000 MMCF for the LOP. This is a best estimate of production because 

sufficient data are not available to determ ine initial or LOP production. The annual cost of 

production operations used for the analysis is presented in Table 6.2. 

6.3 PROPOSED ACTION IMPACTS (210 WELLS/WELL PADS) 

Estimates of the economic impacts of oil and gas development on the Southwest Wyoming economy 

in term s of total econom ic im pact, earnings, and jobs were based on the updated calibrated 

county-specific model from the SWRE and JMHCAP reports. The employment estimates were 

expressed as AJEs. 

6.3.1 Infinity Natural Gas Development Impacts 

6.3.1.1 Drilling and Completing 

The estimated costs for drilling and completing natural gas wells were obtained from the Operators 

(see Section 6.2.1). As shown in Table 6.3, expenditures made to drill and complete one Infinity 

well ($500,000), would generate total econom ic im pacts (direct and secondary) of $684,054 

(includes $148,054 of labor earnings) and would generate 4.5 AJEs. Over the development period 

(7 years), Infinity drilling would nom inally return $101.0 m illion ($61.9 m illion present value 

impact). 

6.3.1.2 Production Operation Impacts 

The estimated cost for operating natural gas wells was obtained from the EIA (2000) (Table 6.2).

 As shown in Table 6.4, expenditures made to operate ($141,663) and production from one Infinity 

well would generate total economic impacts (direct and secondary) of $559,480 (includes $12,607 

of labor earnings) and would generate 0.33 AJEs annually. Over the LOP (20 years), Infinity 

production would nominally return $1.7 billion ($1.2 billion present value impact). 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
246 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 6.3 SPP Gas Drilling Impacts. 

Proposed Action and Alternative B Impacts1 Alternative A 1 

Estimated Impacts Infinity Williams Total 

Annual 

(LOP) Infinity Williams Total 

Annual 

(LOP) 

PER WELL 

Direct Expenditures 

Drilling ($) 300,000 600,000 na na 300,000 600,000 na na 

Completion ($) 2 200,000 500,000 na na 200,000 500,000 na na 

Total Direct 500,000 1,100,000 -- -- 500,000 1,100,000 -- --

Expenditures ($) 

Labor Earning 

Drilling ($) 109,848 219,696 na na 109,848 219,696 na na 

Completion ($)2 38,206 95,515 na na 38,206 95,515 na na 

Total Labor Earnings 148,054 315,211 148,054 315,211 -- --

($) 

Total Impact per Well 648,054 1,415,211 na na 684,054 1,415,211 

Annual Job Equivalents 

(AJEs) 

Drilling 3.3 6.7 na na 3.3 6.7 na na 

Completion2 1.2 3.1 na na 1.2 3.1 na na 

Total AJEs per Well3 4.5 9.8 -- -- 4.5 9.8 -- --

TOTAL WELLS 

Number of Wells 160 50 210 10.5 320 100 420 21.0 

Completion2

 Rate 93.0% 93.0% na na 93.0% 93.0% na na 

Total Earnings Impacts 

Total Expenditures ($) 77,760,000 53,250,000 131,010,000 6,550,500 155,520,000 106,500,000 262,020,000 13,101,000 

(Drilling + 93% 

Completion) 

Total Labor Earnings ($) 23,260,733 15,426,248 38,686,980 1,934,349 46,521,466 30,852,495 77,373,961 3,868,698 

Total Impacts Action 101,020,733 68,676,248 169,696,980 8,484,849 202,041,466 137,352,495 339,393,961 16,969,698 

Alternative ($) 

Discounted (Present 

Value) LOP Impact ($)5 

88,242,245 59,989,134 148,231,378 na 176,484,490 119,978,267 296,462,757 na 

Total AJEs 706.6 479.2 1,185.7 59.3 1413.1 958.3 2,371.4 118.6 

Average Earnings Per 

Created Jobs4

 ($) 

32,921 32,195 32,628 32,628 32,921 32,195 32,628 32,628 

1 na = not applicable at this level. 2 Completion includes the cost of completion and setting of production equipment. 3 AJEs are jobs indirectly created as a result of the activity. They do not include the direct labor jobs presented in Table 6.1. 4 This estimated average annual starting wage per job would not necessarily be the actual wage paid for each created job. Actual wages are 

determined on an individual basis by employers as influenced by market forces. 4 See Section 2.2 for a discussion of discounting. Assumes a 7-year development period. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 247 

Table 6.4 Gas Production Impacts LOP--South Piney. 

Estimated Impacts Infinity Williams Total Annual Average for the LOP 

Per MMCF 

Price/MMCF $3,250 $3,250 $3,250 $3,250 

Labor Earnings $197.52 $197.52 $197.52 $197.52 

Employment 0.0052 0.0052 0.0052 0.0052 

Total Production (LOP) 

LOP MMCF 513,000 60,000 573,000 28,650 

LOP Value of Production1 $1,667,250,000 $195,000,000 $1,862,250,000 $93,112,500 

Total LOP Impact $1,768,577,760 $206,851,200 $1,975,428,960 $98,771,448 

Discounted (Present Value) 

LOP Impact2 

$1,256,787,020 $146,992,634 $1,403,779,654 na 

LOP Job Equivalents 2,668 312 2,980 149.0 

Average Annual Starting $37,985 $37,985 $37,985 $37,985 

Wage Per Job 

LOP Labor Earnings $101,327,760 $11,851,200 $113,178,960 $5,658,948 

1 The value of production is based on revenues less cost of operation. 2 See Section 2.2 for a discussion of discounting. Assumes equal annual production for a 20-year production period. na = not applicable. 

6.3.1.3 Government Revenues 

The project would generate substantial revenues for state, county, and local governments as well as area 

school districts through ad valorem taxes, severance taxes, federal royalties, and other taxes on facilities 

and production. Infinity anticipates that each of the 149 completed wells (93% of 160 drilled wells) would 

produce 172.15 MMCF/year for a total of 513,000 MMCF for the LOP from all wells. This is a best 

estimate of production because sufficient data are not available to determine initial or LOP production.

 Assuming that 149 wells would be completed, and natural gas prices were $3.25/mcf (CREG 2003), it 

is estimated that LOP nominal gross income from the field would be $1.4 billion (Table 6.5). Nominal 

transportation costs are estim ated at $210.3 m illion (paid to pipeline com panies), federal royalties at 

$182.1 million (half of the royalties are returned to the state), state severance taxes at $87.4 million, and 

county ad valorem taxes at $102.0 million. Total nominal taxes and revenues generated by Infinity would 

be approximately $371.5 m illion over the LOP ($264.0 m illion present value im pact). In addition, 

property tax revenues would increase due to the increased tax base resulting from capital 

improvements in the SPPA. Additional natural gas 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
248 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 6.5 Estimated Annual and LOP Revenues and Taxes Resulting From Infinity' s 149 

Mesaverde Wells Producing an Average of 0.47 MMCFpd of Natural Gas and From 

Williams’ 47 Frontier Wells Producing an Average of 0.17 MMCFd of Natural Gas.1 

Annual LOP 

LOP Gas Recovered Gas Recovered Amount 

Item Rate (years) (MMCF) Amount (MMCF) (millions) 

Infinity (160 wells) 

Income $3.252 20 25,650 $3,362,500 513,000 $1,667.3 

Transportation fees $0.412 20 25,650 $10,516,500 513,000 $210.3 

Income less transportation fees -- -- -- $72,846,000 -- $1,456.9 

Federal royalties 12.5%3 20 -- $9,105,750 -- $182.1 

State severance taxes 6.0%4 20 -- $4,370,760 -- $87.4 

County and ad valorem taxes 7.0%5 20 - $5,099,220 -- $102.0 

Total taxes/royalties - Infinity na na na $18,575,730 na $371.5 

Present value of total taxes/royalties -

Infinity6 

na na na na $264.0 

Williams (50 wells) 

Income $3.252 20 3,000 $9,750,000 60,000 $195.0 

Transportation fees $0.412 20 3,000 $1,230,000 60,000 $24.6 

Net income (gross income less na na na $8,520,000 na $170.4 

transportation fees) 

Federal royalties 12.5%3 20 na $1,065,000 na $21.3 

State severance taxes 6.0%4 20 na $511,200 na $10.2 

County and ad valorem taxes 7.0%5 20 na $596,400 na $11.9 

Total taxes/royalties - Williams na na na $2,172,600 na $43.4 

Present value of total taxes/royalties -

Williams6 

na na na na na $30.8 

Nominal total taxes/royalties – Infinity 

plus Williams 

na na na 

$20,748,330 

na 

$414.9 

Present value of total taxes/royalties -

Infinity plus Williams6 

na na na na na $294.8 

1 Based on estimated 93% completion rate of all wells drilled (personal communication, February 12, 2004, with David T. Taylor, 

Professor, UWAED). na = not applicable. 2 Rate per mcf (mcf = one thousand cubic feet); price per mcf from CREG (2003); transportation cost per mcf from EIA (2000). 3 Based on net income. 4 Based on gross revenue less federal royalties. 5 Based on net income less federal royalties. 6 See Section 2.2 for a discussion of discounting. Assumes a 20-year production period. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
 

Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 249 

production is beneficial to consumers because retail prices for natural gas are affected by supply and 

demand. As supply increases in relation to demand, prices of natural gas tend to fall. Reduced 

energy costs are a benefit to the local, state, and national economies. While, conceptually, changes in 

production for this field could impact pricing of natural gas for consumers, given the size of the 

market it is not likely that a measurable change in market price would occur. 

6.3.2 Williams Natural Gas Development Impacts 

6.3.2.1 Drilling and Completing 

The estimated costs for drilling and completing natural gas wells were obtained from the Operators 

(see Section 6.2.1). As shown in Table 6.2, direct expenditures made to drill and complete one 

Williams well ($1,100,000), would generate total economic impacts (direct and secondary) of 

$1,415,211 (includes $315,211 of labor earnings) and would generate 9.8 AJEs (Table 6.2). LOP 

impact from Williams drilling and completing (assuming a 7-year development period) under the 

Proposed Action would be $68.6 million (present value impact of $59.9 million). 

6.3.2.2 Production Operation Impacts 

The estimated cost for operating natural gas wells was obtained from the EIA (2000) (Table 6.2). As 

shown in Table 6.5, expenditures made to operate ($141,663) and production from one Williams 

well, would generate total economic impacts (direct and secondary) of $207,447 (includes $34,002 

of labor earnings) and would generate 0.90 AJEs annually. Nominal LOP production from Williams 

would provide a nominal impact of $206.8 million ($146.9 million present value impact). 

6.3.2.3 Government Revenues 

Assuming that of the 50 wells that would be drilled, 47 would be completed, and natural gas prices 

were $3.25/mcf (CREG 2003), it is estimated that LOP gross income from the field would be 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
250 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

companies), federal royalties at $21.3 million (half of the royalties are returned to the state), state 

severance taxes at $10.2 million, and county ad valorem taxes at $11.9 million. Total nominal taxes 

and revenues generated by Infinity would be approxim ately $43.4 m illion over the LOP 

($30.8 million present value impact). As with Infinity wells, property tax revenues would increase 

due to the increased tax base resulting from capital improvements in the SPPA. 

6.3.3 Summary of Natural Gas Development Impacts 

In summary, nominal gross LOP incom e from the Proposed Action would exceed $1.8 billion 

(Table 6.5). Transportation costs would be $234.9 million, federal royalties $203.4 million, state 

severance taxes $97.6 million, and county ad valorem taxes $113.9 million. Total direct impacts 

from development of the Proposed Action would be $169,696,980 (including $38,686,980 of labor 

earnings) and would generate 1,185.7 AJEs (Table 6.3), while production would provide $1.9 billion 

over the LOP (Table 6.4). In addition, property tax revenues would increase due to the increased 

tax base resulting from capital im provements and higher m ineral property assessm ents, and 

increased sales and use tax revenues. Nominal taxes and revenues generated from the SPP would 

be over $414 million dollars over the LOP. Additional revenues would accrue to the U.S. in the 

form of personal incom e taxes and corporate taxes. Finally, this evaluation does not take into 

consideration condensate production that would add to income and tax/royalty revenues. Wyoming, 

and especially Sublette, Sweetwater, and Lincoln Counties are highly dependent on m ineral 

revenues, and the revenue anticipated from the Proposed Action would add to those revenues. 

6.3.4 Recreation Impacts 

There are no developed recreational areas within the SPPA; therefore, none would be affected by 

the Proposed Action (BLM 2004b). All dispersed recreational opportunities that now occur in the 

SPPA would be available under the Proposed Action; however, it is likely that the level of use would 

be affected due in part to a reduction in desirability resulting from gas development. Some people 

would find the gas developm ent distracting or undesirable and would likely choose other less 

developed areas in which to recreate. On the other hand, additional access to the area m ay 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 251 

encourage other users especially off-road vehicle users. Additional off-road vehicle use could 

further discourage other recreationists who seek a less noisy environm ent. Overall, a m oderate 

reduction in recreational use would likely occur. 

Studies of workers on oil and gas projects have found that the im migrant workforce typically 

participates in outdoor recreation at lower levels than the existing population, and that these workers 

typically do not recreate in the vicinity of project sites and leave the project area on their days off 

(Wyoming Recreation Commission 1987). Many of the workers on the proposed project would be 

local and would return to their homes during off hours and recreate at previously established locales. 

Therefore, impacts from competition for recreational opportunities between people working on the 

project and other users would likely be negligible. 

The level of hunting would be affected due in part to a reduction in desirability resulting from gas 

development--especially for mule deer, elk, and moose--which could also be affected by impacts to 

big game populations in the SPPA. 

Economic losses could result if recreationists and hunters were displaced from the SPPA and moved 

their activities out of the study area. Losses would be proportional to the num ber of displaced 

recreationists/hunters. Direct impacts from displaced nonconsumptive recreationists (per visitor 

day) could result a loss of $27.35 (including $8.15 of labor income) and 0.000621 AJEs each. Direct 

impacts from displaced pronghorn hunters (per hunter day) could result in a loss of $381.30 

(including $155.16 of labor income) and 0.012087 AJEs each. Direct impacts from displaced deer 

hunters (per hunter day) could result in a loss of $331.70 (including $134.98 of labor income) and 

0.010515 AJEs each. Direct impacts from displaced elk hunters (per hunter day) could result in a 

loss of $188.91 (including $76.87 of labor income) and 0.005988 AJEs eacg. Direct impacts from 

displaced moose hunters (per hunter day) could result in a loss of $197.18 (including $80.24 of labor 

income) and 0.006251 AJEs each. Direct impacts from displaced cottontail hunters (per hunter day) 

could result in a loss of $173.06 (including $70.42 of labor income) and 0.005486 AJEs each. Direct 

impacts from displaced greater sage-grouse hunters (per hunter day) could result in a loss of $130.03 

(including $53.02 of labor income) and 0.004131 AJEs each. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
252 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

It is likely that any recreationists discouraged from engaging in activities in the SPPA as a result of 

natural gas development would relocate their activities to other locations in the vicinity; thus, no 

economic loss is likely to result from loss of recreation due to the proposed project. 

6.3.5 Agriculture/Rangeland Impacts 

There would be a reduction in AUMs on grazing allotments within the SPPA due to road, pipeline, 

and well pad construction (BLM 2004b). For the purposes of this analysis, UWAED conservatively 

assumed that the AUMs would actually be removed from the allotments and result in a complete loss 

of those AUMs during initial disturbance and for the LOP. The annual loss from initial disturbance 

would be 189 AUMs. The annual loss from LOP disturbance would be 75 AUMs. Such an annual 

loss in AUMs does not take into consideration the possibility that areas reclaimed shortly after initial 

disturbance--areas not needed for the LOP--may provide more forage (forbs and grass) for livestock 

than the previously undisturbed range. Short-term (initial) disturbance would be spread over the 

development period and would be scattered throughout the SPPA in small parcels so that a relatively 

few areas of sm all size would be disturbed in any one year. After a few years m uch of the 

previously disturbed land would be revegetated and likely producing m ore forage than prior to 

disturbance. The entire area of short-term disturbance would never all be out of production at the 

same time. 

Direct economic impact from the loss of AUMs (189 initial and 75 LOP) would result in an initial 

unrealized production of $6,670 and $2,647 annually production returns would go unrealized for the 

LOP (Table 6.6). Total initial unrealized production income would be $11,574 (including $3,489 

of labor earnings) and 0.13 AJEs would not occur. For the LOP, total unrealized impacts would be 

$4,493 annual production revenues (including $1,385 of labor earnings), and approxim ately 

0.05 AJEs. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
253 

1 

Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Table 6.6 Cattle Grazing Impacts, SPP. 

Proposed Action1 Alternative A1 Alternative B1 

LOP LOP LOP 

Impact Initial (annual) Initial (annual) Initial (annual) No Action 

AUMs -189 -75 -289 -114 -146 -60 3,812 

Total Direct Impact -$6,670 -$2,647 -$10,199 $4,023 -$5,152 -$2,117 $134,525 

Total Impact -$11,574 -$4,593 -$17,698 $6,981 -$8,941 -$3,674 $233,447 

Annual Job Equivalents -0.13 -0.05 -0.20 0.080826 -0.10 -0.04 2.70 

Labor Earnings -$3,489 -$1,385 -$5,335 $2,104 -$2,695 -$1,108 $70,370 

Average Annual Starting Wage -$26,037 -$26,037 -$26,037 $26,037 -$26,037 -$26,037 $26,037 

Per Job 

Lost AUMs would result in a loss of production, lost jobs, and lost earnings per job. 

6.4 ALTERNATIVE A (420 WELLS/WELL PADS) 

6.4.1 Natural Gas Development Impacts 

Economic impacts under Alternative A would be similar to those for the Proposed Action; however, 

the increased number of well pads would result in greater economic impacts than under the Proposed 

Action because the num ber of well pads would be doubled. Under Alternative A, drilling and 

completion would generate total economic impacts (direct and secondary) of $339.3 million ($296.4 

million present value impact) (includes $77.3 million of labor earnings) and would generate 2,371.4 

AJEs. Because there would be no additional production over the LOP, impacts from production and 

government revenues would remain essentially as described under the Proposed Action. Due to the 

establishment of management areas with additional development restrictions there would likely be 

increased management and labor burdens for the Companies that could delay development and the 

realization of revenues. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
254 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

6.4.2 Recreation Impacts 

Economic impacts to recreation under Alternative A would be sim ilar to those for the Proposed 

Action. 

6.4.3 Agriculture/Rangeland Impacts 

Socioeconomic impacts under Alternative A would be similar in kind as described for the Proposed 

Action; however, there would be additional personnel and payroll associated with the drilling and 

development of 210 additional wells. There would be additional short-term demands on temporary 

housing; however, the use of local workers would result in negligible im pacts on the demand for 

housing. Traffic within the SPPA would increase due to additional project-related activity associated 

with a doubling in the number of wells, and county roads would have to be appropriately upgraded.

 Economic benefits would depend upon gas production generated from additional wells, and would 

generally be proportional to any increased gas production. 

Impacts would be sim ilar in tim ing and kind to those in the Proposed Action (BLM 2004b). 

However, impacts would disturb more surface because twice a many well pads would be developed. 

The annual loss from initial disturbance w ould be 289 AUMs. The annual loss from LOP 

disturbance would be 114 AUMs. 

Direct economic impact from the loss of AUMs (289 initial and 114 LOP) would result in an initial 

loss of production of $10,199 and an annual loss of $4,023 for the LOP (Table 6.6). Total initial 

losses would be $17,968 (including $5,335 of labor earnings) and 0.20 AJEs would be lost. For the 

LOP, total losses would be $6,981 (including $2,104 of labor earnings), and approxim ately 0.08 

AJEs annually. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 255 

6.5 ALTERNATIVE B (210 WELLS/160 WELL PADS) 

6.5.1 Natural Gas Development Impacts 

Economic impacts under Alternative B would be similar to those for the Proposed Action. Due to 

the establishment of management areas with additional development restrictions there would likely 

be increased management and labor burdens for the Companies that could delay development and 

the realization of revenues. 

6.5.2 Recreation 

Impacts to recreation under Alternative B would be similar in kind to those for the Proposed Action. 

The level of hunting would be affected due in part to a reduction in desirability resulting from gas 

development --especially for mule deer, elk, and moose--which could also be affected by impacts 

to big game populations in the SPPA. 

6.5.3 Agriculture/Rangeland 

Impacts would be similar in timing and kind to those in the Proposed Action. However, impacts 

would disturb less surface area because the 210 wells would be developed from approximately 

160 well pads. The annual loss from initial disturbance would be 146 AUMs. The annual loss from 

LOP disturbance would be 60 AUMs. 

Direct economic impact from the loss of AUMs (146 initial and 60 LOP) would result in an initial 

loss of production of $5,152 and an annual loss of $2,117 for the LOP (Table 6.6). Total initial 

losses would be $8,941 (including $2,695 of labor earnings) and 0.10 AJEs would be lost. For the 

LOP, total losses would be $3,674 (including $1,108 of labor earnings), and approxim ately 

0.04 AJEs annually. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
256 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

6.6 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

6.6.1 Natural Gas Well Development and Production 

The economic benefits accruing from the anticip ated gas production in the SPPA would not be 

realized under the No Action Alternative. Economic benefits from gas production would be limited 

to that generated by the 10 existing wells and approximately 17 wells that could be drilled on private 

and state surface/m inerals assum ing that access and landowner approval would be obtained. 

However, well pads would have to be located so that they did not drain adjacent federal gas reserves 

and, in the case of wells to the Mesaverde Formation, would require an adequate number of wells 

to dewater the reservoir and release the gas. One or two wells drilled to the Mesaverde coals on 

private and state surface/m inerals would not be adequate to dewater the coals and recover gas 

resources. Rather, it would norm ally require at least four wells on 160-acre spacing, and the 

scattered parcels of private and state surface/minerals would often make that difficult or impossible. 

Traffic within the SPPA would remain near present levels, with possible increases due to increased 

recreational use. 

Natural gas developm ent would include existing wells and to wells drilled on state and private 

surface/minerals that would not require a federal permit. However, it is likely that existing Infinity 

wells on the SPPA would be plugged and abandoned for economic reasons (personal communication 

with Reed Scott, Infinity Oil and Gas of Wyoming, Denver, Colorado), as would two of the three 

Williams wells (personal communication with Jennifer Head, J. A. Rohn Consulting, Fort Collins, 

Colorado). One Williams well may be kept in production as long as it is econom ically feasible 

(personal communication with Jennifer Head, J. A. Rohn Consulting, Fort Collins, Colorado).Fortynine wells disturbing 431 acres could be developed in the SPPA as a result of reasonably foreseeable 

disturbance. Most of the wells would require a federal permit and would be subject to mitigation 

measures similar to those in the South Piney Project; therefore, impacts to land use would likely be 

low. Impacts would be less from reasonably foreseeable disturbance than from any of the action 

alternatives because fewer well pads/roads would be built. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 257 

Under the No Action Alternative, drilling and completion of an additional 17 wells on private land 

would generate total economic impacts (direct and secondary) of $23,349,924 (includes $5,244,924 

of labor earnings) and would generate 162.9 AJEs. Assuming an average annual production of 

146.17 MMCF per well (average of the estimated production from Infinity and Williams wells in 

the Proposed Action), the 10 existing wells plus 17 new wells would generate total econom ic 

impacts (direct and secondary) of $272,125,418 (includes $15,590,979 of labor earnings) and would 

generate 410 AJEs over 20 years. 

6.6.2 Grazing 

Land use under the No Action Alternative would continue as at present, with livestock grazing, 

wildlife habitat, recreation, and existing facilities dominating use. None of the economic livestock 

grazing losses described under the Proposed Action would occur as a result of the No Action 

Alternative. However, fluctuations in cattle markets as a result of brucellosis found in cattle herds 

in Sublette County, resulting quarantines on W yoming livestock, and the nationwide im pact of 

bovine spongiform encephalopathy on beef dem and are undeterm ined and not addressed in this 

analysis. 

6.6.3 Recreation 

Land use under the No Action Alternative would continue as at present, with livestock grazing, 

wildlife habitat, recreation, and existing facilities dominating use. 

The level of hunting would be affected due in part to a reduction in desirability resulting from gas 

development --especially for mule deer, elk, and moose--which could also be affected by impacts 

to big game populations in the SPPA. 

The economic losses described under the Proposed Action would not necessarily occur as a result 

of the No Action Alternative; however, existing natural gas development may result in similar losses 

if hunters/recreationists are displaced. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
258 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

6.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

The cum ulative im pacts assessm ent area for socioeconom ics includes Sublette, Lincoln, and 

Sweetwater Counties. All of these counties depend upon the oil and gas industry for a significant 

portion of their economic activity and tax base (refer to Section 3.0), and the South Piney Project, 

along with other oil and gas development, would increase employment opportunities, expand the tax 

base, and improve the abilities for the counties to maintain and increase services and infrastructure 

to their residents. When considering employment, tax base/revenues, and general economic health, 

increased oil and gas developm ent produces beneficial im pacts. Wells developed as part of this 

project would add proportionately to the econom ic benefits realized from the area. Local 

communities would experience beneficial economic impacts from an increase in consumption of 

local goods and services and increased sales tax revenues. For instance, construction of well pads 

and roads is usually contracted to local construction companies, and it is likely that many employees 

would spend some of their payroll in these communities. Actual impacts would depend on the rate 

of development and the number of wells authorized. 

Increases in regional oil and gas developm ent activity in a short period of tim e can cause 

notable changes in em ployment and incom e. These variables can in turn cause changes in 

population trends, which could have detrim ental effects on com munity services, social 

structures and lifestyles. Increased oil and gas development is expected, under all alternatives, 

a cause a significant increase in taxes and revenues to all governm ents in the study area. 

Significant increases to ad valorem taxes would be expected to occur in Sublette County 

Conversely, under the No Action Alternative, th ese increases would not be realized, which 

could result in negative impacts to local government. Additional revenues would accrue to the 

U.S. in the form of personal and corporate income taxes. Finally, this evaluation does not take into 

consideration condensate production that would add to income and tax/royalty revenues. Wyoming, 

and especially Sublette, Sweetwater, and Lincoln Counties are highly dependent on m ineral 

revenues, and the revenue anticipated from the Proposed Action would add to those revenues. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 259 

Where the surface is in private ownership and the minerals are in federal ownership, a lease holder 

has the right of ingress and egress on the private surface and the right to disturb whatever is 

reasonably necessary to recover the minerals. This does not prevent the private owner and the lease 

holder from entering into mutually acceptable terms regarding surface use to facilitate the process. 

When both the surface and minerals are in private ownership, negotiations for a lease--including 

financial considerations--are between the private owner and the potential lessee, and the terms of 

the lease--financial and otherwise--are negotiated by the two parties. It is usual for the private 

mineral owner to share in the profits from the recovery of the mineral resource. 

However, som e portion of the resident population, as well as m any non-residents, prioritize 

preserving the naturalness of the area above all else and are not in favor of the high level of oil and 

gas development proposed in SPPA. These individuals may be adversely affected on a personal 

aesthetic and moral level by the Proposed Action and Alternatives. 

6.8 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 

There would be no unavoidable short-term or long-term adverse impacts to socioeconomics as 

a result of the proposed project. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
260 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

This page intentionally left blank. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 261 

7.0 SOCIAL IMPACTS

Baseline social and economic factors, including population, personal incom e, and quality of 

living factors described in Chapter 3.0 were compared to expected changes in the economy that 

would affect a typical family in the study area. Impacts were evaluated against the potential for 

changes in quality of life factors (i.e., availability of necessities, recreation, and leisure time) and 

the ability of residents to maintain or improve the current quality of life as a result of the proposed 

project and alternatives. Impacts would be similar for both the SPP and the JIDP. 

7.1 POPULATION 

The projects could result in som e increases in population in Sublette, Lincoln, and Sweetwater 

Counties as a result of job seekers from other areas moving to the area in search of em ployment; 

although existing industry expertise and services in the three counties is generally adequate to 

service additional oil and gas development. While the initial analysis assum ed that adequate 

support services existed, com panies at the tim e of this report indicate--despite State of 

Wyoming reports to the contrary when data was collected for this analysis--that there are 

insufficient num bers of rigs available for m eeting drilling schedules and that there are 

insufficient num bers of em ployees to staff the rigs that are available. The existing labor 

shortage, which is already impacting the CIAA, may be incrementally increased by the JIDP 

and SPP. 

7.2 INCOME, POVERTY, AND UNEMPLOYMENT 

Personal per capita income in the study area ranged from $16,140 to $28,037 in 2000 (see Table 

3.4). The estimated annual starting wage per job for indirectly created jobs from development on the 

SPPA would range from $32,195 to $32,921 and on the JIDPA would range from $31,881 to 

$32,025. The estimated annual starting wage per job from production would be $37,985 on the 

SPPA and $47,778 for the JIDPA. These estimated annual starting wages are from 50 to 58% higher 

than the personal per capita income reported in 2000. Thus, there would likely be beneficial impacts 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
262 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

on income and poverty reduction as a result of the Proposed Actions and Alternatives. These 

benefits would not be realized under the No Action Alternatives of either project. 

It is not anticipated that the SPP or JIDP will result in a notable in-migration of workers to the study 

area. With an estimated 1,713 available workers available in the study area and 12,000 available 

workers in W yoming (see Table 3.5), the estim ated number of laborers that would be directly 

employed as a result of the projects would be readily available. The SPP Proposed Action would 

require approximately 96.1 AJEs annually (direct and indirect labor). The JIDP Proposed Action 

would directly provide up to 9,899 worker years and up to 52,930 AJEs during development and up 

to 6,964 new worker years and 32,823 new AJEs from production. The duration of these impacts, 

and therefore the number of jobs, would depend on the rate of development. Some of these jobs 

would be existing jobs that would continue as a result of continued development and operations that 

would otherwise have been lost; som e jobs would be newly created parallel or transitional jobs. 

These jobs would likely reduce unemployment in the study area and the state. The projects would 

result in beneficial impacts to local employment--both to the workforce directly involved in oil and 

gas development and to the general service economy--especially during construction and drilling. 

7.3 QUALITY OF LIVING 

Increased revenues and incomes in the study area would likely result in some change in the values 

and social condition of the local communities. These effects would likely include increased entropy 

in the study area society. Entropy is a m easure of the natural decay of th e structure or of the 

disappearance of distinctions within a social system--a trend toward disorder and chaos resulting 

ultimately in total breakdown (cf. Catton 1982; Heinberg 2003). Much of the energy consumed by 

a social organization is spent to maintain its structure--counteracting social entropy (e.g., through 

legal institutions, education, the norm ative consequences, or television). The increased flow of 

government funds into local area budgets could serve to m aintain balance of the social condition 

through selective enforcem ent of norm ative consequences. However, uncontrolled governm ent 

growth without a clear set of goals and objectives designed to maintain the balance and integrity of 

the community and preserve the freedoms and individual responsibilities of community members, 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 263 

could serve to increase entropy. Random obtainment of wealth without a correlative input of 

self-determined ingenuity and earned labor will tend to encourage individuals toward the entropy 

and the influence of those individuals often serves to drive government bodies toward accelerated 

internal entropy. 

An additional consideration to quality of life would cum ulatively be im pacted by oil and gas 

development and production. Non-labor sources of income was the fastest growing sector in 2000 

according to EPS community profiles. Excessive growth and difficulty obtaining services due to 

high numbers of low-income individuals could result in the perception that the Pinedale area and 

Sublette County in general may not be as desirable a place to live. This could potentially encourage 

non-labor income sources to refrain from moving into the area, or even drive some individuals in 

the area to choose another area in which to live (personal communication, December 2004, with Roy 

Allen, Economist, BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne). 

7.3.1 Crime 

Crime could increase in the study area as a result of greater affluence among residents. In-migrant 

labor that fails to become employed could also result in some increased crime. However, because 

of the demographics of the laborers attracted to oil and gas development and production, the 

existing crime situation, which is already affecting the CIAA, may be incrementally increased 

by the Project. 

7.3.2 Health Care 

Increased affluence in the study area could attract additional health care providers to the area or 

encourage existing health care providers to rem ain in the area. This would likely be a beneficial 

impact to the study area society. However, impacts already being experienced by the healthcare 

community may be incrementally increased by the Project as a result of increases in population 

from laborers attracted by jobs. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
264 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

7.3.3 Housing 

While it is possible that there may be some increase in the study area population as a result of jobseekers coming to the area, such an increase in population would not place an undue burden on 

existing infrastructure. For instance, nearly 32% of the housing in Sublette County is vacant, 

although the habitability of this vacant housing is unknown (see Table 3.8). If there were an 

increase in the population, increased demand would likely cause an increase in housing prices (rental 

costs and home sale prices). Additionally, increased affluence in the study area is likely to cause an 

increase in the demand for higher-quality housing, which could result in increased housing 

construction projects. This would result in increased ad valorem tax revenues to local governments. 

It could also make it more difficult for some individuals to obtain satisfactory housing within 

affordable price ranges, which would have an effect on those individuals. Impacts to housing 

already being experienced by the affected communities may be incrementally increased by the 

Project as a result of increases in population. Plans are underway to build another motel in town 

and several mancamps are currently under discussion by area operators for permitting to alleviate 

some of the pressures on housing. Several housing developments are also being planned. 

7.3.4 Cost of Living and Inflation 

Increased cost of living and inflation already being experienced by the affected communities may 

be incrementally increased by the Project. 

7.4 EDUCATION 

Increased revenues to schools as a result of increased ad valorem and other taxes and revenues 

would be a beneficial impact to the school systems, allowing the purchase of higher-quality teaching 

materials and potentially increasing the wages of teachers, which could attract teachers with higher 

credentials than would otherwise have been attracted to positions within the study area. Any 

increases in population would likely aid in offsetting the current trend toward school 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 265 

closures/consolidations in som e com munities. Additionally, increased funding would provide 

schools with more options to improve education and raise performance test scores, thus increasing 

the overall education rate and im proving the overall quality of the workforce in the study area. 

Increases in population may help reduce impacts already being experienced by schools in affected 

communities that have resulted in school closures. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
266 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

This page intentionally left blank. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 267 

8.0 ECONOMIC JUSTICE

The Environm ental Protection Agency' s (EPA' s) Office of Environm ental Justice defines 

environmental justice as "[t]he fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless 

of race, color, national origin, or incom e with respect to the developm ent, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group 

of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group[s] should bear a disproportionate share 

of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial 

operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies". Meaningful 

involvement m eans that: (1) community residents in the potential im pact area have an 

appropriate opportunity to participate in decisions about a proposed activity that will affect 

their environment and/or health; (2) the public' s contribution can influence the regulatory 

agency's decision; (3) the concerns of all participants involved will be considered in the 

decision making process; and (4) the decision makers seek out and facilitate the involvement 

of those in the potential impact area (EPA 2002). 

In sum, environmental justice is a goal to be achieved for all communities and persons across 

the U.S. Environmental justice is achieved when everyone--regardless of race, culture, or 

income--enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and has 

equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environm ent in which to live, 

learn, and work (EPA 2002). 

EO 12898 (February 11, 1994) and its accom panying memorandum have the primary purpose of 

ensuring that "each federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission 

by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of its program s, policies, and activities on m inority populations and lowincome populations. ..." EO 12898 also explicitly calls for the application of equal consideration for 

Native American programs. To meet these goals, EO 12898 specified that each agency develop an 

agency-wide environmental justice strategy. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
268 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

The goal of this "fair treatm ent" is not to sh ift risks among populations, but to identify potential 

disproportionately high and adverse effects and identify alternatives that may mitigate these impacts. 

The Presidential Memorandum that accompanied EO 12898 calls for a variety of actions. Four 

specific actions were directed at National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)-related activities, 

including the following. 

1. Each federal agency m ust analyze environm ental effects (i.e., hum an health, 

economic and social effects) of federal actions, including effects on m inority 

communities and low-incom e com munities, when such analysis is required by 

NEPA. 

2. Mitigation measures outlined or analyzed in environm ental assessments, EISs, or 

RODs, whenever feasible, should address significant and adverse environm ental 

effects of proposed federal actions on m inority com munities and low-incom e 

communities. 

3. Each federal agency must provide opportunities for community input in the NEPA 

process, including identifying potential effects and m itigation m easures in 

consultation with affected com munities and im proving accessibility of public 

meetings, official documents, and notices to affected communities. 

4. In reviewing other agencies' proposed actions under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, 

the EPA must ensure that the agencies have fully analyzed environmental effects on 

minority communities and low-income communities, including human health, social, 

and economic effects. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 269 

8.1 DEFINING MINORITY AND/OR LOW-INCOME POPULATION 

8.1.1 Minority Communities 

Minority or low-income communities that may be addressed in the scope of NEPA analysis are 

generally considered as follows. 

• Minority - Individual(s) classified by OMB Directive No. 15 as Black/African 

American, Hispanic, Asian and Pacific Islander, American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, 

and other non-white persons. 

• Minority Population - Minority populations should be identified where either: 

(a) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50% or 

(b) the m inority population percentage of the affected area is m eaningfully 

greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or 

other appropriate unit of geographic analysis. 

In identifying minority communities, agencies may consider as a community either: (1) a group of 

individuals living in geographic proximity to one another, or (2) a geographically dispersed/transient 

set of individuals (such as m igrant workers or Am erican Indians), where either type of group 

experiences com mon conditions of environm ental exposure or effect. The selection of the 

appropriate unit of geographic analysis m ay be a governing body' s jurisdiction, a neighborhood, 

census tract, or other sim ilar unit that is to be chosen so as to not artificially dilute or inflate the 

affected minority population. 

A minority population also exists if there is more than one minority group present and the minority 

percentage, as calculated by aggregating all m inority persons, m eets one of the above-stated 

thresholds. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
270 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

8.1.2 Low-Income Population 

Two of the tests available for identifying low-income populations in an affected area are: 

(a) the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines or 

(b) the Department of Housing and Urban Developm ent statutory definition for very 

low-income for the purposes of housing benefits programs. 

In identifying low-income populations, agencies may consider as a com munity either a group of 

individuals living in geographic proximity to one another, or a geographically dispersed/transient 

set of individuals (such as m igrant workers or Native Am ericans), where either type of group 

experiences common conditions of environmental exposure or effects. The guidance for low-income 

population provides two ways to calculate low-incom e: in m ost circumstances, agencies should 

apply the test that most accurately reflects the relative cost of living in the particular geographic area 

under consideration, taking into account the need to ensure full coverage of all low-incom e 

communities pursuant to EO 12898. 

8.1.3 Disproportionately High and Adverse Human Health Effects 

When determining whether human health effects are disproportionately high and adverse, agencies 

are to consider the following three factors to the extent practicable: 

(a) whether the health effects, which may be measured in risks and rates, are significant, 

unacceptable, or above generally accepted norm s. (Adverse health effects m ay 

include bodily impairment, infirmity, illness, or death.); 

(b) whether the risk or rate of hazard exposure by a minority population or low-income 

population to an environmental hazard is significant and appreciably exceeds or is 

likely to appreciably exceed the risk or rate to the general population or other 

appropriate comparison group; and 

(c) whether health effects occur in a m inority or low-incom e population affected by 

cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from environmental hazards. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 271 

8.2 PROJECT STUDY AREA 

8.2.1 Minority Communities 

Application of the EPA's defining guidelines reveals there are no m inority communities that 

would be affected by the proposed projects. About 2.5% of the Lincoln County population, 

3.2% of the Sublette County population, and 11% of the Sweetwater County population is 

minority as compared to 8.9% for the State of Wyoming, (EPA 2003). There are no potentially 

affected communities within the study area where the minority population exceeds 50% nor are 

there any population clusters where the minority population percentage of the affected area is 

meaningfully greater than the m inority population percentage in the general population; 

therefore, development would not unduly affect minority populations (email from Karen Kellen 

[acting director], Environm ental Justice, Region 8, EPA, on February 20, 2003); therefore, 

environmental justice issues for minority communities are not discussed further herein. 

8.2.2 Low-Income Population 

Approximately 10.8% of the Lincoln County population, 8.4% of the Sublette County 

population, and 8.0% of the Sweetwater County population lives below the poverty level as 

compared to 11.9% for the State of Wyoming (EPA 2003). 

No low-income populations have been identified as a community (i.e,. a group of individuals living 

in geographic proximity to one another) or as a geographically dispersed/transient set of individuals 

(e.g., m igrant workers or Native Am ericans), that would experience com mon conditions of 

environmental exposure or effects. Development would not unduly affect low-income individuals 

in the study area (email from Karen Kellen [acting director]), Environmental Justice, Region 

8, EPA, on February 20, 2003), therefore, environm ental justice issues for low-incom e 

communities is not discussed further herein. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
272 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

8.2.3 Disproportionately High and Adverse Human Health Effects 

It is not anticipated that development of the projects would result in any health effects (i.e., bodily 

impairment, infirmity, illness, or death), which could be measured in risks and rates, that would be 

significant, unacceptable, or above generally accepted norms. No risk or rate of hazard exposure 

by a minority population or low-income population to an environmental hazard would be significant 

or appreciably exceed or be likely to appreciably exceed the risk or rate to the general population 

or other appropriate comparison group. No health effects would occur in a minority or low-income 

population as a result of exposures from environmental hazards related to the proposed projects. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 273 

9.0 ACRONYM LIST AND GLOSSARY 

9.1 ACRONYM LIST 

AJE Annual job equivalent 

AUM Animal unit months 

BCF Billion cubic feet of natural gas 

BEA U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics 

C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations 

Companies Infinity Oil and Gas of Wyoming, Inc. and Williams Production RMT Company 

CPI Consumer price index 

CREG Consensus Revenue Estimating Group 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

EIS Environmental impact statement 

EnCana EnCana Oil and Gas (USA), Inc. 

EO Executive Order 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EPS Sonoran Institute Economic Profile System 

FIRE Finance, insurance, and real estate 

GSP Gross state product 

GSPO Gross state product originating 

I/O Input/output 

I-80 Interstate 80 

IBT Indirect business tax and non-tax liability 

IMPLAN Impact Analysis for Planning; IMPLAN PRO 2.0 software 

Infinity Infinity Oil and Gas of Wyoming, Inc. 

JIDP Jonah Infill Drilling Project 

JIDPA JIDP area 

JMHCAP Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 

LOP Life of field 

LOP Life of project 

LRI Legislative Royalty Impact Assistance Account 

MBO Million barrels of condensate (oil) 

MCF Thousand cubic feet of natural gas 

MIG Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 

MMCF Million cubic feet of natural gas 

N North 

NASS National Agricultural Statistical Service 

NCES National Center of Education Statistics 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
274 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Operators EnCana Oil and Gas (USA), Inc. and BP America 

PCPI Per capita personal income 

PFO Pinedale Field Office 

PILT Payments in lieu of taxes 

PWMTF Permanent Wyoming Mineral Trust Fund 

R Range 

REIS Regional Economic Information System 

RMIS Recreational Management Information System 

ROD Record of Decision 

RSFO Rock Springs Field Office 

RVD Recreational visitor day 

SCBC Sublette County Board of Commissioners 

Schlumberger Schlumberger Oil Field Services 

SCPC Sublette County Planning Commission 

SIC Standard Industrial Classification 

South Piney Project South Piney Natural Gas Development Project 

SPP South Piney Project 

SPPA SPP area 

SSI Supplemental Security Income 

SSSI Supplemental Social Security Income 

SWREE Southwest Wyoming Resource Evaluation Socio/Economic Evaluation 

T Township 

TCPU Transportation, communication, and public utilities 

TPI Total personal income 

TRC Mariah TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 

U.S.C. United States Code 

USDI U.S. Department of the Interior 

USFS U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

UWAED University of W yoming, College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, 

Agricultural Economics Department 

W West 

W.S. Wyoming Statute 

WDAI Wyoming Department of Administration and Information 

WDERP Wyoming Department of Employment, Research, and Planning 

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

WHDP Wyoming Housing Database Partnership 

Williams Williams Production RMT Company 

WOSLI Wyoming Office of State Lands and Investments 

WyCAS Wyoming Comprehensive Assessment System 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 275 

9.2 GLOSSARY 

ad valorem: Tax levied on property or production according to assessed value. 

allotment: An area of land where one or more permittees graze their livestock. Generally consists 

of public land but may include parcels of private or State lands. The number of livestock and season 

of use are stipulated for each allotment. An allotment may consist of several pastures or be only one 

pasture. 

annual job equivalent (AJE): An AJE represents 12 m onths of employment. For example, one 

AJE could represent one job for 12 months or two jobs for 6 months or three jobs for 4 months. For 

the purposes of this analysis, a job is defined as 260 worker-days = 1 worker-year, a person year is 

365 days; therefore, there are approximately 1.4 worker years per person year (i.e,. one AJE = 1.4 

person years). 

animal unit month (AUM): The amount of forage necessary for the sustenance of one cow/calf 

pair for 1 month. 

annual growth rate formulas: 

Between two consecutive years (e.g., 1999-2000): 

([Y2 data -Y1 data]/Y1 data) X 100 = annual growth

where Y = year.

Annualized growth rate over a period of time (e.g., 1980 to 1990): 

[(Y2 data/Y1 data)(1/[Y2-Y1]) - 1] X 100 = average annual growth

where Y = year.

commercial well: A well capable of producing profitably. 

completion: The activities and methods to prepare a well for production. Includes installation of 

equipment for production from an oil or gas well. 

condensate (gas condensate): Hydrocarbons contained in the natural gas stream and removed by 

condensation. 

consumer price index (CPI): A measure of the average change in prices over tim e in a market 

basket of goods and services. 

directional drilling: The intentional deviation of a wellbore from vertical to reach subsurface areas 

off to one side from the drilling site. 

discount factor formula: 1/(1+i)t where i is the interest rate and t is the year. 

displacement: As applied to recreation and hunting, forced shifts in the patterns of land use, either 

in location or timing of use. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
276 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

environment: The aggregate of physical, biological, econom ic, and social factors affecting 

organisms in an area. 

environmental impact statement (EIS): An analysis of alternative actions and their predictable 

environmental impacts, including physical, biological, economic, and social consequences and their 

interactions; short- and long-term impacts; direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. 

entropy: a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder (i.e., chaos, 

disorganization, randomness). 

federal lands: All lands and interests in lands owned by the U.S. that are subject to the m ineral 

leasing laws, including mineral resources or mineral estates reserved to the U.S. in the conveyance 

of a surface or non-mineral estate. 

gross state product: GSP is the value added in production by the labor and property located in a 

state. GSP for a state is derived as the sum of the gross state product originating in all industries in 

a state. In concept, an industry' s GSP, referred to as its "value added", is equivalent to its gross 

output (sales or receipts and other operating income, commodity taxes, and inventory change) minus 

its intermediate inputs (consumption of goods and services purchased from other U.S. industries or 

imported). Thus, GSP is often considered the state counterpart of the nation's gross domestic product 

(GDP), BEA's featured measure of U.S. output. In practice, GSP estimates are measured as the sum 

of the distributions by industry and state of the components of gross domestic income (GDI) -- that 

is, the sum of the costs incurred and incomes earned in the production of GDP. 

gross state product calculation: The sum of gross state product originating by industry of all 

industries. 

impacts: These include: a) Direct impacts, which are caused by the action and occur at the same 

time and place; b) Indirect impacts, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther 

removed in distance, but are still reasonably fore seeable. Indirect impacts may include growth 

inducing impacts and other impacts related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population 

density or growth rate, and related im pacts on air and water and other natural system s, including 

ecosystems. Impacts include ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the 

components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystem s), aesthetic, historic, cultural, 

economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative. Impacts may also include those 

resulting from actions which may have both beneficial and detrimental impacts, even if on balance 

the agency believes that the impact will be beneficial (40 C.F.R. 1508.8). 

industry compensation of employees: GSP estimates of compensation of employees are the sum 

of employee wages and salaries and supplements to wages and salaries. 

Wages and salaries are m easured on an accrual, or "when earned" basis, which m ay be 

different from the measure of wages and salaries m easured on a disbursem ent, or "when 

paid" basis. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 277 

Wages and salaries and supplements of Federal military and civilian government employees 

stationed abroad are excluded from the measure of GSP. 

• Employee wages and salaries: The m onetary rem uneration of em ployees. This 

remuneration includes the compensation of corporate officers; commissions, tips, and 

bonuses; voluntary employee contributions to certain deferred compensation plans, 

such as 401(k) plans; and receipts in kind, or pay-in-kind. W ages and salaries are 

measured before deductions, such as social security contributions and union dues. 

• Supplements to wages and salaries consist of em ployer contributions for social 

insurance and other labor income. 

− Employer contributions for social insurance consist of employer payments 

under the following programs:

old age, survivors, and disability insurance ("Social Security"),

hospital insurance,

unemployment insurance,

railroad retirement,

pension benefit guaranty,

veterans' life insurance,

publicly-administered workers' compensation,

military medical insurance, and

temporary disability insurance.

Although these em ployer contributions to publicly-adm inistered social

insurance programs are treated as a cost of production, and are included in

the calculation of GSP, they are not treated as part of incom e when

accounting for personal income. Instead, the payments from the programs are

counted as personal income when they are paid out to individuals.

− Other Labor Income (OLI): Consists of employer payments to government 

employee retirement and private pension and profit-sharing plans, private 

group health and life insurance plans, privately-adm inistered workers' 

compensation plans, supplemental unemployment benefit plans, corporate 

directors' fees, and several m inor categories of em ployee com pensation, 

including judicial fees to juries and witnesses, com pensation of prison 

inmates, and marriage fees to justices of the peace. 

inflation calculations: 

Inflation Factor = (Current Year CPI / Year "X" CPI) 

Current Year Dollars = Year "X" Dollars x Inflation Factor 

infrastructure: The basic framework or underlying foundation of a com munity including road 

networks, electric and gas distribution, water and sanitation services, and facilities. 

irretrievable: A term that applies to the loss of production, harvest, or use of natural resources.

 For example, some or all of the timber production from an area is lost irretrievably while an area 

is serving as a winter sports site. The production lost is irretrievable, but the action is not 

irreversible. If the use changes, it is possible to resume timber production. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
278 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

irreversible: A term that describes the loss of future options. Applies primarily to the effects of 

use of nonrenewable resources, such as minerals or cultural resources, or to those factors, such as 

soil productivity that are renewable only over long periods of time. 

long-term impacts: For the purpose of this NEPA analysis, long-term impacts last for the life of 

the project or beyond. 

mitigate: To lessen the severity. 

mitigation measures: Actions taken to reduce or minimize potential impacts to the environment. 

mitigation: Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 

minimizing impacts by lim iting the degree of m agnitude of the action and its im plementation; 

rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; reducing or 

eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the 

action; and/or com pensating for the im pact by replacing or providing substitute resources or 

environments. 

modeling: A mathematical representation of an observable situation. In economics, models afford 

the ability to estimate the short- and long-term impacts of changes in industry on the local, regional, 

and/or national economy. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA): The federal law established in 1969, which 

went into effect on January 1, 1970, that 1) established a national policy for the environm ent, 

2) requires federal agencies to become aware of the environmental ramifications of their proposed 

actions, 3) requires full disclosure to the public of proposed federal actions and a m echanism for 

public input into the federal decision-making process, and 4) requires federal agencies to prepare an 

environmental impact statement for every major action that would significantly affect the quality 

of the human environment. 

natural gas: Those hydrocarbons, other than oil and other than natural gas liquids separated from 

natural gas, that occur naturally in the gaseous phase in the reservoir and are produced and recovered 

at the wellhead in gaseous form. 

No Action Alternative: The management direction, activities, outputs, and effects that are likely 

to exist in the future if the current plan would continue unchanged. 

nominal value: Value of project activities is the simple calculation of dollars with no adjustments. 

present value: Value of project activities after the discount rate has been applied over time (i.e., 

the real value of project activities). 

production: Phase of commercial operation of an oil field. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 279 

public land: Lands or interests in lands owned by the United States and adm inistered by the 

Secretary of Interior through the Bureau of Land Management, without regard to how the United 

States acquired ownership. 

reclamation: Rehabilitation of a disturbed area to m ake it acceptable for designated uses. This 

normally involves regrading, replacem ent of topsoil, revegetation and other work necessary to 

restore it for use. 

Record of Decision (ROD): A decision docum ent for an environm ental impact statement or 

Supplemental EIS that publicly and officially discloses the responsible official’s decision regarding 

the actions proposed in the EIS and their implementation. 

recreational visitor day (RVD): As a unit of measure, a recreational visitor day is defined as a 

12-hour period. 

short-term impacts: For the purpose of this NEPA analysis, short-term impacts are generally 

defined as those that would last for 10 years or less. 

socioeconomics: Study of an impact region on the current and projected population and relative 

demographic characteristics (housing, economy, government, etc.). 

well pad: Relatively flat work area that is used for drilling a well and producing from the well once 

it is completed. 

wellbore: The hole drilled from the surface to the gas-bearing formation. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
280 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

This page intentionally left blank. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 281 

10.0 REFERENCES

Blevins, A., K. Jensen, M. Coburn, and S. Utz. 2004. Executive Summary. In Social and 

Economic Impact Assessment of Oil and Gas Development in Sublette and Sweetwater 

Counties. Prepared for Shell Explora tion and Production Com pany by University of 

Wyoming, Department of Sociology, Laramie. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2002. Regional Accounts Data, Local Area Personal Income, 

Regional Economic Information System. Table CA34 Average Wage per Job, Wyoming 

(dollars). http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis. December 2002. Data accessed 

June 19, 2003. 

. 2003a. Regional Accounts Data, Local Area Personal Income, Regional Economic 

Information System. Tables CA05(SIC) and SA1-3. Personal Income by Major Source 

and Earnings by Industry. May 2003. <http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis>. 

Data accessed December 15, 2003. 

. 2003b. Personal Dividend Income, Personal Interest Income, and Rental Income of 

Persons. http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/articles/lapi2001/pdf/dir.pdf, May 6, 

2003. Data accessed December 15, 2003. 

. 2003c. Regional Accounts Data, Local Area Personal Income, Regional Economic 

Information System. Table CA25 Total full-time and part-time employment by industry. 

U.S. Department of Com merce, Bureau of Econom ic Analysis, Regional Econom ic 

Analysis Division. May 2003. http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis. Data accessed 

June 19, 2003. 

. 2003d. Regional Accounts Data, Local Area Personal Income, Regional Economic 

Information System . Table C1-3 Per capita personal incom e. May 2003. 

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis. Data accessed June 19, 2003. 

. 2003e. Regional Accounts Data, Local Area Personal Income, Regional Economic 

Information System . Table CA25 Total full-tim e and part-tim e em ployment by 

industry--Wyoming (num ber of jobs). May 2003. http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/ 

regional/reis. Data accessed June 23, 2003. 

. 2003f. Gross State Product (GSP), for states and regions in current-dollar GSP and real 

chained-dollar GSP, and GSP by industry, for 1977–2001 (annual). U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Analysis Division --

May 2003. http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp/. Data accessed July 8, 2003. 

. 2003f. Employee Compensation for Wyoming. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau 

of Econom ic Analysis, Regional Econom ic Analysis Division -- May 2003. 

http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp/. Data accessed July 14, 2003. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
282 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

. 2003g. Table SA05: Personal income by major source and earnings by industry--

United States (thousands of dollars). U.S. Departm ent of Com merce, Bureau of 

Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Analysis Division. April 2003 

<http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/spi/action.cfm>. Data accessed July 17, 2003. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2003a. Average annual Unem ployment Rates. Labor Force 

Statistics from Current Population Survey. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 

Statistics. <http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm>. Data accessed December 16, 2003. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2003. Consumer Price Index--All Urban Consum ers. U.S. 

Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. <http://data.bls.gov/servlet/ 

SurveyOutputServlet>. Data accessed December 23, 2003. 

Bureau of Land Management. 1988. Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan for the 

Pinedale Resource Area. Prepared by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Pinedale Resource Area, Rock Springs District, Rock Springs, W yoming. 

118 pp.

 . 1997. Record of Decision for the Green River Resource Area Management Plan and 

Environmental Im pact Statem ent. U.S. Departm ent of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Rock Springs District, Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

______. 1999. Draft environm ental im pact statem ent for the Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development Project, Sublette County, Wyoming. Pinedale Field Office, 

Pinedale, Wyoming. 

. 2003a. Supplemental Draft EIS for the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity 

Plan/Draft Green River RMP Am endment. BLM/WY/PL-03/008+1610. Prepared by 

BLM, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming; BLM, Rock Springs Field Office, 

Rock Springs, Wyoming; and BLM, Lander Field Office, Lander, Wyoming. 

. 2003b. Socioeconomic Profile--Pinedale. Prepared by Bureau of Land Management, 

Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming. January 2003. 37 pp. 

. 2003c. Payments in Lieu of Taxes, Search Payments and Acres. U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management, Office of Public Affairs, W ashington, D.C. <http://www.blm .gov/pilt/ 

search.html>. Data accessed July 10, 2003. 

. 2004a. Pinedale Resource Management Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming. 

. 2004b. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the South Piney Natural Gas 

Development Project, Sublette County, Wyoming. Prepared for the U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming, 

by TRC Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 283 

. 2004c. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Jonah Infill Drilling Project, 

Sublette County, Wyoming. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Managem ent, Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, W yoming by TRC Mariah 

Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming. 

Campbell, Paul. 1997. Population Projections: States, 1995-2025. Current Population 

Reports, P25-1131. Prepared for Census Bureau. <http://www.census.gov/prod/2/ 

pop/p25/p25-1131.pdf>. Data accessed December 15, 2003. 

Consensus Revenue Estimating Group. 2003. Wyoming State Government Revenue Forecast 

Fiscal Year 2003 – Fiscal Year 2008. January 2003. 

. 2004. Wyoming State Government Revenue Forecast Fiscal Year 2004 – Fiscal Year 

2008. January 2004. 

Catton ,W. 1982. Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change. University of 

Illinois Press. 320 pp. 

Coupal, R., T. Taylor, and T. Foulke. 2003. Wyoming Economic Atlas: PILT. University of 

Wyoming Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics. http://agecon.uwyo.edu/ 

econdev/PILT1.htm 

Dalaker, J., and B.D. Proctor. 2000. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, Series 

P60-210, Poverty in the United States: 1999. U.S. Governm ent Printing Office. 

Washington, D.C. 

Dean Runyan Associates. 2003. The Economic Impact of Travel on W yoming, 1997-2002 

Detailed State and County Estimates. October 2003. Prepared for the State Office of 

Travel and Tourism Wyoming Business Council by Dean Runyan Associates, Portland, 

Oregon. 63 pp. 

Energy Information Administration. 2000. Cost and Indices for Domestic Oil and Gas Equipment 

and Production Operations, 1996-1999. Cost for Rocky Mountain Region. Published by 

Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, U.S. Departm ent of Energy, 

Washington, D.C. DOE/EIA–0185(2000). 

. 2001a. Energy in the United States: A Brief History and Current Trends. United States 

Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. June 2001. 

www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/eh1999/eh1999.html. Data Accessed July 10, 2003.

 . 2001b. Historical Natural Gas Annual 1930 Through 2000. Table 7. Wellhead Value and 

Marketed Production of Natural Gas by State, 1967-2000. Published by Energy Information 

Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, U.S. Departm ent of Energy, W ashington, D.C. 

DOE/EIA-E-0110(00). December 2001. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
284 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

. 2003a. Natural Gas Monthly, December 2003. Table 23. Average Price of Natural Gas 

Sold to Industrial Consum ers, by State, 2000-2002. Published by Energy Inform ation 

Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, U.S. Departm ent of Energy, W ashington, D.C. 

DOE/EIA-0130(2003/12).

 . 2004a. Annual Energy Outlook 2004 with Projections to 2025. Table 14. Natural Gas 

Prices, Margins and Revenues. Published by Energy Information Administration, Office of 

Oil and Gas, U.S. Departm ent of Energy, W ashington, D.C. DOE/EIA-0383(2004). 

January 2004.

 . 2004b. Natural Gas Annual 2002. <http://www.eia.doe.gov>. Data accessed April 2004. 

Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. EnviroMapper for Environm ental Justice. 

http://map10.epa.gov/enviromapper/. Data accessed September 9, 2003. 

Foulke, T., R. Coupal, and D. Taylor. 2001. Economic Trends in Wyoming's Mineral Sector: 

Gas and Oil. Editor, Hattie Penny. University of Wyoming College of Agriculture 

Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Laramie. B-1112, August 2001.

 22 pp. 

Gerking, S., W . Morgan, M. Kunce, J. Kerkvlie t. 2001. Mineral Tax Incentives, Mineral 

Production and the Wyoming Economy. Prepared under 1999 Wyoming Session Laws, 

Chapter 168, Section 3, for the Wyoming Legislature. December 2001. 305 pp. 

Heinberg, R. 2003. The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies. New 

Society Publishers. 288 pp. 

Lummis, C.M., S. Garland, and G. Shaffer. 2000. Annual Report of the Treasurer of the State 

of Wyoming For the Period July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000. Prepared by Cynthia 

M. Lum mis, State Treasurer; Sharon Garland, Deputy State Treasurer; and Glenn 

Shaffer, Chief Investment Officer. 

. 2001. Annual Report of the Treasurer of the State of Wyoming For the Period July 1, 

2000 through June 30, 2001. Prepared by Cynthia M. Lummis, State Treasurer; Sharon 

Garland, Deputy State Treasurer; and Glenn Shaffer, Chief Investment Officer. 

. 2002. Annual Report of the Treasurer of the State of Wyoming For the Period July 1, 

2001 through June 30, 2002. Prepared by Cynthia M. Lummis, State Treasurer; Sharon 

Garland, Deputy State Treasurer; and Glenn Shaffer, Chief Investment Officer. 

. 2003. Annual Report of the Treasurer of the State of Wyoming For the Period July 1, 

2002 through June 30, 2003. Prepared by Cynthia M. Lummis, State Treasurer; Sharon 

Garland, Deputy State Treasurer; and Glenn Shaffer, Chief Investment Officer. 

Mast, T. 2004. Labor shortages vary across state. Casper Star-Tribune. November 7, 2004. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc.
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 285 

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 2000. Users Guide. IMPLAN Professional, Version 2.0 Social 

Accounting and Impact Analysis Software, 2nd Edition, June 2000. Minnesota IMPLAN 

Group, Inc. Stillwater, Minnesota. 418 pp. 

National Agriculture Statistical Service. 1999. 1997 Census of Agriculture Volume 1: Part 50, 

Chapter 2, Wyoming County-Level Data. Table 1: County Summary Highlights. AC97-

A-51. U.S. Departm ent of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistical Service, 

Washington, D.C. March 1999. 

National Center for Education Statistics. 2003. Common Core of Data, Am erica's Public 

Schools. Data obtained from "Build a Table" <http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/bat/index.asp>.

 Data accessed July 3, 2003. 

National Energy Technology Laboratory. 2003. Strategic Planning & Policy Support, Policy 

Support Environmental Drivers. Prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy, National 

Energy Technology Laboratory, Strategic Center for Natural Gas. July 18, 2003. < 

http://www.netl.doe.gov/scng/>. Data accessed July 23, 2003. 

Office of Management and Budget. 1987. 1987 Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 

Office of Management and Budget. Washington, D.C. 

. 2004. Memorandum for the Heads of Departments and Agencies, 2004 Discount Rates 

for OMB Circular No. A-94. M-04-06, Office of Management and Budget, February 13, 

2004. 

Pinedale Online. 2002. http://pinedaleonline.com. Designed and maintained by Wind River 

Web Services and Office Outlet in Pinedale, Wyoming. Data accessed January 2, 2003. 

Royster, W. 2004. Growth strains social services. Casper Star-Tribune. November 7, 2004. 

Schlumberger Oil Field Services Com panies. 2003. Scoping Com ment Letter. Letter to 

Bureau of Land Management, Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, Wyoming from James 

Stewart, General Manager, U.S. Land Western Region, Schlumberger Oil Field Services 

Company, Greenwood Village, Colorado. April 25, 2003. 4 pp. 

Sonoran Institute. 2003. Economic Profile System . Sonoran Institute, Northwest Office, 

Bozeman, Montana. 

Sublette.Com. 2001. http://www.sublette.com. Designed and maintained by Wind River Web 

Services and Office Outlet in Pinedale, Wyoming. Data accessed January 2, 2003. 

Sublette County Board of Commissioners and Sublette County Planning Commission. 2003.

 Sublette County Comprehensive Plan: County Vision, Goals and Policies 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
286 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Sublette County Sheriff's Department. 2002. http://www.sublette.com/government/sheriff. 

Data accessed January 2, 2003. 

Taylor, D.T., and S. Lieske. 2002. Population Change in Wyoming, 1990-2000. Wyoming 

Open Spaces Research Group. B-1121, April 2002. 

Tax Reform 2000 Committee. 1999. Building Wyoming's Tax Structure for the 21st Century, 

Report of the State of Wyoming Tax Reform 2000 Committee, June 1999. Presented to 

Honorable Jim Geringer, Governor, State of W yoming; Honorable Jim Twiford, 

President, Wyoming State Senate; and Honorable Eli D. Bebout, Speaker of the House, 

Wyoming House of Representatives. 

TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 2003. Final Socioeconomic Analysis Protocol for the Jonah Infill 

Drilling Project Environm ental Im pact Statem ent. Prepared for Bureau of Land 

Management, W yoming State Office, Cheyenne, W yoming; Bureau of Land 

Management Pinedale Field Office, Pinedale, W yoming, and Jonah Infill Drilling 

Project Operators by TRC Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming. 17 pp. 

University of Wyoming, College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, Agricultural 

Economics Departm ent. 1997. Southwest W yoming Resource Evaluation 

Socio/Economic Evaluation (SWREE), Final Report, Parts I and II. Prepared for Bureau 

of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, by the University 

of W yoming, College of Agriculture, Coope rative Extension Service, Agricultural 

Economics Department. 

. 2003. Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan: Economic Analysis. Summary 

of an analysis of the regional economic effects on Southwest Wyoming associated with 

the resource use alternatives for the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan and 

follow-up to the Southwest W yoming Resource Evaluation, Socio/Econom ic 

Evaluation (1997). Prepared for the Bureau of Land Managem ent, W yoming State 

Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming, by the University of Wyoming, College of 

Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, Agricultural Econom ics Departm ent. 

<http://agecon.uwyo.edu/econdev/PubStorage/JMHCAP.pdf> Report accessed 

October 21, 2003. 

. 2004. Summary of an analysis of the regional economic effects on Southwest 

Wyoming associated with the resource use alternatives for the Pinedale Resource 

Management Plan and follow-up to the Southwest W yoming Resource Evaluation, 

Socio/Economic Evaluation. Prepared for the BLM W yoming State Office; BLM 

Pinedale Field Office; and State of W yoming, W yoming Business Council, by the 

University of W yoming, College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, 

Agricultural Economics Department. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 287 

U.S. Census Bureau. 1981. U.S. Census Bureau 1980 Census of Population and Housing. 

Table 080A: Median Household Income in 1979. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, 

D.C. 

. 1990. U.S. Census Bureau 1990 Census of Population and Housing. Table 080A: 

Median Household Income in 1989. www.factfinder.gov. Data accessed June 20, 2003. 

. 2000a. State and County QuickFacts. www.census.gov. Last Revised: Friday, 

24-Sep-2002 11:19:39 EDT. Data accessed December 26, 2002. 

. 2000b. U.S. Census Bureau 1990 Census of Population and Housing 

(http://factfinder.census.gov). Data accessed December 26, 2002. 

. 2000c. American Fact Finder, Census 2000 Quick Tables. DP-3: Profile of Selected 

Economic Characteristics: 2000. http://factfinder.census.gov. Data accessed 

January 2, 2003. 

. 2000d. American Fact Finder, Census 2000 Detailed Tables. P-5: Urban and Rural 

Population (Total Population) (Final National File Only): 2000. 

http://factfinder.census. gov. Data accessed April 24, 2003. 

. 2000e. American Fact Finder, Census 2000 Detailed Tables. P-8: Sex by Age. 

http://factfinder.census.gov. Data accessed June 18, 2003. 

. 2000f. American Fact Finder, Census 2000 Detailed Tables. P-41. Age By Types Of 

Disability For The Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population 5 Years And Over W ith 

Disabilities. http://factfinder.census.gov. Data accessed June 19, 2003. 

. 2003. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2003 Annual Social 

and Economic Supplement. 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/threshld/thresh02.html. Last revised October 14, 

2003. Data accessed January 25, 2004. 

U.S. Departm ent of Energy, Energy Inform ation System . 2000. Wyoming State Data: 

Natural Gas Summary. 2000. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_ 

publications/natural_gas_annual/current/pdf/table_092.pdf. Data accessed January 23, 

2003. 

Workman, J.P. 1986. Range Economics. McMillan Publishing, Inc. New York, New York. 

Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service. 2003. Wyoming Agricultural Statistics 2003. Issued 

cooperatively by the Wyoming Business Council; University of Wyoming, College of 

Agriculture, Agricultural Experim ent Station, and Departm ent of Agricultural and 

Applied Econom ics; and U.S. Departm ent of Agriculture, National Agricultural 

Statistics Service. Wyoming Agricultural Statistics Service, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
 

288 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Wyoming Business Council. 2002a Interactive Business Center. Salaries. 

http://wyomingbusiness.org. Data accessed June 23, 2003. 

. 2002b. Interactive Business Center. Quality of Life Category: Crime. 

http://wyomingbusiness.org. Data accessed June 23, 2003. 

. 2002c. Interactive Business Center. Quality of Life Category: Health Care. 

http://wyomingbusiness.org. Data accessed June 23, 2003. 

. 2002d. Interactive Business Center. Quality of Life Category: Housing. 

http://wyomingbusiness.org. Data accessed June 23, 2003. 

. 2002e. Wyoming Sales, Use, and Lodging Tax Report. 27th Edition. Prepared by 

Wyoming Department of Administration and Information, Economic Analysis Division, 

Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Wyoming Com munity College Com mission. 2003. Press Release. April 4, 2003. 

<http://commission.wcc.edu/WCCC/press.htm>. Data accessed July 7, 2003. 

Wyoming Department of Administration and Information. 2000. 1990 Census of Population and 

Housing: Profiles for State, Counties, and Major Cities and Towns. 

<http://eadiv.state.wy.us/pop90/pop90.htm>. Data accessed June 17, 2003. 

. 2001a. Historical decennial census population for Wyoming counties, cities, and towns. 

<http://eadiv.state.wy.us/demog_data/ cntycity_hist.htm> Data accessed June 17, 2003.

 . 2001b. Median Household Income By County: 1969, 1979, 1989 <http://eadiv.state.wy.us/ 

demog_data/CNTY_INCOME70_90.htm>. Data accessed June 17, 2003. 

. 2002a. Equality State Almanac 2000, 8th Edition. Prepared by Econom ic Analysis 

Division, Department of Administration and Information, State of Wyoming, Cheyenne, 

Wyoming. May 2002. 

. 2002b. Wyoming Population Estimates and Forecasts for Counties, Cities, and Towns:

 1991 to 2010. Prepared by Wyoming Department of Administration and Information, 

Division of Econom ic Analysis, October 1, 2002. http://eadiv.state.wy.us/ 

pop/wyc&sc10.htm. Data accessed December 30, 2002.

 . 2002c. Household Income and Poverty Status by County, Census Tract, 

and Block Group. <http://eadiv.state.wy.us/demog_data/pop2000/BG_Inc&Pvty.xls>. 

September 3, 2002. Data accessed June 19, 2003. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 289 

. 2002d. Annual Residential Housing Units Authorized by Building Permits For Wyoming 

and Counties: 1987 to 2002. <http://eadiv.state.wy.us/housing/annlbldg.htm>. July 28, 

2003. Data accessed January 5, 2004. 

. 2002e. Wyoming Sales, Use, and Lodgi ng Tax Report. 27th Edition. Prepared by 

Wyoming Department of Adm inistration and Inform ation, Economic Analysis Division, 

Cheyenne, Wyoming.

 . 2003a. Wyoming and County Population Estimates and Components of Changes: 2000 

to 2010. <http://eadiv.state.wy.us/pop/CO-02EST.htm>. Data accessed June 17, 2003.

 . 2003b. Wyoming Cost of Living for The Fourth Quarter 2002, Table Va: Average Rental 

Rates - 2Q02 & 2Q01. Department of Administration and Information, Economic Analysis 

Division, Cheyenne, Wyoming. March 27, 2003. Contact: Justin Ballard, Senior Economist. 

Wyoming Department of Education Assessment and Accountability Office. 2003 WyCAS Test 

Results and Released Item s. Wyoming Departm ent of Education Assessm ent and 

Accountability Office, Hathaway Building, 2nd Floor, 2300 Capitol Avenue Cheyenne, 

Wyoming 82002-0050. <http://www.asme.com/wycas/TestResults/ TestResults.htm>.

 Data accessed September 8, 2003. 

Wyoming Department of Employment, Research, and Planning. 1999. Identifying Wyoming's 

Oil & Gas Dependent Counties. W yoming Department of Em ployment, Research & 

Planning, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Prepared by David Bullard, Economist. Last modified 

on January 9, 2003 by Valerie A. Davis. http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/1099/a3.htm. Data 

accessed April 23, 2003. 

. 2002a. 1979 Wyoming Benchmark Labor Force Estimates. Wyoming Department of 

Employment, Research & Planning. <http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/laus/79bmk.htm>. Data 

accessed June 20, 2003. 

. 2002b. 1989 Wyoming Benchmark Labor Force Estimates. Wyoming Department of 

Employment, Research & Planning. <http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/laus/89bmk.htm>. Data 

accessed June 20, 2003. 

. 2002c. 2002 Wyoming Benchmark Labor Force Estimates. Wyoming Department of 

Employment, Research & Planning. <http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/laus/02bmk.htm>. Data 

accessed June 20, 2003. 

. 2003. Tables 8, 83, 86, and 89. In ES-202 Report (Second Run date: September 

2003). Preliminary Wyoming Statewide Employing Units, Employment, and Wages by 

NAICS Sector, First Quarter 2003. Prepared by Nancy Brennan, 09/09/2003. 

http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/03Q1_202/toc.htm. Data accessed February 25, 2004. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc.
290 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

Wyoming Department of Revenue. 1998. State of W yoming Department of Revenue 2002 

Annual Report. Wyoming Department of Revenue, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 131 pp. 

. 1999. State of Wyoming Department of Revenue 1999 Annual Report. Wyoming 

Department of Revenue, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 131 pp. 

. 2000. State of Wyoming Department of Revenue 2000 Annual Report. Wyoming 

Department of Revenue, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 103 pp. 

. 2001. State of Wyoming Department of Revenue 2002 Annual Report. Wyoming 

Department of Revenue, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 110 pp. 

. 2002. State of Wyoming Department of Revenue 2002 Annual Report. Wyoming 

Department of Revenue, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 122 pp. 

. 2003. Sales & Use Tax, New Tax Rates Effective 4/1/03. Last Updated On: 3/26/2003 

2:35:23 PM. <http://revenue.state.wy.us/>. Data accessed July 10, 2003. 

Wyoming Energy Com mission. 2003. Energy Policy. Adopted April 16, 2003. 

<http://www.wyomingbusiness.org/minerals/energy_commission/commission_meetings. 

cfm>. Data accessed August 25, 2003. 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2003a. 2002 Annual Report of Big and Trophy Game 

Harvest. Data Tables and Summaries on CD-ROM. 

. 2003b. 2002 Annual Report of Small and Upland Game Harvest. Data Tables and 

Summaries on CD-ROM. 

. 2003c. 2003 Annual Report. Pages 56-58, 60, 67, and 73. Facsimile from Walt 

Gasson, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming to C. Keefe, TRC 

Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, Wyoming, January 12, 2004. 

. 2003d. Hunter/angler/wildlife watcher expenditures, by species, per BLM FO 

administrative areas. Facsimile from Tom Christiansen, W yoming Gam e and Fish 

Department, Green River, Wyoming to C. Keefe, TRC Mariah Associates Inc., Laramie, 

Wyoming, January 23, 2004. 

Wyoming Housing Database Partnership. 2003. A Profile of W yoming Dem ographics, 

Economics, and Housing Sem iannual Report, Ending June 30, 2003, Final Report. 

August 28, 2003. Prepared by Western Economic Services, LLC, Portland Oregon. 

Wyoming Office of State Lands and Investments. 2002. Annual Report for Fiscal Year Ending 

June 30, 2002. Office of State Lands and Investments, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 49 pp. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 291 

Wyoming State Land Use Commission. 1979. Wyoming State Land Use Plan. 180 pp. 

Wyoming Recreation Com mission. 1987. Bairoil survey of regional recreation m onitoring 

program, summary results. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
292 Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

This page intentionally left blank. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

APPENDIX A: 

ASSUMED PRODUCTION RATES, DECLINE CURVES, AND

DISCOUNTING TABLES FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
Socioeconomic Analysis, Jonah Infill Drilling and South Piney Projects 

This page intentionally left blank. 

35982/36358 TRC Mariah Associates Inc. 
1

23456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142

-

43

- -

44

-

45

- -

46

-

47

- -

Appendix A 

No Action Alternative 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

548,121.39 1,918,424,869.79 5,207,153.22 $109,350,218 0.966183575 1,853,550,598.83 1 0.966183575 105,652,384.13 1 0.966183575 69,949,292.50 

274,804.06 961,814,194.99 2,610,638.53 $54,823,409 0.9335107 897,863,842.79 2 0.9335107 51,178,239.04 2 0.9335107 33,883,585.70 

209,928.43 734,749,493.86 1,994,320.05 $41,880,721 0.901942706 662,701,946.48 3 0.901942706 37,774,010.95 3 0.901942706 25,009,046.06 

176,075.29 616,263,528.17 1,672,715.29 $35,127,021 0.871442228 537,038,061.83 4 0.871442228 30,611,169.52 4 0.871442228 20,266,742.38 

154,422.64 540,479,226.42 1,467,015.04 $30,807,316 0.841973167 455,069,005.89 5 0.841973167 25,938,933.34 5 0.841973167 17,173,394.14 139,056.95 486,699,317.45 1,321,041.00 $27,741,861 0.813500644 395,930,208.33 6 0.813500644 22,568,021.87 6 0.813500644 14,941,614.20 127,431.82 446,011,353.71 1,210,602.25 $25,422,647 0.785990961 350,560,892.38 7 0.785990961 19,981,970.87 7 0.785990961 13,229,466.96 118,244.37 413,855,279.87 1,123,321.47 $23,589,751 0.759411556 314,286,482.13 0.759411556 17,914,329.48 8 0.759411556 11,860,543.26 

392,604,176.12 0.733730972 9 0.733730972 16,419,753.10 0.733730972 10,871,028.81 

105,899.04 1,006,040.91 $21,126,859 0.708918814 262,758,384.68 0.708918814 14,977,227.93 10 0.708918814 9,915,975.92 

348,407,867.43 0.684945714 11 0.684945714 13,602,507.10 0.684945714 9,005,814.26 

93,572.40 888,937.81 $18,667,694 0.661783298 216,736,283.57 0.661783298 12,353,968.16 12 0.661783298 8,179,193.87 

307,853,166.97 0.639404153 13 0.639404153 11,220,027.83 0.639404153 7,428,445.79 

82,680.56 785,465.34 $16,494,772 14 0.61778179 10,190,169.89 0.61778179 6,746,607.57 77,719.73 738,337.42 $15,505,086 0.596890619 162,365,618.59 0.596890619 9,254,840.26 15 0.596890619 6,127,353.71 

255,697,902.42 0.576705912 16 0.576705912 8,405,362.04 0.576705912 5,564,939.52 

68,673.15 652,394.88 $13,700,292 0.557203779 133,927,276.02 0.557203779 7,633,854.73 17 0.557203779 5,054,147.54 

225,934,646.65 0.53836114 18 0.53836114 6,933,162.73 0.53836114 4,590,240.26 

60,679.59 576,456.09 $12,105,578 0.52015569 110,469,916.26 0.52015569 6,296,785.23 19 0.52015569 4,168,913.70 

199,635,841.12 0.502565884 20 0.502565884 5,718,819.29 0.502565884 3,786,259.69 

53,616.48 509,356.58 $10,696,488 0.485570903 91,121,112.39 0.485570903 5,193,903.41 21 0.485570903 3,438,728.54 

176,398,229.12 0.469150631 22 0.469150631 4,717,168.41 0.469150631 3,123,096.51 

47,375.52 450,067.45 $9,451,417 0.453285634 75,161,251.46 23 0.453285634 23 0.453285634 

44,532.99 423,063.39 $8,884,331 0.437957134 68,262,389.93 0.437957134 3,890,956.23 24 0.437957134 2,576,086.07 

146,513,531.82 0.423146989 25 0.423146989 3,533,815.31 0.423146989 2,339,633.72 

39,349.35 373,818.81 $7,850,195 0.408837671 56,306,236.21 0.408837671 3,209,455.46 26 0.408837671 2,124,884.74 

129,459,357.93 0.395012242 27 0.395012242 2,914,867.78 0.395012242 1,929,847.02 

34,769.08 330,306.30 0.38165434 28 0.38165434 2,647,319.52 0.38165434 1,752,711.30 

32,682.94 310,487.91 $6,520,246 0.368748155 42,181,205.48 0.368748155 2,404,328.71 29 0.368748155 1,591,834.33 

107,526,864.63 0.356278411 30 0.356278411 2,183,641.52 0.356278411 1,445,723.93 

28,878.64 274,347.10 $5,761,289 0.344230348 34,793,167.41 0.344230348 1,983,210.54 31 0.344230348 1,313,024.55 

95,010,733.12 0.332589709 32 0.332589709 1,801,176.75 0.332589709 1,192,505.40 

25,517.17 242,413.10 $5,090,675 0.321342714 28,699,146.35 0.321342714 1,635,851.34 33 0.321342714 1,083,048.39 

83,951,484.23 0.310476052 34 0.310476052 1,485,700.75 0.310476052 983,638.15 

22,546.97 0.299976862 35 0.299976862 1,349,332.11 0.299976862 893,352.55 

21,194.15 201,344.46 $4,228,234 0.289832717 21,499,656.58 0.289832717 1,225,480.43 36 0.289832717 811,354.04 

69,728,764.41 0.28003161 37 0.28003161 1,112,996.72 0.28003161 736,881.93 

18,727.16 177,907.98 $3,736,067 0.270561942 17,733,994.36 0.270561942 1,010,837.68 38 0.270561942 669,245.48 

61,612,344.73 0.261412505 39 0.261412505 918,055.53 0.261412505 607,817.19 

16,547.31 157,199.49 $3,301,189 0.252572468 14,627,886.19 0.252572468 833,789.51 40 0.252572468 552,027.17 

-

0.24403137 41 0.24403137 

-

0.24403137 

­

- - $0 0.235779102 - 0.235779102 - 42 0.235779102 ­

0.227805895 43 0.227805895 0.227805895 

- - $0 0.220102314 - 0.220102314 - 44 0.220102314 ­

0.212659241 45 0.212659241 0.212659241 

- - $0 0.205467866 - 0.205467866 - 46 0.205467866 ­

0.198519677 47 0.198519677 0.198519677 

A-1 
Appendix A 

No Action Alternative 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 PV of LOP Production Discount Factor Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

- - -$0 48 0.191806451 - 48 0.191806451 - 48 0.191806451 ­- - -$0 49 0.185320243 - 49 0.185320243 - 49 0.185320243 ­- - -$0 50 0.179053375 - 50 0.179053375 - 50 0.179053375 ­- - -$0 51 0.172998429 - 51 0.172998429 - 51 0.172998429 ­- - -$0 52 0.167148241 - 52 0.167148241 - 52 0.167148241 ­- - -$0 53 0.161495885 - 53 0.161495885 - 53 0.161495885 ­- - -$0 54 0.156034672 - 54 0.156034672 - 54 0.156034672 ­- - -$0 55 0.150758137 - 55 0.150758137 - 55 0.150758137 ­- - -$0 56 0.145660036 - 56 0.145660036 - 56 0.145660036 ­- - -$0 57 0.140734334 - 57 0.140734334 - 57 0.140734334 ­- - -$0 58 0.135975202 - 58 0.135975202 - 58 0.135975202 ­- - -$0 59 0.131377007 - 59 0.131377007 - 59 0.131377007 ­- - -$0 60 0.126934306 - 60 0.126934306 - 60 0.126934306 ­- - -$0 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 ­- - -$0 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 ­- - -$0 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 ­- - -$0 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 ­- - -$0 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 ­- - -$0 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 ­

- - -$0 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 ­

- - -$0 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 ­- - -$0 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 ­- - -$0 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 ­- - -$0 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 ­- - -$0 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 ­- - -$0 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 ­- - -$0 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 ­- - -$0 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 ­- - -$0 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 ­- - -$0 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 ­- - -$0 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 ­- - -$0 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 ­- - -$0 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 ­- - -$0 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 ­

3,366,000.00 $11,781,003,500 31,977,000.00 671,517,000.00 8,473,010,816 482,961,617 319,754,482 

A-2 
Appendix A


LOF PRODUCTION CURVES

No Action Alternative--533 Existing Wells 

0

50

600 550500450400350300250200150100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Production Year Number 

Thousands of MMCF 

533 Existing Wells 

A-3

1

2

34567

8

9

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546

47

Appendix A 

Proposed Action - 75 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

32,352.49 113,233,698.96 307,348.61 $6,454,321 0.966183575 109,404,540.06 1 0.966183575 6,236,058.78 1 0.966183575 4,128,708.53 

48,572.61 170,004,151.68 461,439.84 $9,690,237 0.9335107 158,700,694.70 2 0.9335107 9,045,939.60 2 0.9335107 5,989,046.82 

60,963.50 213,372,261.70 579,153.28 $12,162,219 0.901942706 192,449,555.03 3 0.901942706 10,969,624.64 3 0.901942706 7,262,661.31 

71,356.23 249,746,815.70 677,884.21 $14,235,568 0.871442228 217,639,921.43 4 0.871442228 12,405,475.52 4 0.871442228 8,213,295.36 

80,470.93 281,648,250.99 764,473.82 $16,053,950 0.841973167 237,140,269.82 5 0.841973167 13,516,995.38 5 0.841973167 8,949,199.50 

88,678.67 310,375,362.32 842,447.41 $17,691,396 0.813500644 252,490,557.23 6 0.813500644 14,391,961.76 6 0.813500644 9,528,488.65 

96,200.26 336,700,893.16 913,902.42 $19,191,951 0.785990961 264,643,858.48 7 0.785990961 15,084,699.93 7 0.785990961 9,987,129.93 

103,179.55 361,128,432.70 980,205.75 $20,584,321 0.759411556 274,245,105.07 8 0.759411556 15,631,970.99 8 0.759411556 10,349,461.78 

109,800.47 384,301,638.13 1,043,104.45 $21,905,193 0.733730972 281,974,014.56 9 0.733730972 16,072,518.83 9 0.733730972 10,641,135.36 116,051.09 406,178,814.52 1,102,485.35 $23,152,192 0.708918814 287,947,803.34 10 0.708918814 16,413,024.79 10 0.708918814 10,866,574.20 

121,926.67 426,743,361.20 1,158,303.41 $24,324,372 0.684945714 292,296,036.11 11 0.684945714 16,660,874.06 11 0.684945714 11,030,667.81 127,449.72 446,074,035.64 1,210,772.38 $25,426,220 0.661783298 295,204,346.59 12 0.661783298 16,826,647.76 12 0.661783298 11,140,421.63 132,641.39 464,244,867.62 1,260,093.21 $26,461,957 0.639404153 296,840,096.34 13 0.639404153 16,919,885.49 13 0.639404153 11,202,151.56 137,521.56 481,325,449.17 1,306,454.79 $27,435,551 0.61778179 297,354,097.69 14 0.61778179 16,949,183.57 14 0.61778179 11,221,548.94 

142,108.91 497,381,195.77 1,350,034.67 $28,350,728 0.596890619 296,882,169.64 15 0.596890619 16,922,283.67 15 0.596890619 11,203,739.32 

146,421.03 512,473,597.36 1,390,999.76 $29,210,995 0.576705912 295,546,553.19 16 0.576705912 16,846,153.53 16 0.576705912 11,153,335.82 150,474.42 526,660,453.64 1,429,506.95 $30,019,646 0.557203779 293,457,195.25 17 0.557203779 16,727,060.13 17 0.557203779 11,074,487.63 154,284.60 539,996,098.50 1,465,703.70 $30,779,778 0.53836114 290,712,914.94 18 0.53836114 16,570,636.15 18 0.53836114 10,970,923.98 

157,866.17 552,531,604.18 1,499,728.64 $31,494,301 0.52015569 287,402,458.03 19 0.52015569 16,381,940.11 19 0.52015569 10,845,993.96 

161,232.85 564,314,979.23 1,531,712.09 $32,165,954 0.502565884 283,605,456.64 20 0.502565884 16,165,511.03 20 0.502565884 10,702,702.72 164,397.53 575,391,351.55 1,561,776.53 $32,797,307 0.485570903 279,393,298.06 21 0.485570903 15,925,417.99 21 0.485570903 10,543,744.28 167,372.33 585,803,141.74 1,590,037.10 $33,390,779 0.469150631 274,829,913.45 22 0.469150631 15,665,305.07 22 0.469150631 10,371,531.27 170,168.64 595,590,223.92 1,616,602.04 $33,948,643 0.453285634 269,972,492.00 23 0.453285634 15,388,432.04 23 0.453285634 10,188,221.90 172,797.17 604,790,080.81 1,641,573.08 $34,473,035 0.437957134 264,872,130.40 24 0.437957134 15,097,711.43 24 0.437957134 9,995,744.46 

175,267.98 613,437,946.27 1,665,045.85 $34,965,963 0.423146989 259,574,420.07 25 0.423146989 14,795,741.94 25 0.423146989 9,795,819.46 177,590.55 621,566,939.83 1,687,110.27 $35,429,316 0.408837671 254,119,979.92 26 0.408837671 14,484,838.86 26 0.408837671 9,589,979.80 179,773.77 629,208,193.83 1,707,850.81 $35,864,867 0.395012242 248,544,939.52 27 0.395012242 14,167,061.55 27 0.395012242 9,379,588.93 181,825.99 636,390,972.54 1,727,346.93 $36,274,285 0.38165434 242,881,376.86 28 0.38165434 13,844,238.48 28 0.38165434 9,165,857.40 

183,755.08 643,142,784.18 1,745,673.27 $36,659,139 0.368748155 237,157,715.05 29 0.368748155 13,517,989.76 29 0.368748155 8,949,857.85 

185,568.42 649,489,487.10 1,762,900.04 $37,020,901 0.356278411 231,399,082.17 30 0.356278411 13,189,747.68 30 0.356278411 8,732,538.56 187,272.97 655,455,387.48 1,779,093.19 $37,360,957 0.344230348 225,627,636.40 31 0.344230348 12,860,775.27 31 0.344230348 8,514,735.74 188,875.24 661,063,333.91 1,794,314.76 $37,680,610 0.332589709 219,862,861.60 32 0.332589709 12,532,183.11 32 0.332589709 8,297,184.67 190,381.37 666,334,803.54 1,808,623.04 $37,981,084 0.321342714 214,121,833.96 33 0.321342714 12,204,944.54 33 0.321342714 8,080,529.77 191,797.14 671,289,985.03 1,822,072.82 $38,263,529 0.310476052 208,419,464.18 34 0.310476052 11,879,909.46 34 0.310476052 7,865,333.74 193,127.96 675,947,855.75 1,834,715.61 $38,529,028 0.299976862 202,768,716.41 35 0.299976862 11,557,816.84 35 0.299976862 7,652,085.82 194,378.93 680,326,254.41 1,846,599.83 $38,778,597 0.289832717 197,180,806.48 36 0.289832717 11,239,305.97 36 0.289832717 7,441,209.27 195,554.84 684,441,949.16 1,857,771.00 $39,013,191 0.28003161 191,665,381.13 37 0.28003161 10,924,926.72 37 0.28003161 7,233,068.15 

196,660.20 688,310,702.53 1,868,271.91 $39,233,710 0.270561942 186,230,680.54 38 0.270561942 10,615,148.79 38 0.270561942 7,027,973.42 

197,699.24 691,947,330.92 1,878,142.76 $39,440,998 0.261412505 180,883,684.81 39 0.261412505 10,310,370.03 39 0.261412505 6,826,188.50 198,675.93 695,365,761.39 1,887,421.35 $39,635,848 0.252572468 175,630,246.65 40 0.252572468 10,010,924.06 40 0.252572468 6,627,934.25 166,323.45 582,132,062.43 1,580,072.74 $33,181,528 0.24403137 142,058,484.85 41 0.24403137 8,097,333.64 41 0.24403137 5,361,003.10 150,103.32 525,361,609.71 1,425,981.51 $29,945,612 0.235779102 123,869,288.39 42 0.235779102 7,060,549.44 42 0.235779102 4,674,579.21 

137,712.43 481,993,499.69 1,308,268.07 $27,473,629 0.227805895 109,800,960.74 43 0.227805895 6,258,654.76 43 0.227805895 4,143,668.66 

127,319.70 445,618,945.69 1,209,537.14 $25,400,280 0.220102314 98,081,761.26 44 0.220102314 5,590,660.39 44 0.220102314 3,701,409.51 

118,205.00 413,717,510.40 1,122,947.53 $23,581,898 0.212659241 87,980,851.71 45 0.212659241 5,014,908.55 45 0.212659241 3,320,221.38 

109,997.26 384,990,399.07 1,044,973.94 $21,944,453 0.205467866 79,103,155.58 46 0.205467866 4,508,879.87 46 0.205467866 2,985,194.89 

102,475.68 358,664,868.23 973,518.93 $20,443,897 0.198519677 71,202,033.76 47 0.198519677 4,058,515.92 47 0.198519677 2,687,022.35 

A-4 
Appendix A 

Proposed Action - 75 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

95,496.38 334,237,328.69 907,215.61 $19,051,528 48 0.191806451 64,108,875.85 48 0.191806451 3,654,205.92 48 0.191806451 2,419,340.76 

88,875.46 311,064,123.26 844,316.91 $17,730,655 49 0.185320243 57,646,478.80 49 0.185320243 3,285,849.29 49 0.185320243 2,175,462.82 

82,624.84 289,186,946.87 784,936.00 $16,483,656 50 0.179053375 51,779,898.71 50 0.179053375 2,951,454.23 50 0.179053375 1,954,069.82 

76,749.26 268,622,400.19 729,117.94 $15,311,477 51 0.172998429 46,471,253.36 51 0.172998429 2,648,861.44 51 0.172998429 1,753,732.16 

71,226.21 249,291,725.75 676,648.97 $14,209,628 52 0.167148241 41,668,673.47 52 0.167148241 2,375,114.39 52 0.167148241 1,572,492.40 

66,034.54 231,120,893.77 627,328.14 $13,173,891 53 0.161495885 37,325,073.30 53 0.161495885 2,127,529.18 53 0.161495885 1,408,573.62 

61,154.37 214,040,312.22 580,966.56 $12,200,298 54 0.156034672 33,397,709.82 54 0.156034672 1,903,669.46 54 0.156034672 1,260,362.77 

56,567.02 197,984,565.62 537,386.68 $11,285,120 55 0.150758137 29,847,784.23 55 0.150758137 1,701,323.70 55 0.150758137 1,126,395.68 

52,254.90 182,892,164.03 496,421.59 $10,424,853 56 0.145660036 26,640,079.11 56 0.145660036 1,518,484.51 56 0.145660036 1,005,343.31 

48,201.52 168,705,307.75 457,914.41 $9,616,203 57 0.140734334 23,742,629.10 57 0.140734334 1,353,329.86 57 0.140734334 895,999.34 

44,391.33 155,369,662.89 421,717.66 $8,856,071 58 0.135975202 21,126,421.26 58 0.135975202 1,204,206.01 58 0.135975202 797,268.89 

40,809.76 142,834,157.21 387,692.71 $8,141,547 59 0.131377007 18,765,124.01 59 0.131377007 1,069,612.07 59 0.131377007 708,158.25 

37,443.08 131,050,782.16 355,709.27 $7,469,895 60 0.126934306 16,634,840.07 60 0.126934306 948,185.88 60 0.126934306 627,765.59 

34,278.40 119,974,409.84 325,644.83 $6,838,541 61 0.122641841 14,713,882.54 61 0.122641841 838,691.31 61 0.122641841 555,272.50 

31,303.61 109,562,619.65 297,384.25 $6,245,069 62 0.118494533 12,982,571.42 62 0.118494533 740,006.57 62 0.118494533 489,936.28 

28,507.30 99,775,537.47 270,819.32 $5,687,206 63 0.114487471 11,423,048.98 63 0.114487471 651,113.79 63 0.114487471 431,083.02 25,878.77 90,575,680.58 245,848.28 $5,162,814 64 0.110615914 10,019,111.72 64 0.110615914 571,089.37 64 0.110615914 378,101.24 23,407.95 81,927,815.12 222,375.50 $4,669,885 65 0.106875279 8,756,058.14 65 0.106875279 499,095.31 65 0.106875279 330,436.12 

21,085.38 73,798,821.56 200,311.09 $4,206,533 66 0.10326114 7,620,550.42 66 0.10326114 434,371.37 66 0.10326114 287,584.33 

18,902.16 66,157,567.56 179,570.54 $3,770,981 67 0.099769217 6,600,488.71 67 0.099769217 376,227.86 67 0.099769217 249,089.24 16,849.94 58,974,788.85 160,074.43 $3,361,563 68 0.096395379 5,684,897.11 68 0.096395379 324,039.14 68 0.096395379 214,536.65 14,920.85 52,222,977.21 141,748.08 $2,976,710 69 0.093135632 4,863,819.97 69 0.093135632 277,237.74 69 0.093135632 183,550.84 13,107.51 45,876,274.29 124,521.32 $2,614,948 70 0.089986118 4,128,227.81 70 0.089986118 235,308.99 70 0.089986118 155,791.06 11,402.96 39,910,373.91 108,328.16 $2,274,891 71 0.086943109 3,469,931.98 71 0.086943109 197,786.12 71 0.086943109 130,948.29 

9,800.69 34,302,427.48 93,106.59 $1,955,238 72 0.084003004 2,881,506.94 72 0.084003004 164,245.90 72 0.084003004 108,742.31 8,294.56 29,030,957.85 78,798.31 $1,654,765 73 0.081162322 2,356,219.96 73 0.081162322 134,304.54 73 0.081162322 88,919.03 

6,878.79 24,075,776.36 65,348.54 $1,372,319 74 0.078417703 1,887,967.07 74 0.078417703 107,614.12 74 0.078417703 71,248.10 

5,547.97 19,417,905.64 52,705.74 $1,106,821 75 0.075765896 1,471,215.03 75 0.075765896 83,859.26 75 0.075765896 55,520.71 

4,297.00 15,039,506.98 40,821.52 $857,252 76 0.073203765 1,100,948.53 76 0.073203765 62,754.07 76 0.073203765 41,547.60 

3,121.09 10,923,812.23 29,650.35 $622,657 77 0.070728275 772,622.40 77 0.070728275 44,039.48 77 0.070728275 29,157.22 

2,015.73 7,055,058.86 19,149.45 $402,138 78 0.068336498 482,118.01 78 0.068336498 27,480.73 78 0.068336498 18,194.17 

976.69	 3,418,430.47 9,278.60 $194,851 79 0.066025601 225,703.93 79 0.066025601 12,865.12 79 0.066025601 8,517.61 

- - - $0 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 ­

- - - $0 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 ­

7,947,037.27 $27,814,633,956 75,496,854.09 1,585,433,935.97	 11,053,766,572 630,064,695 417,147,043 

A-5 
1

23456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748

Appendix A 

Proposed Action - 150 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

61,623.80 215,683,305.70 585,426.12 $12,293,948 0.966183575 208,389,667.34 1 0.966183575 11,878,211.04 1 0.966183575 7,864,209.27 92,519.30 323,817,536.22 878,933.31 $18,457,600 0.9335107 302,287,135.03 2 0.9335107 17,230,366.70 2 0.9335107 11,407,711.90 

116,121.00 406,423,486.73 1,103,149.46 $23,166,139 0.901942706 366,570,699.27 3 0.901942706 20,894,529.86 3 0.901942706 13,833,645.05 135,916.68 475,708,373.83 1,291,208.44 $27,115,377 0.871442228 414,552,365.02 4 0.871442228 23,629,484.81 4 0.871442228 15,644,377.15 153,278.01 536,473,032.08 1,456,141.09 $30,578,963 0.841973167 451,695,897.75 5 0.841973167 25,746,666.17 5 0.841973167 17,046,099.79 168,911.82 591,191,357.03 1,604,662.25 $33,697,907 0.813500644 480,934,549.85 6 0.813500644 27,413,269.34 6 0.813500644 18,149,508.04 183,238.64 641,335,241.47 1,740,767.08 $36,556,109 0.785990961 504,083,702.56 7 0.785990961 28,732,771.05 7 0.785990961 19,023,110.77 196,532.54 687,863,903.22 1,867,059.17 $39,208,242 0.759411556 522,371,797.21 8 0.759411556 29,775,192.44 8 0.759411556 19,713,266.88 209,143.82 732,003,356.38 1,986,866.25 $41,724,191 0.733730972 537,093,534.32 9 0.733730972 30,614,331.46 9 0.733730972 20,268,835.80 221,049.77 773,674,181.99 2,099,972.78 $44,099,428 0.708918814 548,472,183.29 10 0.708918814 31,262,914.45 10 0.708918814 20,698,243.25 232,241.36 812,844,759.72 2,206,292.92 $46,332,151 0.684945714 556,754,534.10 11 0.684945714 31,735,008.44 11 0.684945714 21,010,802.61 242,761.46 849,665,103.87 2,306,233.85 $48,430,911 0.661783298 562,294,174.88 12 0.661783298 32,050,767.97 12 0.661783298 21,219,857.57 252,650.35 884,276,223.58 2,400,178.32 $50,403,745 0.639404153 565,409,889.70 13 0.639404153 32,228,363.71 13 0.639404153 21,337,438.42 261,945.91 916,810,675.11 2,488,486.12 $52,258,208 0.61778179 566,388,940.21 14 0.61778179 32,284,169.59 14 0.61778179 21,374,385.83 270,683.73 947,393,059.46 2,571,495.45 $54,001,404 0.596890619 565,490,029.34 15 0.596890619 32,232,931.67 15 0.596890619 21,340,462.73 278,897.29 976,140,500.32 2,649,524.22 $55,640,009 0.576705912 562,945,997.20 16 0.576705912 32,087,921.84 16 0.576705912 21,244,456.04 286,618.03 1,003,163,092.44 2,722,871.25 $57,180,296 0.557203779 558,966,266.49 17 0.557203779 31,861,077.19 17 0.557203779 21,094,268.96 293,875.52 1,028,564,328.94 2,791,817.46 $58,628,167 0.53836114 553,739,064.23 18 0.53836114 31,563,126.66 18 0.53836114 20,897,004.81 300,697.57 1,052,441,490.31 2,856,626.90 $59,989,165 0.52015569 547,433,429.99 19 0.52015569 31,203,705.51 19 0.52015569 20,659,042.78 307,110.29 1,074,886,021.46 2,917,547.77 $61,268,503 0.502565884 540,201,044.04 20 0.502565884 30,791,459.51 20 0.502565884 20,386,107.00 313,138.25 1,095,983,880.30 2,974,813.39 $62,471,081 0.485570903 532,177,882.25 21 0.485570903 30,334,139.29 21 0.485570903 20,083,328.92 257,180.73 900,132,562.32 2,443,216.95 $51,307,556 0.469150631 422,297,759.38 22 0.469150631 24,070,972.28 22 0.469150631 15,936,672.84 231,611.54 810,640,399.10 2,200,309.65 $46,206,503 0.453285634 367,451,646.91 23 0.453285634 20,944,743.87 23 0.453285634 13,866,890.25 213,016.57 745,557,991.17 2,023,657.40 $42,496,805 0.437957134 326,522,440.97 24 0.437957134 18,611,779.14 24 0.437957134 12,322,303.88 197,927.21 692,745,234.08 1,880,308.49 $39,486,478 0.423146989 293,133,060.13 25 0.423146989 16,708,584.43 25 0.423146989 11,062,255.42 184,989.82 647,464,378.09 1,757,403.31 $36,905,470 0.408837671 264,707,828.26 26 0.408837671 15,088,346.21 26 0.408837671 9,989,544.02 173,514.52 607,300,827.34 1,648,387.96 $34,616,147 0.395012242 239,891,261.57 27 0.395012242 13,673,801.91 27 0.395012242 9,053,016.43 163,096.69 570,838,430.58 1,549,418.60 $32,537,791 0.38165434 217,862,964.70 28 0.38165434 12,418,188.99 28 0.38165434 8,221,712.56 153,477.25 537,170,366.59 1,458,033.85 $30,618,711 0.368748155 198,080,581.58 29 0.368748155 11,290,593.15 29 0.368748155 7,475,164.99 144,319.96 505,119,875.25 1,371,039.66 $28,791,833 0.356278411 179,963,306.32 30 0.356278411 10,257,908.46 30 0.356278411 6,791,455.25 135,660.76 474,812,673.09 1,288,777.26 $27,064,322 0.344230348 163,444,931.89 31 0.344230348 9,316,361.12 31 0.344230348 6,168,084.84 127,521.11 446,323,901.52 1,211,450.59 $25,440,462 0.332589709 148,442,736.35 32 0.332589709 8,461,235.97 32 0.332589709 5,601,931.98 119,869.84 419,544,455.15 1,138,763.52 $23,914,034 0.321342714 134,817,553.71 33 0.321342714 7,684,600.56 33 0.321342714 5,087,744.84 112,677.65 394,371,779.42 1,070,437.69 $22,479,191 0.310476052 122,442,993.02 34 0.310476052 6,979,250.60 34 0.310476052 4,620,753.67 105,916.99 370,709,465.45 1,006,211.41 $21,130,440 0.299976862 111,204,262.03 35 0.299976862 6,338,642.94 35 0.299976862 4,196,626.44 

99,561.97 348,466,890.76 945,838.70 $19,862,613 0.289832717 100,997,105.59 36 0.289832717 5,756,835.02 36 0.289832717 3,811,428.77 93,588.25 327,558,871.00 889,088.36 $18,670,856 0.28003161 91,726,838.09 37 0.28003161 5,228,429.77 37 0.28003161 3,461,587.42 87,972.95 307,905,335.31 835,743.05 $17,550,604 0.270561942 83,307,465.55 38 0.270561942 4,748,525.54 38 0.270561942 3,143,857.13 82,694.57 289,431,012.25 785,598.46 $16,497,568 0.261412505 75,660,885.82 39 0.261412505 4,312,670.49 39 0.261412505 2,855,290.51 77,732.90 272,065,149.11 738,462.55 $15,507,713 0.252572468 68,716,166.22 40 0.252572468 3,916,821.47 40 0.252572468 2,593,210.68 71,320.18 249,620,617.96 677,541.68 $14,228,375 0.24403137 60,915,261.44 41 0.24403137 3,472,169.90 41 0.24403137 2,298,820.14 65,292.22 228,522,759.12 620,276.06 $13,025,797 0.235779102 53,880,890.86 42 0.235779102 3,071,210.78 42 0.235779102 2,033,357.06 59,625.93 208,690,771.41 566,446.38 $11,895,374 0.227805895 47,540,988.03 43 0.227805895 2,709,836.32 43 0.227805895 1,794,101.81 54,299.63 190,048,704.10 515,846.48 $10,832,776 0.220102314 41,830,159.61 44 0.220102314 2,384,319.10 44 0.220102314 1,578,586.56 49,292.90 172,525,161.53 468,282.58 $9,833,934 0.212659241 36,689,069.89 45 0.212659241 2,091,276.98 45 0.212659241 1,384,572.12 44,586.58 156,053,031.52 423,572.51 $8,895,023 0.205467866 32,063,883.31 46 0.205467866 1,827,641.35 46 0.205467866 1,210,026.83 40,162.64 140,569,229.26 381,545.05 $8,012,446 0.198519677 27,905,757.98 47 0.198519677 1,590,628.20 47 0.198519677 1,053,107.49 36,004.13 126,014,455.05 342,039.24 $7,182,824 0.191806451 24,170,385.42 48 0.191806451 1,377,711.97 48 0.191806451 912,142.00 

A-6 
Appendix A 

Proposed Action - 150 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

32,095.13 112,332,967.38 304,903.77 $6,402,979 49 0.185320243 20,817,572.77 49 0.185320243 1,186,601.65 49 0.185320243 785,613.56 28,420.68 99,472,369.62 269,996.43 $5,669,925 50 0.179053375 17,810,863.45 50 0.179053375 1,015,219.22 50 0.179053375 672,146.37 24,966.69 87,383,407.80 237,183.54 $4,980,854 51 0.172998429 15,117,192.31 51 0.172998429 861,679.96 51 0.172998429 570,492.60 21,719.94 76,019,784.35 206,339.41 $4,333,128 52 0.167148241 12,706,573.24 52 0.167148241 724,274.67 52 0.167148241 479,520.66 18,667.99 65,337,978.19 177,345.94 $3,724,265 53 0.161495885 10,551,814.62 53 0.161495885 601,453.43 53 0.161495885 398,204.38 15,799.17 55,297,080.40 150,092.08 $3,151,934 54 0.156034672 8,628,261.78 54 0.156034672 491,810.92 54 0.156034672 325,613.34 13,102.47 45,858,636.42 124,473.44 $2,613,942 55 0.150758137 6,913,562.58 55 0.150758137 394,073.07 55 0.150758137 260,904.02 10,567.57 36,986,498.87 100,391.93 $2,108,230 56 0.145660036 5,387,454.74 56 0.145660036 307,084.92 56 0.145660036 203,311.77 

8,184.77 28,646,689.20 77,755.30 $1,632,861 57 0.140734334 4,031,572.72 57 0.140734334 229,799.65 57 0.140734334 152,143.49 5,944.93 20,807,268.10 56,476.87 $1,186,014 58 0.135975202 2,829,272.48 58 0.135975202 161,268.53 58 0.135975202 106,771.08 3,839.49 13,438,211.68 36,475.15 $765,978 59 0.131377007 1,765,472.02 59 0.131377007 100,631.91 59 0.131377007 66,625.38 1,860.37 6,511,298.24 17,673.52 $371,144 60 0.126934306 826,507.12 60 0.126934306 47,110.91 60 0.126934306 31,190.73 

-- -$0 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 ­-- -$0 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 ­-- -$0 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 ­-- -$0 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 ­-- -$0 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 ­-- -$0 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 ­-- -$0 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 ­-- -$0 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 ­-- -$0 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 ­-- -$0 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 ­-- -$0 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 ­-- -$0 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 ­-- -$0 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 ­-- -$0 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 ­-- -$0 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 ­-- -$0 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 ­-- -$0 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 ­-- -$0 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 ­-- -$0 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 ­-- -$0 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 ­-- -$0 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 ­

7,947,039.84 $27,814,642,928 75,496,878.45 1,585,434,447.39 14,491,307,089 826,004,504 546,872,947 

A-7 
1

23456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647

Appendix A 

Proposed Action - 250 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

99,548.36 348,419,248.68 945,709.39 $19,859,897 0.966183575 336,636,955.25 1 0.966183575 19,188,306.45 1 0.966183575 12,704,005.42 

149,457.57 523,101,509.02 1,419,846.95 $29,816,786 0.9335107 488,320,856.05 2 0.9335107 27,834,288.79 2 0.9335107 18,428,252.47 

187,584.25 656,544,860.69 1,782,050.34 $37,423,057 0.901942706 592,165,848.04 3 0.901942706 33,753,453.34 3 0.901942706 22,347,154.77 

219,562.60 768,469,092.52 2,085,844.68 $43,802,738 0.871442228 669,676,417.90 4 0.871442228 38,171,555.82 4 0.871442228 25,272,248.66 247,608.45 866,629,571.40 2,352,280.27 $49,397,886 0.841973167 729,678,844.72 5 0.841973167 41,591,694.15 5 0.841973167 27,536,620.24 272,863.62 955,022,679.10 2,592,204.41 $54,436,293 0.813500644 776,911,564.78 6 0.813500644 44,283,959.19 6 0.813500644 29,319,088.63 296,007.47 1,036,026,141.49 2,812,070.96 $59,053,490 0.785990961 814,307,182.24 7 0.785990961 46,415,509.39 7 0.785990961 30,730,324.44 317,482.71 1,111,189,498.79 3,016,085.78 $63,337,801 0.759411556 843,850,146.52 8 0.759411556 48,099,458.35 8 0.759411556 31,845,216.83 337,855.22 1,182,493,279.38 3,209,624.62 $67,402,117 0.733730972 867,631,943.48 9 0.733730972 49,455,020.78 9 0.733730972 32,742,694.28 357,088.34 1,249,809,188.25 3,392,339.23 $71,239,124 0.708918814 886,013,247.10 10 0.708918814 50,502,755.08 10 0.708918814 33,436,367.92 

375,167.47 1,313,086,145.26 3,564,090.97 $74,845,910 0.684945714 899,392,726.96 11 0.684945714 51,265,385.44 11 0.684945714 33,941,282.73 

392,161.85 1,372,566,486.61 3,725,537.61 $78,236,290 0.661783298 908,341,576.63 12 0.661783298 51,775,469.87 12 0.661783298 34,278,994.42 

408,136.57 1,428,478,001.35 3,877,297.43 $81,423,246 0.639404153 913,374,766.44 13 0.639404153 52,062,361.69 13 0.639404153 34,468,936.94 

323,604.45 1,132,615,574.91 3,074,242.27 $64,559,088 0.61778179 699,709,277.56 14 0.61778179 39,883,428.82 14 0.61778179 26,405,628.72 

287,810.49 1,007,336,727.34 2,734,199.69 $57,418,193 0.596890619 601,269,842.35 15 0.596890619 34,272,381.01 15 0.596890619 22,690,721.31 

262,952.17 920,332,582.98 2,498,045.58 $52,458,957 0.576705912 530,761,241.35 16 0.576705912 30,253,390.76 16 0.576705912 20,029,867.73 

243,446.06 852,061,202.31 2,312,737.55 $48,567,489 0.557203779 474,771,722.24 17 0.557203779 27,061,988.17 17 0.557203779 17,916,935.25 

227,124.12 794,934,403.39 2,157,679.09 $45,311,261 0.53836114 427,961,791.28 18 0.53836114 24,393,822.10 18 0.53836114 16,150,422.08 

212,889.42 745,112,953.33 2,022,449.44 $42,471,438 0.52015569 387,574,742.66 19 0.52015569 22,091,760.33 19 0.52015569 14,626,295.64 

200,104.81 700,366,848.25 1,900,995.73 $39,920,910 0.502565884 351,980,484.52 20 0.502565884 20,062,887.62 20 0.502565884 13,283,039.52 

188,367.26 659,285,406.11 1,789,488.96 $37,579,268 0.485570903 320,129,809.87 21 0.485570903 18,247,399.16 21 0.485570903 12,081,058.76 

177,148.18 620,018,626.42 1,682,907.70 $35,341,062 0.469150631 290,882,129.67 22 0.469150631 16,580,281.39 22 0.469150631 10,977,309.81 

166,519.28 582,817,496.55 1,581,933.20 $33,220,597 0.453285634 264,182,798.19 23 0.453285634 15,058,419.50 23 0.453285634 9,969,730.44 

156,528.12 547,848,430.68 1,487,017.17 $31,227,361 0.437957134 239,934,128.51 24 0.437957134 13,676,245.32 24 0.437957134 9,054,634.14 

147,136.43 514,977,506.98 1,397,796.09 $29,353,718 0.423146989 217,911,181.62 25 0.423146989 12,420,937.35 25 0.423146989 8,223,532.17 

138,308.24 484,078,844.91 1,313,928.29 $27,592,494 0.408837671 197,909,667.43 26 0.408837671 11,280,851.04 26 0.408837671 7,468,715.03 

130,009.74 455,034,104.32 1,235,092.57 $25,936,944 0.395012242 179,744,041.88 27 0.395012242 10,245,410.39 27 0.395012242 6,783,180.65 

122,209.16 427,732,048.17 1,160,986.99 $24,380,727 0.38165434 163,245,792.71 28 0.38165434 9,305,010.18 28 0.38165434 6,160,569.73 114,876.60 402,068,115.03 1,091,327.74 $22,917,883 0.368748155 148,261,875.59 29 0.368748155 8,450,926.91 29 0.368748155 5,595,106.66 

107,984.01 377,944,021.47 1,025,848.06 $21,542,809 0.356278411 134,653,295.27 30 0.356278411 7,675,237.83 30 0.356278411 5,081,546.06 

101,504.96 355,267,372.58 964,297.15 $20,250,240 0.344230348 122,293,811.44 31 0.344230348 6,970,747.25 31 0.344230348 4,615,123.86 

95,414.66 333,951,324.35 906,439.31 $19,035,225 0.332589709 111,068,773.65 32 0.332589709 6,330,920.10 32 0.332589709 4,191,513.38 

89,689.78 313,914,239.86 852,052.94 $17,893,112 0.321342714 100,874,053.68 33 0.321342714 5,749,821.06 33 0.321342714 3,806,785.04 

84,308.39 295,079,381.25 800,929.75 $16,819,525 0.310476052 91,615,081.26 34 0.310476052 5,222,059.63 34 0.310476052 3,457,369.94 

79,249.89 277,374,613.86 752,873.95 $15,810,353 0.299976862 83,205,966.17 35 0.299976862 4,742,740.07 35 0.299976862 3,140,026.75 

74,494.90 260,732,134.95 707,701.51 $14,861,732 0.289832717 75,568,702.97 36 0.289832717 4,307,416.07 36 0.289832717 2,851,811.71 

70,025.20 245,088,205.91 665,239.42 $13,970,028 0.28003161 68,632,444.95 37 0.28003161 3,912,049.36 37 0.28003161 2,590,051.21 

65,823.69 230,382,913.59 625,325.05 $13,131,826 0.270561942 62,332,848.56 38 0.270561942 3,552,972.37 38 0.270561942 2,352,317.04 

61,874.27 216,559,939.38 587,805.55 $12,343,917 0.261412505 56,611,476.14 39 0.261412505 3,226,854.14 39 0.261412505 2,136,403.89 

58,161.81 203,566,342.84 552,537.22 $11,603,282 0.252572468 51,415,253.65 40 0.252572468 2,930,669.46 40 0.252572468 1,940,308.84 

51,847.14 181,464,986.22 492,547.82 $10,343,504 0.24403137 44,283,149.24 41 0.24403137 2,524,139.51 41 0.24403137 1,671,157.49 

45,911.35 160,689,712.06 436,157.79 $9,159,314 0.235779102 37,887,275.96 42 0.235779102 2,159,574.73 42 0.235779102 1,429,790.02 

40,331.70 141,160,954.45 383,151.16 $8,046,174 0.227805895 32,157,297.62 43 0.227805895 1,832,965.96 43 0.227805895 1,213,552.10 

35,086.84 122,803,923.39 333,324.93 $6,999,824 0.220102314 27,029,427.75 44 0.220102314 1,540,677.38 44 0.220102314 1,020,036.54 

30,156.66 105,548,313.98 286,488.28 $6,016,254 0.212659241 22,445,824.33 45 0.212659241 1,279,411.99 45 0.212659241 847,060.52 

25,522.30 89,328,041.16 242,461.83 $5,091,698 0.205467866 18,354,041.96 46 0.205467866 1,046,180.39 46 0.205467866 692,644.84 

21,166.00 74,080,984.60 201,076.96 $4,222,616 0.198519677 14,706,533.13 47 0.198519677 838,272.39 47 0.198519677 554,995.15 

A-8 
Appendix A 

Proposed Action - 250 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

17,071.07 59,748,751.10 162,175.18 $3,405,679 48 0.191806451 11,460,195.91 48 0.191806451 653,231.17 48 0.191806451 432,484.87 

13,221.84 46,276,451.01 125,607.51 $2,637,758 49 0.185320243 8,575,963.13 49 0.185320243 488,829.90 49 0.185320243 323,639.70 

9,603.57 33,612,488.91 91,233.90 $1,915,912 50 0.179053375 6,018,429.56 50 0.179053375 343,050.49 50 0.179053375 227,123.49 

6,202.39 21,708,363.57 58,922.70 $1,237,377 51 0.172998429 3,755,512.81 51 0.172998429 214,064.23 51 0.172998429 141,725.54 

3,005.28 10,518,485.12 28,550.17 $599,554 52 0.167148241 1,758,146.29 52 0.167148241 100,214.34 52 0.167148241 66,348.92 

-- - $0 53 0.161495885 - 53 0.161495885 - 53 0.161495885 ­

-- - $0 54 0.156034672 - 54 0.156034672 - 54 0.156034672 ­

-- - $0 55 0.150758137 - 55 0.150758137 - 55 0.150758137 ­

-- - $0 56 0.145660036 - 56 0.145660036 - 56 0.145660036 ­

-- - $0 57 0.140734334 - 57 0.140734334 - 57 0.140734334 ­

-- - $0 58 0.135975202 - 58 0.135975202 - 58 0.135975202 ­

-- - $0 59 0.131377007 - 59 0.131377007 - 59 0.131377007 ­

-- - $0 60 0.126934306 - 60 0.126934306 - 60 0.126934306 ­

-- - $0 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 ­

-- - $0 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 ­

-- - $0 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 ­

-- - $0 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 ­

-- - $0 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 ­

-- - $0 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 ­-- - $0 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 ­

-- - $0 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 ­

-- - $0 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 ­

-- - $0 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 ­

-- - $0 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 ­

-- - $0 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 ­

-- - $0 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 ­

-- - $0 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 ­

-- - $0 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 ­

-- - $0 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 ­

-- - $0 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 ­

-- - $0 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 ­

-- - $0 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 ­

-- - $0 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 ­

-- - $0 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 ­

7,947,216.72 $27,815,262,020 75,498,558.84 1,585,469,735.63 16,409,236,109 935,326,458 619,251,752 

A-9 
Appendix A


LOF PRODUCTION CURVES

Proposed Action 

0

755025

425 400375350325300275250225200175150125100

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79

Production Year Number 

Thousands of MMCF 

75 wells 150 wells 250 wells 

A-10

1

23456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647

Appendix A 

Alternative A - 75 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

31,754.86 111,142,012.71 301,671.18 $6,335,095 0.966183575 107,383,587.15 1 0.966183575 6,120,864.47 1 0.966183575 4,052,441.81 

47,695.65 166,934,765.94 453,108.65 $9,515,282 0.9335107 155,835,390.27 2 0.9335107 8,882,617.25 2 0.9335107 5,880,915.96 

59,855.47 209,494,157.81 568,627.00 $11,941,167 0.901942706 188,951,727.52 3 0.901942706 10,770,248.47 3 0.901942706 7,130,660.29 

70,048.30 245,169,044.01 665,458.83 $13,974,636 0.871442228 213,650,657.88 4 0.871442228 12,178,087.50 4 0.871442228 8,062,748.53 

78,984.72 276,446,533.41 750,354.88 $15,757,452 0.841973167 232,760,563.20 5 0.841973167 13,267,352.10 5 0.841973167 8,783,918.13 

87,030.25 304,605,884.36 826,787.40 $17,362,535 0.813500644 247,797,083.18 6 0.813500644 14,124,433.74 6 0.813500644 9,351,366.33 

94,402.11 330,407,377.85 896,820.03 $18,833,221 0.785990961 259,697,212.33 7 0.785990961 14,802,741.10 7 0.785990961 9,800,453.40 

101,241.75 354,346,114.42 961,796.60 $20,197,729 0.759411556 269,094,534.19 8 0.759411556 15,338,388.45 8 0.759411556 10,155,089.53 

107,740.56 377,091,964.68 1,023,535.33 $21,494,242 0.733730972 276,684,053.85 9 0.733730972 15,770,991.07 9 0.733730972 10,441,502.82 

113,879.34 398,577,678.94 1,081,853.70 $22,718,928 0.708918814 282,559,215.32 10 0.708918814 16,105,875.27 10 0.708918814 10,663,219.67 119,649.79 418,774,251.42 1,136,672.97 $23,870,132 0.684945714 286,837,628.53 11 0.684945714 16,349,744.83 11 0.684945714 10,824,678.43 125,074.01 437,759,030.53 1,188,203.08 $24,952,265 0.661783298 289,701,615.08 12 0.661783298 16,512,992.06 12 0.661783298 10,932,759.55 130,172.78 455,604,721.22 1,236,641.39 $25,969,469 0.639404153 291,315,550.85 13 0.639404153 16,604,986.40 13 0.639404153 10,993,666.26 134,965.62 472,379,670.21 1,282,173.39 $26,925,641 0.61778179 291,827,558.35 14 0.61778179 16,634,170.83 14 0.61778179 11,012,988.40 

139,470.89 488,148,122.10 1,324,973.47 $27,824,443 0.596890619 291,371,034.58 15 0.596890619 16,608,148.97 15 0.596890619 10,995,760.10 

143,705.85 502,970,466.67 1,365,205.55 $28,669,317 0.576705912 290,066,041.55 16 0.576705912 16,533,764.37 16 0.576705912 10,946,512.28 147,686.71 516,903,469.22 1,403,023.70 $29,463,498 0.557203779 288,020,566.65 17 0.557203779 16,417,172.30 17 0.557203779 10,869,320.14 151,428.71 530,000,491.52 1,438,572.76 $30,210,028 0.53836114 285,331,668.58 18 0.53836114 16,263,905.11 18 0.53836114 10,767,846.51 

154,946.20 542,311,692.01 1,471,988.88 $30,911,766 0.52015569 282,086,512.56 19 0.52015569 16,078,931.22 19 0.52015569 10,645,380.81 

158,252.63 553,884,219.80 1,503,400.03 $31,571,401 0.502565884 278,363,312.80 20 0.502565884 15,866,708.83 20 0.502565884 10,504,874.70 

161,360.68 564,762,395.47 1,532,926.50 $32,191,457 0.485570903 274,232,186.26 21 0.485570903 15,631,234.62 21 0.485570903 10,348,974.24 164,282.25 574,987,880.61 1,560,681.39 $32,774,309 0.469150631 269,755,926.87 22 0.469150631 15,376,087.83 22 0.469150631 10,180,049.17 167,028.52 584,599,836.32 1,586,770.98 $33,322,191 0.453285634 264,990,707.20 23 0.453285634 15,104,470.31 23 0.453285634 10,000,219.31 169,610.02 593,635,074.29 1,611,295.20 $33,837,199 0.437957134 259,986,715.71 24 0.437957134 14,819,242.80 24 0.437957134 9,811,378.68 

172,036.63 602,128,197.96 1,634,347.97 $34,321,307 0.423146989 254,788,734.12 25 0.423146989 14,522,957.84 25 0.423146989 9,615,217.25 174,317.64 610,111,734.25 1,656,017.56 $34,776,369 0.408837671 249,436,660.35 26 0.408837671 14,217,889.64 26 0.408837671 9,413,240.69 176,461.79 617,616,258.57 1,676,386.99 $35,204,127 0.395012242 243,965,983.19 27 0.395012242 13,906,061.04 27 0.395012242 9,206,788.27 178,477.29 624,670,511.66 1,695,534.25 $35,606,219 0.38165434 238,408,212.09 28 0.38165434 13,589,268.09 28 0.38165434 8,997,049.11 

180,371.86 631,301,509.14 1,713,532.67 $35,984,186 0.368748155 232,791,266.73 29 0.368748155 13,269,102.20 29 0.368748155 8,785,076.82 

182,152.76 637,534,646.89 1,730,451.18 $36,339,475 0.356278411 227,139,830.70 30 0.356278411 12,946,970.35 30 0.356278411 8,571,802.93 183,826.80 643,393,796.14 1,746,354.59 $36,673,446 0.344230348 221,475,670.61 31 0.344230348 12,624,113.22 31 0.344230348 8,358,048.86 185,400.40 648,901,396.65 1,761,303.79 $36,987,380 0.332589709 215,817,926.43 32 0.332589709 12,301,621.81 32 0.332589709 8,144,536.91 186,879.58 654,078,541.29 1,775,356.04 $37,282,477 0.321342714 210,183,373.38 33 0.321342714 11,980,452.28 33 0.321342714 7,931,900.14 188,270.02 658,945,057.37 1,788,565.16 $37,559,868 0.310476052 204,586,659.78 34 0.310476052 11,661,439.61 34 0.310476052 7,720,691.37 189,577.02 663,519,582.67 1,800,981.72 $37,820,616 0.299976862 199,040,522.06 35 0.299976862 11,345,309.76 35 0.299976862 7,511,391.22 190,805.61 667,819,636.67 1,812,653.30 $38,065,719 0.289832717 193,555,979.48 36 0.289832717 11,032,690.83 36 0.289832717 7,304,415.55 191,960.48 671,861,687.41 1,823,624.58 $38,296,116 0.28003161 188,142,510.17 37 0.28003161 10,724,123.08 37 0.28003161 7,100,122.05 

193,046.06 675,661,215.45 1,833,937.58 $38,512,689 0.270561942 182,808,210.75 38 0.270561942 10,420,068.01 38 0.270561942 6,898,816.26 

194,066.51 679,232,771.92 1,843,631.81 $38,716,268 0.261412505 177,559,940.10 39 0.261412505 10,120,916.59 39 0.261412505 6,700,757.02 195,025.72 682,590,034.84 1,852,744.38 $38,907,632 0.252572468 172,403,449.86 40 0.252572468 9,826,996.64 40 0.252572468 6,506,161.39 

195,025.72 682,590,034.84 1,852,744.38 $38,907,632 0.24403137 166,573,381.51 41 0.24403137 9,494,682.75 41 0.24403137 6,286,146.27 

195,025.72 682,590,034.84 1,852,744.38 $38,907,632 0.235779102 160,940,465.23 42 0.235779102 9,173,606.52 42 0.235779102 6,073,571.28 

163,270.86 571,448,022.13 1,551,073.20 $32,572,537 0.227805895 130,179,228.32 43 0.227805895 7,420,216.01 43 0.227805895 4,912,703.72 

147,330.08 515,655,268.90 1,399,635.73 $29,392,350 0.220102314 113,496,918.09 44 0.220102314 6,469,324.33 44 0.220102314 4,283,146.69 

135,170.25 473,095,877.03 1,284,117.38 $26,966,465 0.212659241 100,608,210.08 45 0.212659241 5,734,667.97 45 0.212659241 3,796,752.63 

124,977.43 437,420,990.83 1,187,285.55 $24,932,996 0.205467866 89,875,957.36 46 0.205467866 5,122,929.57 46 0.205467866 3,391,738.88 

116,041.00 406,143,501.43 1,102,389.50 $23,150,180 0.198519677 80,627,476.69 47 0.198519677 4,595,766.17 47 0.198519677 3,042,719.72 

A-11 
Appendix A 

Alternative A - 75 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

107,995.47 377,984,150.48 1,025,956.98 $21,545,097 48 0.191806451 72,499,798.49 48 0.191806451 4,132,488.51 48 0.191806451 2,735,997.40 

100,623.62 352,182,656.99 955,924.35 $20,074,411 49 0.185320243 65,266,575.45 49 0.185320243 3,720,194.80 49 0.185320243 2,463,030.02 

93,783.98 328,243,920.42 890,947.78 $18,709,903 50 0.179053375 58,773,181.62 50 0.179053375 3,350,071.35 50 0.179053375 2,217,982.33 

87,285.16 305,498,070.16 829,209.05 $17,413,390 51 0.172998429 52,850,686.35 51 0.172998429 3,012,489.12 51 0.172998429 1,994,479.20 

81,146.39 284,012,355.90 770,890.68 $16,188,704 52 0.167148241 47,472,165.73 52 0.167148241 2,705,913.45 52 0.167148241 1,791,504.59 

75,375.94 263,815,783.42 716,071.41 $15,037,500 53 0.161495885 42,605,163.44 53 0.161495885 2,428,494.32 53 0.161495885 1,607,833.66 

69,951.72 244,831,004.31 664,541.30 $13,955,367 54 0.156034672 38,202,125.35 54 0.156034672 2,177,521.14 54 0.156034672 1,441,671.81 

64,852.95 226,985,313.61 616,102.99 $12,938,163 55 0.150758137 34,219,882.96 55 0.150758137 1,950,533.33 55 0.150758137 1,291,389.94 

60,060.10 210,210,364.63 570,570.99 $11,981,991 56 0.145660036 30,619,249.18 56 0.145660036 1,745,297.20 56 0.145660036 1,155,509.23 

55,554.83 194,441,912.73 527,770.91 $11,083,189 57 0.140734334 27,364,653.06 57 0.140734334 1,559,785.22 57 0.140734334 1,032,687.28 

51,319.88 179,619,568.17 487,538.83 $10,238,315 58 0.135975202 24,423,807.03 58 0.135975202 1,392,157.00 58 0.135975202 921,705.63 

47,339.02 165,686,565.62 449,720.68 $9,444,134 59 0.131377007 21,767,405.02 59 0.131377007 1,240,742.09 59 0.131377007 821,458.33 

43,597.01 152,589,543.31 414,171.62 $8,697,604 60 0.126934306 19,368,847.76 60 0.126934306 1,104,024.32 60 0.126934306 730,941.58 

40,079.53 140,278,342.83 380,755.50 $7,995,866 61 0.122641841 17,203,994.28 61 0.122641841 980,627.67 61 0.122641841 649,244.34 

36,773.09 128,705,815.03 349,344.36 $7,336,231 62 0.118494533 15,250,935.42 62 0.118494533 869,303.32 62 0.118494533 575,539.80 

33,665.04 117,827,639.36 319,817.88 $6,716,175 63 0.114487471 13,489,788.48 63 0.114487471 768,917.94 63 0.114487471 509,077.64 

30,743.47 107,602,154.23 292,062.99 $6,133,323 64 0.110615914 11,902,510.67 64 0.110615914 678,443.11 64 0.110615914 449,176.95 

27,997.20 97,990,198.52 265,973.40 $5,585,441 65 0.106875279 10,472,729.85 65 0.106875279 596,945.60 65 0.106875279 395,219.88 

25,415.70 88,954,960.55 241,449.18 $5,070,433 66 0.10326114 9,185,590.60 66 0.10326114 523,578.66 66 0.10326114 346,645.82 

22,989.10 80,461,836.87 218,396.41 $4,586,325 67 0.099769217 8,027,614.46 67 0.099769217 457,574.02 67 0.099769217 302,946.11 

20,708.09 72,478,300.59 196,726.82 $4,131,263 68 0.096395379 6,986,573.24 68 0.096395379 398,234.67 68 0.096395379 263,659.30 

18,563.94 64,973,776.26 176,357.39 $3,703,505 69 0.093135632 6,051,373.69 69 0.093135632 344,928.30 69 0.093135632 228,366.74 

16,548.44 57,919,523.18 157,210.13 $3,301,413 70 0.089986118 5,211,953.02 70 0.089986118 297,081.32 70 0.089986118 196,688.68 

14,653.86 51,288,525.69 139,211.71 $2,923,446 71 0.086943109 4,459,183.87 71 0.086943109 254,173.48 71 0.086943109 168,280.68 

12,872.97 45,055,387.95 122,293.20 $2,568,157 72 0.084003004 3,784,787.92 72 0.084003004 215,732.91 72 0.084003004 142,830.33 

11,198.93 39,196,238.70 106,389.79 $2,234,186 73 0.081162322 3,181,257.76 73 0.081162322 181,331.69 73 0.081162322 120,054.31 

9,625.33 33,688,638.19 91,440.59 $1,920,252 74 0.078417703 2,641,785.61 74 0.078417703 150,581.78 74 0.078417703 99,695.71 

8,146.14 28,511,493.55 77,388.34 $1,625,155 75 0.075765896 2,160,198.87 75 0.075765896 123,131.34 75 0.075765896 81,521.58 

6,755.71 23,644,977.47 64,179.22 $1,347,764 76 0.073203765 1,730,901.36 76 0.073203765 98,661.38 76 0.073203765 65,320.76 

5,448.70 19,070,452.17 51,762.66 $1,087,016 77 0.070728275 1,348,820.18 77 0.070728275 76,882.75 77 0.070728275 50,901.78 

4,220.11 14,770,398.17 40,091.08 $841,913 78 0.068336498 1,009,357.28 78 0.068336498 57,533.36 78 0.068336498 38,091.12 

3,065.24 10,728,347.43 29,119.80 $611,516 79 0.066025601 708,345.59 79 0.066025601 40,375.70 79 0.066025601 26,731.55 

1,979.66 6,928,819.38 18,806.80 $394,943 80 0.063792852 442,009.15 80 0.063792852 25,194.52 80 0.063792852 16,680.54 

959.22 3,357,262.91 9,112.57 $191,364 81 0.061635605 206,926.93 81 0.061635605 11,794.84 81 0.061635605 7,809.01 

8,191,080.42 $28,668,784,963 77,815,263.97 1,634,120,543.40 11,093,597,797 632,335,074 418,650,194 

A-12 
1

23456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748

Appendix A 

Alternative A - 150 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

63,509.27 222,282,436.83 603,338.04 $12,670,099 0.966183575 214,765,639.45 1 0.966183575 12,241,641.45 1 0.966183575 8,104,825.70 

95,390.61 333,867,145.83 906,210.82 $19,030,427 0.9335107 311,668,553.13 2 0.9335107 17,765,107.53 2 0.9335107 11,761,747.86 

119,710.09 418,985,321.27 1,137,245.87 $23,882,163 0.901942706 377,900,754.30 3 0.901942706 21,540,343.00 3 0.901942706 14,261,218.67 

140,095.60 490,334,583.75 1,330,908.16 $27,949,071 0.871442228 427,298,261.98 4 0.871442228 24,356,000.93 4 0.871442228 16,125,381.81 

157,968.32 552,889,115.50 1,500,699.03 $31,514,680 0.841973167 465,517,799.50 5 0.841973167 26,534,514.57 5 0.841973167 17,567,710.72 

174,059.26 609,207,414.90 1,653,562.98 $34,724,823 0.813500644 495,590,624.54 6 0.813500644 28,248,665.60 6 0.813500644 18,702,598.99 

188,802.87 660,810,033.09 1,793,627.23 $37,666,172 0.785990961 519,390,712.74 7 0.785990961 29,605,270.63 7 0.785990961 19,600,766.72 

202,482.05 708,687,164.08 1,923,579.45 $40,395,168 0.759411556 538,185,222.14 8 0.759411556 30,676,557.66 8 0.759411556 20,310,033.91 

215,479.58 754,178,539.47 2,047,056.04 $42,988,177 0.733730972 553,364,152.97 9 0.733730972 31,541,756.72 9 0.733730972 20,882,856.40 

227,757.05 797,149,660.89 2,163,691.94 $45,437,531 0.708918814 565,114,391.95 10 0.708918814 32,211,520.34 10 0.708918814 21,326,286.92 

239,297.86 837,542,517.19 2,273,329.69 $47,739,923 0.684945714 573,671,157.21 11 0.684945714 32,699,255.96 11 0.684945714 21,649,202.13 

250,146.23 875,511,804.05 2,376,389.18 $49,904,173 0.661783298 579,399,089.37 12 0.661783298 33,025,748.09 12 0.661783298 21,865,362.83 

260,343.69 911,202,930.37 2,473,265.10 $51,938,567 0.639404153 582,626,937.84 13 0.639404153 33,209,735.46 13 0.639404153 21,987,175.38 

269,929.31 944,752,588.57 2,564,328.45 $53,850,898 0.61778179 583,650,945.53 14 0.61778179 33,268,103.90 14 0.61778179 22,025,819.38 

278,939.79 976,289,266.98 2,649,928.01 $55,648,488 0.596890619 582,737,904.52 15 0.596890619 33,216,060.56 15 0.596890619 21,991,363.04 

287,409.64 1,005,933,744.25 2,730,391.59 $57,338,223 0.576705912 580,127,937.10 16 0.576705912 33,067,292.41 16 0.576705912 21,892,868.09 

295,371.30 1,033,799,550.20 2,806,027.35 $58,926,574 0.557203779 576,037,016.55 17 0.557203779 32,834,109.94 17 0.557203779 21,738,484.93 

302,855.26 1,059,993,407.61 2,877,124.96 $60,419,624 0.53836114 570,659,258.84 18 0.53836114 32,527,577.75 18 0.53836114 21,535,539.11 

309,890.18 1,084,615,632.60 2,943,956.72 $61,823,091 0.52015569 564,168,993.18 19 0.52015569 32,157,632.61 19 0.52015569 21,290,609.46 

316,503.01 1,107,760,522.79 3,006,778.56 $63,142,350 0.502565884 556,722,646.87 20 0.502565884 31,733,190.87 20 0.502565884 21,009,599.25 

322,719.06 1,129,516,718.65 3,065,831.09 $64,382,453 0.485570903 548,460,452.84 21 0.485570903 31,262,245.81 21 0.485570903 20,697,800.57 

265,052.89 927,685,105.94 2,518,002.43 $52,878,051 0.469150631 435,224,052.59 22 0.469150631 24,807,771.00 22 0.469150631 16,424,485.30 

238,664.05 835,324,170.96 2,267,308.46 $47,613,478 0.453285634 378,640,446.08 23 0.453285634 21,582,505.43 23 0.453285634 14,289,133.15 

219,507.53 768,276,342.32 2,085,321.50 $43,791,752 0.437957134 336,472,104.92 24 0.437957134 19,178,909.98 24 0.437957134 12,697,784.30 

203,975.20 713,913,205.79 1,937,764.42 $40,693,053 0.423146989 302,090,223.63 25 0.423146989 17,219,142.75 25 0.423146989 11,400,280.86 

190,664.47 667,325,632.52 1,811,312.43 $38,037,561 0.408837671 272,827,857.26 26 0.408837671 15,551,187.86 26 0.408837671 10,295,977.68 

178,861.79 626,016,274.49 1,699,187.03 $35,682,928 0.395012242 247,284,092.31 27 0.395012242 14,095,193.26 27 0.395012242 9,332,007.08 

168,149.16 588,522,061.64 1,597,417.02 $33,545,758 0.38165434 224,611,999.24 28 0.38165434 12,802,883.96 28 0.38165434 8,476,407.63 

158,259.09 553,906,830.85 1,503,461.40 $31,572,689 0.368748155 204,252,121.90 29 0.368748155 11,642,370.95 29 0.368748155 7,708,066.58 

148,823.33 520,881,641.86 1,413,821.60 $29,690,254 0.356278411 185,578,883.47 30 0.356278411 10,577,996.36 30 0.356278411 7,003,375.90 

139,893.92 489,628,735.19 1,328,992.28 $27,908,838 0.344230348 168,545,070.10 31 0.344230348 9,607,069.00 31 0.344230348 6,360,553.86 

131,500.29 460,251,001.19 1,249,252.72 $26,234,307 0.332589709 153,074,746.37 32 0.332589709 8,725,260.54 32 0.332589709 5,776,734.78 

123,610.27 432,635,929.61 1,174,297.52 $24,660,248 0.321342714 139,024,403.63 33 0.321342714 7,924,391.01 33 0.321342714 5,246,502.94 

116,193.65 406,677,765.89 1,103,839.65 $23,180,633 0.310476052 126,263,707.12 34 0.310476052 7,197,031.31 34 0.310476052 4,764,939.78 

109,222.03 382,277,092.90 1,037,609.25 $21,789,794 0.299976862 114,674,282.61 35 0.299976862 6,536,434.11 35 0.299976862 4,327,578.08 

102,668.70 359,340,461.03 975,352.68 $20,482,406 0.289832717 104,148,622.00 36 0.289832717 5,936,471.45 36 0.289832717 3,930,360.70 

96,508.58 337,780,027.48 916,831.50 $19,253,462 0.28003161 94,589,084.99 37 0.28003161 5,391,577.84 37 0.28003161 3,569,602.89 

90,718.06 317,513,223.30 861,821.61 $18,098,254 0.270561942 85,906,994.38 38 0.270561942 4,896,698.68 38 0.270561942 3,241,958.15 

85,274.98 298,462,427.78 810,112.30 $17,012,358 0.261412505 78,021,810.77 39 0.261412505 4,447,243.21 39 0.261412505 2,944,387.09 

80,158.48 280,554,680.63 761,505.56 $15,991,617 0.252572468 70,860,388.15 40 0.252572468 4,039,042.12 40 0.252572468 2,674,129.33 

73,545.65 257,409,790.44 698,683.72 $14,672,358 0.24403137 62,816,063.87 41 0.24403137 3,580,515.64 41 0.24403137 2,370,552.62 

67,329.60 235,653,594.59 639,631.19 $13,432,255 0.235779102 55,562,192.84 42 0.235779102 3,167,044.99 42 0.235779102 2,096,806.03 

61,486.51 215,202,770.47 584,121.81 $12,266,558 0.227805895 49,024,459.81 43 0.227805895 2,794,394.21 43 0.227805895 1,850,085.06 

55,994.00 195,978,996.45 531,942.99 $11,170,803 0.220102314 43,135,430.68 44 0.220102314 2,458,719.55 44 0.220102314 1,627,844.88 

50,831.04 177,908,649.65 482,894.91 $10,140,793 0.212659241 37,833,918.38 45 0.212659241 2,156,533.35 45 0.212659241 1,427,776.41 

45,977.86 160,922,523.69 436,789.71 $9,172,584 0.205467866 33,064,407.47 46 0.205467866 1,884,671.23 46 0.205467866 1,247,784.61 

41,415.88 144,955,565.22 393,450.82 $8,262,467 0.198519677 28,776,531.97 47 0.198519677 1,640,262.32 47 0.198519677 1,085,968.76 

37,127.61 129,946,623.84 352,712.26 $7,406,958 0.191806451 24,924,600.76 48 0.191806451 1,420,702.24 48 0.191806451 940,604.58 

A-13 
Appendix A 

Alternative A - 150 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

33,096.63 115,838,218.50 314,418.02 $6,602,778 49 0.185320243 21,467,166.76 49 0.185320243 1,223,628.51 49 0.185320243 810,127.94 

29,307.52 102,576,318.31 278,421.44 $5,846,850 50 0.179053375 18,366,635.94 50 0.179053375 1,046,898.25 50 0.179053375 693,120.11 25,745.75 90,110,131.90 244,584.64 $5,136,278 51 0.172998429 15,588,911.30 51 0.172998429 888,567.94 51 0.172998429 588,294.33 22,397.69 78,391,917.15 212,778.06 $4,468,339 52 0.167148241 13,103,071.07 52 0.167148241 746,875.05 52 0.167148241 494,483.70 19,250.51 67,376,794.85 182,879.87 $3,840,477 53 0.161495885 10,881,075.12 53 0.161495885 620,221.28 53 0.161495885 410,630.01 16,292.17 57,022,579.58 154,775.57 $3,250,287 54 0.156034672 8,897,499.48 54 0.156034672 507,157.47 54 0.156034672 335,773.84 13,511.32 47,289,616.97 128,357.53 $2,695,508 55 0.150758137 7,129,294.54 55 0.150758137 406,369.79 55 0.150758137 269,045.32 10,897.32 38,140,631.76 103,524.57 $2,174,016 56 0.145660036 5,555,565.78 56 0.145660036 316,667.25 56 0.145660036 209,655.94 

8,440.17 29,540,585.23 80,181.59 $1,683,813 57 0.140734334 4,157,374.58 57 0.140734334 236,970.35 57 0.140734334 156,891.00 6,130.44 21,456,541.51 58,239.18 $1,223,023 58 0.135975202 2,917,557.56 58 0.135975202 166,300.78 58 0.135975202 110,102.79 3,959.30 13,857,539.73 37,613.32 $789,880 59 0.131377007 1,820,562.09 59 0.131377007 103,772.04 59 0.131377007 68,704.37 1,918.42 6,714,477.84 18,225.01 $382,725 60 0.126934306 852,297.58 60 0.126934306 48,580.96 60 0.126934306 32,164.01 

-- - $0 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 ­

-- - $0 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 ­-- - $0 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 ­-- - $0 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 ­-- - $0 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 ­-- - $0 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 ­-- - $0 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 ­-- - $0 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 ­-- - $0 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 ­-- - $0 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 ­-- - $0 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 ­-- - $0 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 ­-- - $0 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 ­-- - $0 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 ­-- - $0 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 ­-- - $0 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 ­-- - $0 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 ­-- - $0 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 ­-- - $0 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 ­-- - $0 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 ­-- - $0 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 ­

8,191,021.88 $28,668,580,078 77,814,707.85 1,634,108,864.94 14,935,023,962 851,296,366 563,617,934 

A-14 
1

23456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748

Appendix A 

Alternative A -250 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

102,579.32 359,027,637.20 974,503.59 $20,464,575 0.966183575 346,886,605.99 1 0.966183575 19,772,536.54 1 0.966183575 13,090,806.74 154,073.65 539,257,775.91 1,463,699.68 $30,737,693 0.9335107 503,402,904.06 2 0.9335107 28,693,965.53 2 0.9335107 18,997,418.79 193,354.15 676,739,521.41 1,836,864.42 $38,574,153 0.901942706 610,380,274.97 3 0.901942706 34,791,675.67 3 0.901942706 23,034,530.82 226,280.54 791,981,901.74 2,149,665.16 $45,142,968 0.871442228 690,166,472.75 4 0.871442228 39,339,488.95 4 0.871442228 26,045,502.35 255,148.33 893,019,149.89 2,423,909.12 $50,902,092 0.841973167 751,898,161.69 5 0.841973167 42,858,195.22 5 0.841973167 28,375,132.83 281,138.21 983,983,718.45 2,670,812.95 $56,087,072 0.813500644 800,471,388.95 6 0.813500644 45,626,869.17 6 0.813500644 30,208,189.28 304,951.88 1,067,331,581.41 2,897,042.86 $60,837,900 0.785990961 838,912,975.04 7 0.785990961 47,818,039.58 7 0.785990961 31,658,897.85 327,046.31 1,144,662,086.96 3,106,939.95 $65,245,739 0.759411556 869,269,616.80 8 0.759411556 49,548,368.16 8 0.759411556 32,804,496.80 348,039.76 1,218,139,151.79 3,306,377.70 $69,433,932 0.733730972 893,786,424.10 9 0.733730972 50,945,826.17 9 0.733730972 33,729,712.07 367,870.15 1,287,545,535.90 3,494,766.45 $73,390,096 0.708918814 912,765,253.91 10 0.708918814 52,027,619.47 10 0.708918814 34,445,935.15 386,510.73 1,352,787,540.45 3,671,851.90 $77,108,890 0.684945714 926,586,027.41 11 0.684945714 52,815,403.56 11 0.684945714 34,967,503.50 404,032.87 1,414,115,027.86 3,838,312.22 $80,604,557 0.661783298 935,837,707.30 12 0.661783298 53,342,749.32 12 0.661783298 35,316,643.40 420,503.67 1,471,762,860.66 3,994,784.91 $83,890,483 0.639404153 941,051,285.24 13 0.639404153 53,639,923.26 13 0.639404153 35,513,393.40 333,406.91 1,166,924,185.42 3,167,365.65 $66,514,679 0.61778179 720,904,512.38 14 0.61778179 41,091,557.21 14 0.61778179 27,205,494.49 296,466.19 1,037,631,670.46 2,816,428.82 $59,145,005 0.596890619 619,352,609.69 15 0.596890619 35,303,098.75 15 0.596890619 23,373,128.78 270,866.08 948,031,290.59 2,573,227.79 $54,037,784 0.576705912 546,735,249.77 16 0.576705912 31,163,909.24 16 0.576705912 20,632,694.86 250,799.25 877,797,389.61 2,382,592.91 $50,034,451 0.557203779 489,112,023.07 17 0.557203779 27,879,385.31 17 0.557203779 18,458,109.53 234,019.46 819,068,111.77 2,223,184.87 $46,686,882 0.53836114 440,954,442.02 18 0.53836114 25,134,403.20 18 0.53836114 16,640,738.73 219,392.30 767,873,033.71 2,084,226.81 $43,768,763 0.52015569 399,413,527.98 19 0.52015569 22,766,571.09 19 0.52015569 15,073,067.72 206,259.57 721,908,489.72 1,959,465.90 $41,148,784 0.502565884 362,806,578.61 20 0.502565884 20,679,974.98 20 0.502565884 13,691,594.66 194,205.23 679,718,302.52 1,844,949.68 $38,743,943 0.485570903 330,051,429.83 21 0.485570903 18,812,931.50 21 0.485570903 12,455,480.86 182,649.47 639,273,136.96 1,735,169.94 $36,438,569 0.469150631 299,915,395.43 22 0.469150631 17,095,177.54 22 0.469150631 11,318,207.19 171,690.50 600,916,737.11 1,631,059.72 $34,252,254 0.453285634 272,386,923.91 23 0.453285634 15,526,054.66 23 0.453285634 10,279,337.73 161,389.06 564,861,716.50 1,533,196.09 $32,197,118 0.437957134 247,385,218.41 24 0.437957134 14,100,957.45 24 0.437957134 9,335,823.37 151,705.71 530,969,993.94 1,441,204.27 $30,265,290 0.423146989 224,678,354.33 25 0.423146989 12,806,666.20 25 0.423146989 8,478,911.74 142,603.37 499,111,780.22 1,354,731.97 $28,449,371 0.408837671 204,055,697.69 26 0.408837671 11,631,174.77 26 0.408837671 7,700,653.92 134,047.16 469,165,060.86 1,273,448.02 $26,742,408 0.395012242 185,325,942.71 27 0.395012242 10,563,578.73 27 0.395012242 6,993,830.43 126,004.33 441,015,145.88 1,197,041.11 $25,137,863 0.38165434 168,315,344.60 28 0.38165434 9,593,974.64 28 0.38165434 6,351,884.47 118,444.06 414,554,225.15 1,125,218.61 $23,629,591 0.368748155 152,866,105.66 29 0.368748155 8,713,368.02 29 0.368748155 5,768,861.10 111,337.42 389,680,964.37 1,057,705.47 $22,211,815 0.356278411 138,834,914.63 30 0.356278411 7,913,590.13 30 0.356278411 5,239,352.01 104,657.17 366,300,098.76 994,243.13 $20,879,106 0.344230348 126,091,610.62 31 0.344230348 7,187,221.81 31 0.344230348 4,758,445.20 

98,377.74 344,322,087.37 934,588.52 $19,626,359 0.332589709 114,517,982.70 32 0.332589709 6,527,525.01 32 0.332589709 4,321,679.63 92,475.07 323,662,759.28 878,513.20 $18,448,777 0.321342714 104,006,669.37 33 0.321342714 5,928,380.15 33 0.321342714 3,925,003.69 86,926.57 304,242,992.75 825,802.41 $17,341,851 0.310476052 94,460,163.18 34 0.310476052 5,384,229.30 34 0.310476052 3,564,737.64 81,710.98 285,988,412.78 776,254.26 $16,301,340 0.299976862 85,789,906.54 35 0.299976862 4,890,024.67 35 0.299976862 3,237,539.49 76,808.32 268,829,109.36 729,679.01 $15,323,259 0.289832717 77,915,471.06 36 0.289832717 4,441,181.85 36 0.289832717 2,940,374.05 72,199.82 252,699,365.37 685,898.28 $14,403,864 0.28003161 70,763,810.19 37 0.28003161 4,033,537.18 37 0.28003161 2,670,484.67 67,867.83 237,537,407.17 644,744.39 $13,539,632 0.270561942 64,268,582.24 38 0.270561942 3,663,309.19 38 0.270561942 2,425,367.76 63,795.76 223,285,166.72 606,059.74 $12,727,255 0.261412505 58,369,534.67 39 0.261412505 3,327,063.48 39 0.261412505 2,202,749.50 59,968.02 209,888,059.47 569,696.16 $11,963,619 0.252572468 53,011,945.22 40 0.252572468 3,021,680.88 40 0.252572468 2,000,564.79 53,457.24 187,100,350.70 507,843.81 $10,664,720 0.24403137 45,658,354.95 41 0.24403137 2,602,526.23 41 0.24403137 1,723,055.00 47,337.12 165,679,905.80 449,702.60 $9,443,755 0.235779102 39,063,859.36 42 0.235779102 2,226,639.98 42 0.235779102 1,474,191.92 41,584.20 145,544,687.23 395,049.87 $8,296,047 0.227805895 33,155,937.79 43 0.227805895 1,889,888.45 43 0.227805895 1,251,238.78 36,176.45 126,617,582.53 343,676.30 $7,217,202 0.220102314 27,868,822.95 44 0.220102314 1,588,522.91 44 0.220102314 1,051,713.64 31,093.17 108,826,103.42 295,385.14 $6,203,088 0.212659241 23,142,876.54 45 0.212659241 1,319,143.96 45 0.212659241 873,365.88 26,314.89 92,102,112.54 249,991.45 $5,249,820 0.205467866 18,924,024.48 46 0.205467866 1,078,669.40 46 0.205467866 714,154.84 21,823.30 76,381,560.72 207,321.38 $4,353,749 0.198519677 15,163,242.76 47 0.198519677 864,304.84 47 0.198519677 572,230.46 17,601.21 61,604,241.42 167,211.51 $3,511,442 0.191806451 11,816,090.92 48 0.191806451 673,517.18 48 0.191806451 445,915.64 

A-15 
Appendix A 

Alternative A -250 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

13,632.45 47,713,560.58 129,508.24 $2,719,673 49 0.185320243 8,842,288.62 49 0.185320243 504,010.45 49 0.185320243 333,690.29 

9,901.81 34,656,320.63 94,067.16 $1,975,410 50 0.179053375 6,205,331.16 50 0.179053375 353,703.88 50 0.179053375 234,176.79 6,395.00 22,382,513.97 60,752.54 $1,275,803 51 0.172998429 3,872,139.76 51 0.172998429 220,711.97 51 0.172998429 146,126.81 3,098.61 10,845,135.36 29,436.80 $618,173 52 0.167148241 1,812,745.30 52 0.167148241 103,326.48 52 0.167148241 68,409.38 

-- - $0 53 0.161495885 - 53 0.161495885 - 53 0.161495885 ­-- - $0 54 0.156034672 - 54 0.156034672 - 54 0.156034672 ­-- - $0 55 0.150758137 - 55 0.150758137 - 55 0.150758137 ­-- - $0 56 0.145660036 - 56 0.145660036 - 56 0.145660036 ­-- - $0 57 0.140734334 - 57 0.140734334 - 57 0.140734334 ­-- - $0 58 0.135975202 - 58 0.135975202 - 58 0.135975202 ­-- - $0 59 0.131377007 - 59 0.131377007 - 59 0.131377007 ­-- - $0 60 0.126934306 - 60 0.126934306 - 60 0.126934306 ­-- - $0 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 ­-- - $0 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 ­-- - $0 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 ­-- - $0 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 ­-- - $0 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 ­-- - $0 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 ­-- - $0 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 ­-- - $0 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 ­-- - $0 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 ­-- - $0 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 ­-- - $0 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 ­-- - $0 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 ­-- - $0 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 ­-- - $0 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 ­-- - $0 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 ­-- - $0 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 ­-- - $0 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 ­-- - $0 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 ­-- - $0 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 ­-- - $0 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 ­-- - $0 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 ­

8,190,018.36 $28,665,067,758 77,805,174.42 1,633,908,662.73 16,909,230,759 963,826,153 638,120,550 

A-16 
Appendix A


LOF PRODUCTION CURVE

Alternative A 

0

50

450 400350300250200150100

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81

Production Year No. 

Thousands of MMCF 

75 Wells 150 Wells 250 Wells 

A-17

1

23456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647

Appendix A 

Alternative B - 75 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

24,931.03 87,258,622.01 236,844.83 $4,973,741 0.966183575 84,307,847.35 1 0.966183575 4,805,547.30 1 0.966183575 3,181,609.54 

37,430.36 131,006,254.73 355,588.41 $7,467,357 0.9335107 122,295,740.61 2 0.9335107 6,970,857.21 2 0.9335107 4,615,196.66 

46,978.85 164,425,962.98 446,299.04 $9,372,280 0.901942706 148,302,797.93 3 0.901942706 8,453,259.48 3 0.901942706 5,596,650.99 

54,987.54 192,456,396.70 522,381.65 $10,970,015 0.871442228 167,714,631.08 4 0.871442228 9,559,733.97 4 0.871442228 6,329,214.75 

62,011.38 217,039,819.73 589,108.08 $12,371,270 0.841973167 182,741,704.35 5 0.841973167 10,416,277.15 5 0.841973167 6,896,306.44 

68,336.31 239,177,090.79 649,194.96 $13,633,094 0.813500644 194,570,717.46 6 0.813500644 11,090,530.90 6 0.813500644 7,342,709.74 

74,132.48 259,463,690.43 704,258.59 $14,789,430 0.785990961 203,936,115.31 7 0.785990961 11,624,358.57 7 0.785990961 7,696,141.12 

79,510.77 278,287,687.35 755,352.29 $15,862,398 0.759411556 211,334,885.73 8 0.759411556 12,046,088.49 8 0.759411556 7,975,355.92 

84,612.88 296,145,089.37 803,822.39 $16,880,270 0.733730972 217,290,824.33 9 0.733730972 12,385,576.99 9 0.733730972 8,200,121.13 

89,429.65 313,003,764.76 849,581.65 $17,841,215 0.708918814 221,894,257.60 10 0.708918814 12,647,972.68 10 0.708918814 8,373,845.49 

93,957.41 328,850,920.30 892,595.36 $18,744,502 0.684945714 225,245,028.32 11 0.684945714 12,838,966.61 11 0.684945714 8,500,296.88 

98,213.50 343,747,246.95 933,028.24 $19,593,593 0.661783298 227,486,186.87 12 0.661783298 12,966,712.65 12 0.661783298 8,584,873.72 

102,214.23 357,749,792.47 971,035.15 $20,391,738 0.639404153 228,746,703.01 13 0.639404153 13,038,562.07 13 0.639404153 8,632,443.08 

105,974.91 370,912,184.85 1,006,761.64 $21,141,995 0.61778179 229,142,793.59 14 0.61778179 13,061,139.23 14 0.61778179 8,647,390.74 109,509.95 383,284,833.65 1,040,344.55 $21,847,236 0.596890619 228,779,121.47 15 0.596890619 13,040,409.92 15 0.596890619 8,633,666.49 

112,832.89 394,915,123.35 1,071,912.48 $22,510,162 0.576705912 227,749,886.26 16 0.576705912 12,981,743.52 16 0.576705912 8,594,825.21 

115,956.46 405,847,594.74 1,101,586.33 $23,133,313 0.557203779 226,139,813.66 17 0.557203779 12,889,969.38 17 0.557203779 8,534,064.29 

118,892.61 416,124,117.81 1,129,479.75 $23,719,075 0.53836114 224,025,054.26 18 0.53836114 12,769,428.09 18 0.53836114 8,454,257.50 121,652.59 425,784,049.12 1,155,699.56 $24,269,691 0.52015569 221,473,996.02 19 0.52015569 12,624,017.77 19 0.52015569 8,357,985.66 124,246.97 434,864,384.33 1,180,346.19 $24,787,270 0.502565884 218,548,003.92 20 0.502565884 12,457,236.22 20 0.502565884 8,247,564.57 

126,685.69 443,399,899.25 1,203,514.01 $25,273,794 0.485570903 215,302,089.39 21 0.485570903 12,272,219.10 21 0.485570903 8,125,070.25 128,978.08 451,423,283.43 1,225,291.77 $25,731,127 0.469150631 211,785,518.16 22 0.469150631 12,071,774.54 22 0.469150631 7,992,361.88 131,132.93 458,965,264.11 1,245,762.86 $26,161,020 0.453285634 208,042,360.53 23 0.453285634 11,858,414.55 23 0.453285634 7,851,102.60 

133,158.49 466,054,725.66 1,265,005.68 $26,565,119 0.437957134 204,111,991.89 24 0.437957134 11,634,383.54 24 0.437957134 7,702,778.35 135,062.52 472,718,819.51 1,283,093.94 $26,944,973 0.423146989 200,029,545.25 25 0.423146989 11,401,684.08 25 0.423146989 7,548,714.98 136,852.31 478,983,067.76 1,300,096.90 $27,302,035 0.408837671 195,826,321.77 26 0.408837671 11,162,100.34 26 0.408837671 7,390,093.73 138,534.70 484,871,461.14 1,316,079.68 $27,637,673 0.395012242 191,530,163.10 27 0.395012242 10,917,219.30 27 0.395012242 7,227,965.30 140,116.16 490,406,550.89 1,331,103.50 $27,953,173 0.38165434 187,165,788.71 28 0.38165434 10,668,449.96 28 0.38165434 7,063,262.53 

141,602.72 495,609,534.99 1,345,225.88 $28,249,743 0.368748155 182,755,101.61 29 0.368748155 10,417,040.79 29 0.368748155 6,896,812.02 

143,000.10 500,500,340.01 1,358,500.92 $28,528,519 0.356278411 178,317,465.65 30 0.356278411 10,164,095.54 30 0.356278411 6,729,344.52 144,313.63 505,097,696.46 1,370,979.46 $28,790,569 0.344230348 173,869,956.03 31 0.344230348 9,910,587.49 31 0.344230348 6,561,504.40 

145,548.35 509,419,211.58 1,382,709.29 $29,036,895 0.332589709 169,427,587.14 32 0.332589709 9,657,372.47 32 0.332589709 6,393,858.28 

146,708.98 513,481,435.78 1,393,735.33 $29,268,442 0.321342714 165,003,517.97 33 0.321342714 9,405,200.52 33 0.321342714 6,226,902.76 

147,799.98 517,299,926.56 1,404,099.80 $29,486,096 0.310476052 160,609,238.80 34 0.310476052 9,154,726.61 34 0.310476052 6,061,071.45 

148,825.52 520,889,307.98 1,413,842.41 $29,690,691 0.299976862 156,254,739.88 35 0.299976862 8,906,520.17 35 0.299976862 5,896,741.37 

149,789.52 524,263,326.66 1,423,000.46 $29,883,010 0.289832717 151,948,664.17 36 0.289832717 8,661,073.86 36 0.289832717 5,734,238.69 

150,695.69 527,434,904.22 1,431,609.03 $30,063,790 0.28003161 147,698,445.52 37 0.28003161 8,418,811.39 37 0.28003161 5,573,843.94 

151,547.48 530,416,187.37 1,439,701.08 $30,233,723 0.270561942 143,510,433.85 38 0.270561942 8,180,094.73 38 0.270561942 5,415,796.75 

152,348.17 533,218,593.69 1,447,307.61 $30,393,460 0.261412505 139,390,008.07 39 0.261412505 7,945,230.46 39 0.261412505 5,260,300.12 

153,100.82 535,852,855.48 1,454,457.75 $30,543,613 0.252572468 135,341,678.30 40 0.252572468 7,714,475.66 40 0.252572468 5,107,524.26 

128,169.78 448,594,233.47 1,217,612.92 $25,569,871 0.24403137 109,471,065.47 41 0.24403137 6,239,850.73 41 0.24403137 4,131,219.07 

115,670.46 404,846,600.75 1,098,869.34 $23,076,256 0.235779102 95,454,367.84 42 0.235779102 5,440,898.97 42 0.235779102 3,602,256.93 

106,121.97 371,426,892.50 1,008,158.71 $21,171,333 0.227805895 84,613,235.80 43 0.227805895 4,822,954.44 43 0.227805895 3,193,134.29 

98,113.27 343,396,458.77 932,076.10 $19,573,598 0.220102314 75,582,355.31 44 0.220102314 4,308,194.25 44 0.220102314 2,852,326.92 

91,089.44 318,813,035.75 865,349.67 $18,172,343 0.212659241 67,798,538.17 45 0.212659241 3,864,516.68 45 0.212659241 2,558,581.23 

84,764.50 296,675,764.69 805,262.79 $16,910,519 0.205467866 60,957,336.15 46 0.205467866 3,474,568.16 46 0.205467866 2,300,407.95 

78,968.33 276,389,165.05 750,199.16 $15,754,182 0.198519677 54,868,687.75 47 0.198519677 3,127,515.20 47 0.198519677 2,070,634.54 

A-18 
Appendix A 

Alternative B - 75 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

73,590.05 257,565,168.13 699,105.46 $14,681,215 48 0.191806451 49,402,660.83 48 0.191806451 2,815,951.67 48 0.191806451 1,864,357.61 

68,487.93 239,707,766.11 650,635.37 $13,663,343 49 0.185320243 44,422,701.38 49 0.185320243 2,532,093.98 49 0.185320243 1,676,423.90 

63,671.17 222,849,090.72 604,876.10 $12,702,398 50 0.179053375 39,901,881.70 50 0.179053375 2,274,407.26 50 0.179053375 1,505,817.21 

59,143.41 207,001,935.17 561,862.40 $11,799,110 51 0.172998429 35,811,009.69 51 0.172998429 2,041,227.55 51 0.172998429 1,351,435.88 

54,887.32 192,105,608.53 521,429.51 $10,950,020 52 0.167148241 32,110,114.56 52 0.167148241 1,830,276.53 52 0.167148241 1,211,771.50 

50,886.59 178,103,063.01 483,422.60 $10,151,875 53 0.161495885 28,762,911.80 53 0.161495885 1,639,485.97 53 0.161495885 1,085,454.77 

47,125.91 164,940,670.63 447,696.11 $9,401,618 54 0.156034672 25,736,463.37 54 0.156034672 1,466,978.41 54 0.156034672 971,242.65 

43,590.86 152,568,021.83 414,113.20 $8,696,377 55 0.150758137 23,000,870.70 55 0.150758137 1,311,049.63 55 0.150758137 868,006.86 

40,267.92 140,937,732.13 382,545.27 $8,033,451 56 0.145660036 20,528,995.07 56 0.145660036 1,170,152.72 56 0.145660036 774,723.22 

37,144.36 130,005,260.74 352,871.42 $7,410,300 57 0.140734334 18,296,203.77 57 0.140734334 1,042,883.61 57 0.140734334 690,462.14 

34,208.21 119,728,737.67 324,978.00 $6,824,538 58 0.135975202 16,280,139.27 58 0.135975202 927,967.94 58 0.135975202 614,379.90 

31,448.23 110,068,806.36 298,758.19 $6,273,922 59 0.131377007 14,460,510.30 59 0.131377007 824,249.09 59 0.131377007 545,710.74 

28,853.85 100,988,471.15 274,111.56 $5,756,343 60 0.126934306 12,818,901.49 60 0.126934306 730,677.38 60 0.126934306 483,759.70 

26,415.13 92,452,956.23 250,943.74 $5,269,819 61 0.122641841 11,338,600.80 61 0.122641841 646,300.25 61 0.122641841 427,896.12 

24,122.73 84,429,572.04 229,165.98 $4,812,486 62 0.118494533 10,004,442.69 62 0.118494533 570,253.23 62 0.118494533 377,547.66 

21,967.88 76,887,591.37 208,694.89 $4,382,593 63 0.114487471 8,802,665.91 63 0.114487471 501,751.96 63 0.114487471 332,195.01 

19,942.32 69,798,129.82 189,452.07 $3,978,493 64 0.110615914 7,720,783.94 64 0.110615914 440,084.68 64 0.110615914 291,366.94 

18,038.30 63,134,035.96 171,363.81 $3,598,640 65 0.106875279 6,747,467.74 65 0.106875279 384,605.66 65 0.106875279 254,635.94 

16,248.51 56,869,787.72 154,360.85 $3,241,578 66 0.10326114 5,872,439.09 66 0.10326114 334,729.03 66 0.10326114 221,614.11 

14,566.11 50,981,394.34 138,378.07 $2,905,939 67 0.099769217 5,086,373.79 67 0.099769217 289,923.31 67 0.099769217 191,949.57 

12,984.66 45,446,304.59 123,354.26 $2,590,439 68 0.096395379 4,380,813.74 68 0.096395379 249,706.38 68 0.096395379 165,323.15 

11,498.09 40,243,320.49 109,231.87 $2,293,869 69 0.093135632 3,748,087.07 69 0.093135632 213,640.96 69 0.093135632 141,445.31 

10,100.72 35,352,515.47 95,956.83 $2,015,093 70 0.089986118 3,181,235.61 70 0.089986118 181,330.43 70 0.089986118 120,053.47 

8,787.19 30,755,159.02 83,478.29 $1,753,044 71 0.086943109 2,673,949.13 71 0.086943109 152,415.10 71 0.086943109 100,909.49 

7,552.47 26,433,643.90 71,748.46 $1,506,718 72 0.084003004 2,220,505.48 72 0.084003004 126,568.81 72 0.084003004 83,797.44 

6,391.83 22,371,419.70 60,722.42 $1,275,171 73 0.081162322 1,815,716.38 73 0.081162322 103,495.83 73 0.081162322 68,521.50 

5,300.84 18,552,928.92 50,357.95 $1,057,517 74 0.078417703 1,454,878.06 74 0.078417703 82,928.05 74 0.078417703 54,904.19 

4,275.30 14,963,547.50 40,615.34 $852,922 75 0.075765896 1,133,726.59 75 0.075765896 64,622.42 75 0.075765896 42,784.57 

3,311.29 11,589,528.82 31,457.29 $660,603 76 0.073203765 848,397.14 76 0.073203765 48,358.64 76 0.073203765 32,016.81 

2,405.13 8,417,951.26 22,848.72 $479,823 77 0.070728275 595,387.17 77 0.070728275 33,937.07 77 0.070728275 22,468.72 1,553.33 5,436,668.11 14,756.67 $309,890 78 0.068336498 371,522.86 78 0.068336498 21,176.80 78 0.068336498 14,020.53 

752.65	 2,634,261.78 7,150.14 $150,153 79 0.066025601 173,928.72 79 0.066025601 9,913.94 79 0.066025601 6,563.72 

-- - $0 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 ­

-- - $0 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 ­

6,124,032.63 $21,434,117,719 58,178,310.02 1,221,744,510.49	 8,518,096,597 485,531,506 321,455,929 

A-19 
1

23456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647

Appendix A 

Alternative B - 150 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

47,487.67 166,206,845.45 451,132.87 $9,473,790 0.966183575 160,586,324.10 1 0.966183575 9,153,420.47 1 0.966183575 6,060,206.70 

71,295.90 249,535,642.80 677,311.03 $14,223,532 0.9335107 232,944,192.68 2 0.9335107 13,277,818.98 2 0.9335107 8,790,847.94 

89,483.49 313,192,209.41 850,093.14 $17,851,956 0.901942706 282,481,428.75 3 0.901942706 16,101,441.44 3 0.901942706 10,660,284.16 

104,738.14 366,583,494.52 995,012.34 $20,895,259 0.871442228 319,456,337.10 4 0.871442228 18,209,011.21 4 0.871442228 12,055,643.25 

118,116.87 413,409,047.07 1,122,110.27 $23,564,316 0.841973167 348,079,324.57 5 0.841973167 19,840,521.50 5 0.841973167 13,135,817.55 

130,164.36 455,575,264.07 1,236,561.43 $25,967,790 0.813500644 370,610,770.85 6 0.813500644 21,124,813.94 6 0.813500644 13,986,109.27 

141,204.68 494,216,393.78 1,341,444.50 $28,170,334 0.785990961 388,449,618.13 7 0.785990961 22,141,628.23 7 0.785990961 14,659,311.69 

151,449.03 530,071,614.44 1,438,765.81 $30,214,082 0.759411556 402,542,509.63 8 0.759411556 22,944,923.05 8 0.759411556 15,191,149.23 

161,167.34 564,085,702.55 1,531,089.76 $32,152,885 0.733730972 413,887,150.93 9 0.733730972 23,591,567.60 9 0.733730972 15,619,273.30 

170,342.13 596,197,454.85 1,618,250.23 $33,983,255 0.708918814 422,655,592.43 10 0.708918814 24,091,368.77 10 0.708918814 15,950,176.75 

178,966.43 626,382,503.28 1,700,181.08 $35,703,803 0.684945714 429,038,010.78 11 0.684945714 24,455,166.61 11 0.684945714 16,191,036.45 

187,073.27 654,756,449.65 1,777,196.08 $37,321,118 0.661783298 433,306,882.82 12 0.661783298 24,698,492.32 12 0.661783298 16,352,135.14 

194,693.70 681,427,956.31 1,849,590.17 $38,841,394 0.639404153 435,707,865.19 13 0.639404153 24,835,348.32 13 0.639404153 16,442,743.42 

201,856.91 706,499,171.80 1,917,640.61 $40,270,453 0.61778179 436,462,323.18 14 0.61778179 24,878,352.42 14 0.61778179 16,471,215.15 

208,590.32 730,066,114.30 1,981,608.02 $41,613,769 0.596890619 435,769,614.60 15 0.596890619 24,838,868.03 15 0.596890619 16,445,073.72 

214,919.73 752,219,039.91 2,041,737.39 $42,876,485 0.576705912 433,809,167.22 16 0.576705912 24,727,122.53 16 0.576705912 16,371,090.35 

220,869.37 773,042,788.23 2,098,259.00 $44,063,439 0.557203779 430,742,363.26 17 0.557203779 24,552,314.71 17 0.557203779 16,255,355.30 

226,462.03 792,617,111.57 2,151,389.30 $45,179,175 0.53836114 426,714,251.41 18 0.53836114 24,322,712.33 18 0.53836114 16,103,342.42 

231,719.14 811,016,974.79 2,201,331.79 $46,227,968 0.52015569 421,855,094.44 19 0.52015569 24,045,740.38 19 0.52015569 15,919,967.55 

236,660.81 828,312,845.81 2,248,277.72 $47,213,832 0.502565884 416,281,777.94 20 0.502565884 23,728,061.34 20 0.502565884 15,709,641.74 

241,305.99 844,570,964.22 2,292,406.90 $48,140,545 0.485570903 410,099,085.60 21 0.485570903 23,375,647.88 21 0.485570903 15,476,319.29 

198,184.79 693,646,750.39 1,882,755.47 $39,537,865 0.469150631 325,424,810.47 22 0.469150631 18,549,214.20 22 0.469150631 12,280,881.50 

178,481.04 624,683,625.87 1,695,569.84 $35,606,967 0.453285634 283,160,113.14 23 0.453285634 16,140,126.45 23 0.453285634 10,685,896.35 

164,151.65 574,530,791.21 1,559,440.72 $32,748,255 0.437957134 251,619,858.65 24 0.437957134 14,342,331.94 24 0.437957134 9,495,630.23 

152,523.72 533,833,014.10 1,448,975.32 $30,428,482 0.423146989 225,889,832.69 25 0.423146989 12,875,720.46 25 0.423146989 8,524,630.51 

142,554.10 498,939,359.11 1,354,263.97 $28,439,543 0.408837671 203,985,205.44 26 0.408837671 11,627,156.71 26 0.408837671 7,697,993.68 

133,711.18 467,989,125.89 1,270,256.20 $26,675,380 0.395012242 184,861,434.00 27 0.395012242 10,537,101.74 27 0.395012242 6,976,300.80 

125,683.15 439,891,020.88 1,193,989.91 $25,073,788 0.38165434 167,886,317.42 28 0.38165434 9,569,520.09 28 0.38165434 6,335,693.85 

118,270.36 413,946,242.92 1,123,568.37 $23,594,936 0.368748155 152,641,913.33 29 0.368748155 8,700,589.06 29 0.368748155 5,760,400.53 

111,213.71 389,247,970.90 1,056,530.21 $22,187,134 0.356278411 138,680,648.40 30 0.356278411 7,904,796.96 30 0.356278411 5,233,530.31 

104,540.88 365,893,085.21 993,138.37 $20,855,906 0.344230348 125,951,504.20 31 0.344230348 7,179,235.74 31 0.344230348 4,753,157.87 

98,268.43 343,939,491.48 933,550.05 $19,604,551 0.332589709 114,390,735.25 32 0.332589709 6,520,271.91 32 0.332589709 4,316,877.57 

92,372.32 323,303,112.53 877,537.02 $18,428,277 0.321342714 103,891,099.50 33 0.321342714 5,921,792.67 33 0.321342714 3,920,642.31 

86,829.98 303,904,919.29 824,884.78 $17,322,580 0.310476052 94,355,199.47 34 0.310476052 5,378,246.37 34 0.310476052 3,560,776.52 

81,620.18 285,670,618.58 775,391.68 $16,283,225 0.299976862 85,694,575.63 35 0.299976862 4,884,590.81 35 0.299976862 3,233,941.90 

76,722.96 268,530,376.25 728,868.16 $15,306,231 0.289832717 77,828,888.43 36 0.289832717 4,436,246.64 36 0.289832717 2,937,106.59 

72,119.59 252,418,548.81 685,136.06 $14,387,857 0.28003161 70,685,172.67 37 0.28003161 4,029,054.84 37 0.28003161 2,667,517.05 

67,792.41 237,273,433.24 644,027.89 $13,524,586 0.270561942 64,197,160.94 38 0.270561942 3,659,238.17 38 0.270561942 2,422,672.46 

63,724.86 223,037,024.98 605,386.21 $12,713,110 0.261412505 58,304,667.31 39 0.261412505 3,323,366.04 39 0.261412505 2,200,301.54 

59,901.37 209,654,801.63 569,063.03 $11,950,324 0.252572468 52,953,030.72 40 0.252572468 3,018,322.75 40 0.252572468 1,998,341.47 

54,959.69 192,358,930.62 522,117.10 $10,964,459 0.24403137 46,941,613.42 41 0.24403137 2,675,671.96 41 0.24403137 1,771,482.61 

50,314.52 176,100,812.20 477,987.92 $10,037,746 0.235779102 41,520,891.31 42 0.235779102 2,366,690.80 42 0.235779102 1,566,915.40 

45,948.05 160,818,180.59 436,506.49 $9,166,636 0.227805895 36,635,329.62 43 0.227805895 2,088,213.79 43 0.227805895 1,382,544.07 

41,843.57 146,452,507.75 397,513.95 $8,347,793 0.220102314 32,234,535.90 44 0.220102314 1,837,368.55 44 0.220102314 1,216,466.92 

37,985.36 132,948,775.81 360,860.96 $7,578,080 0.212659241 28,272,785.74 45 0.212659241 1,611,548.79 45 0.212659241 1,066,958.39 

34,358.65 120,255,267.80 326,407.16 $6,854,550 0.205467866 24,708,593.20 46 0.205467866 1,408,389.81 46 0.205467866 932,452.89 

30,949.53 108,323,370.24 294,020.58 $6,174,432 0.198519677 21,504,320.46 47 0.198519677 1,225,746.27 47 0.198519677 811,530.05 

A-20 
Appendix A 

Alternative B - 150 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

27,744.97 97,107,386.46 263,577.19 $5,535,121 48 0.191806451 18,625,823.18 48 0.191806451 1,061,671.92 48 0.191806451 702,901.31 

24,732.67 86,564,361.77 234,960.41 $4,934,169 49 0.185320243 16,042,128.53 49 0.185320243 914,401.33 49 0.185320243 605,397.85 

21,901.12 76,653,919.07 208,060.64 $4,369,273 50 0.179053375 13,725,142.88 50 0.179053375 782,333.14 50 0.179053375 517,959.44 

19,239.46 67,338,102.98 182,774.85 $3,838,272 51 0.172998429 11,649,386.06 51 0.172998429 664,015.01 51 0.172998429 439,624.53 

16,737.50 58,581,236.37 159,006.21 $3,339,130 52 0.167148241 9,791,750.62 52 0.167148241 558,129.79 52 0.167148241 369,521.08 

14,385.65 50,349,781.66 136,663.69 $2,869,938 53 0.161495885 8,131,282.55 53 0.161495885 463,483.11 53 0.161495885 306,858.34 

12,174.92 42,612,214.25 115,661.72 $2,428,896 54 0.156034672 6,648,982.85 54 0.156034672 378,992.02 54 0.156034672 250,919.31 

10,096.83 35,338,900.82 95,919.87 $2,014,317 55 0.150758137 5,327,626.84 55 0.150758137 303,674.73 55 0.150758137 201,053.98 

8,143.42 28,501,986.05 77,362.53 $1,624,613 56 0.145660036 4,151,600.30 56 0.145660036 236,641.22 56 0.145660036 156,673.09 

6,307.22 22,075,285.87 59,918.63 $1,258,291 57 0.140734334 3,106,750.65 57 0.140734334 177,084.79 57 0.140734334 117,242.56 

4,581.20 16,034,187.70 43,521.37 $913,949 58 0.135975202 2,180,251.91 58 0.135975202 124,274.36 58 0.135975202 82,278.35 

2,958.73 10,355,554.96 28,107.93 $590,267 59 0.131377007 1,360,481.81 59 0.131377007 77,547.46 59 0.131377007 51,341.86 

1,433.61 5,017,639.88 13,619.31 $286,005 60 0.126934306 636,910.63 60 0.126934306 36,303.91 60 0.126934306 24,035.73 

-- - $0 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 ­

-- - $0 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 ­

-- - $0 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 ­

-- - $0 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 ­

-- - $0 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 ­

-- - $0 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 ­

-- - $0 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 ­

-- - $0 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 ­

-- - $0 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 ­

-- - $0 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 ­

-- - $0 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 ­

-- - $0 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 ­

-- - $0 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 ­

-- - $0 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 ­

-- - $0 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 ­

-- - $0 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 ­

-- - $0 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 ­

-- - $0 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 ­

-- - $0 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 ­

-- - $0 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 ­

-- - $0 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 ­

6,124,030.66 $21,434,110,805 58,178,291.26 1,221,744,116.38 11,167,078,042 636,523,448 421,423,191 

A-21 
1

23456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647

Appendix A 

Alternative B - 250 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

76,710.70 268,487,461.45 728,751.68 $15,303,785 0.966183575 259,408,175.32 1 0.966183575 14,786,265.99 1 0.966183575 9,789,545.72 

115,170.07 403,095,258.19 1,094,115.70 $22,976,430 0.9335107 376,293,736.79 2 0.9335107 21,448,743.00 2 0.9335107 14,200,573.04 

144,549.97 505,924,897.52 1,373,224.72 $28,837,719 0.901942706 456,315,270.93 3 0.901942706 26,009,970.44 3 0.901942706 17,220,425.69 

169,192.05 592,172,191.16 1,607,324.52 $33,753,815 0.871442228 516,043,853.44 4 0.871442228 29,414,499.65 4 0.871442228 19,474,462.94 

190,803.81 667,813,321.96 1,812,636.16 $38,065,359 0.841973167 562,280,897.56 5 0.841973167 32,050,011.16 5 0.841973167 21,219,356.51 

210,265.10 735,927,848.35 1,997,518.45 $41,947,887 0.813500644 598,677,778.80 6 0.813500644 34,124,633.39 6 0.813500644 22,592,902.02 

228,099.43 798,348,013.99 2,166,944.61 $45,505,837 0.785990961 627,494,322.47 7 0.785990961 35,767,176.38 7 0.785990961 23,680,380.74 

244,647.96 856,267,873.72 2,324,155.66 $48,807,269 0.759411556 650,259,718.52 8 0.759411556 37,064,803.96 8 0.759411556 24,539,501.26 

260,346.74 911,213,602.01 2,473,294.06 $51,939,175 0.733730972 668,585,642.08 9 0.733730972 38,109,381.60 9 0.733730972 25,231,084.96 

275,167.52 963,086,332.25 2,614,091.47 $54,895,921 0.708918814 682,750,020.16 10 0.708918814 38,916,751.15 10 0.708918814 25,765,620.26 

289,099.06 1,011,846,700.73 2,746,441.04 $57,675,262 0.684945714 693,060,060.62 11 0.684945714 39,504,423.46 11 0.684945714 26,154,700.57 302,194.70 1,057,681,448.46 2,870,849.65 $60,287,843 0.661783298 699,955,917.50 12 0.661783298 39,897,487.30 12 0.661783298 26,414,936.41 314,504.60 1,100,766,106.60 2,987,793.72 $62,743,668 0.639404153 703,834,419.97 13 0.639404153 40,118,561.94 13 0.639404153 26,561,303.34 249,365.21 872,778,222.55 2,368,969.46 $49,748,359 0.61778179 539,186,492.84 14 0.61778179 30,733,630.09 14 0.61778179 20,347,819.87 

221,782.87 776,240,028.48 2,106,937.22 $44,245,682 0.596890619 463,330,390.80 15 0.596890619 26,409,832.28 15 0.596890619 17,485,162.29 

202,627.38 709,195,815.10 1,924,960.07 $40,424,161 0.576705912 408,997,419.13 16 0.576705912 23,312,852.89 16 0.576705912 15,434,744.60 187,596.23 656,586,819.02 1,782,164.22 $37,425,449 0.557203779 365,852,657.09 17 0.557203779 20,853,601.45 17 0.557203779 13,806,547.57 175,018.77 612,565,687.80 1,662,678.30 $34,916,244 0.53836114 329,781,561.74 18 0.53836114 18,797,549.02 18 0.53836114 12,445,296.58 

164,049.70 574,173,959.86 1,558,472.18 $32,727,916 0.52015569 298,659,852.49 19 0.52015569 17,023,611.59 19 0.52015569 11,270,825.51 154,198.06 539,693,224.09 1,464,881.61 $30,762,514 0.502565884 271,231,402.49 20 0.502565884 15,460,189.94 20 0.502565884 10,235,730.67 

145,153.27 508,036,427.88 1,378,956.02 $28,958,076 0.485570903 246,687,706.96 21 0.485570903 14,061,199.30 21 0.485570903 9,309,500.69 

136,507.99 477,777,979.81 1,296,825.95 $27,233,345 0.469150631 224,149,840.59 22 0.469150631 12,776,540.91 22 0.469150631 8,458,966.68 128,317.51 449,111,291.55 1,219,016.36 $25,599,344 0.453285634 203,575,696.34 23 0.453285634 11,603,814.69 23 0.453285634 7,682,539.63 120,618.46 422,164,601.67 1,145,875.35 $24,063,382 0.437957134 184,889,998.98 24 0.437957134 10,538,729.94 24 0.437957134 6,977,378.78 113,381.35 396,834,711.80 1,077,122.79 $22,619,579 0.423146989 167,919,413.54 25 0.423146989 9,571,406.57 25 0.423146989 6,336,942.83 

106,578.46 373,024,620.12 1,012,495.40 $21,262,403 0.408837671 152,506,516.84 26 0.408837671 8,692,871.46 26 0.408837671 5,755,290.93 

100,183.75 350,643,135.29 951,745.65 $19,986,659 0.395012242 138,508,331.12 27 0.395012242 7,894,974.87 27 0.395012242 5,227,027.40 

94,172.73 329,604,539.55 894,640.89 $18,787,459 0.38165434 125,795,003.13 28 0.38165434 7,170,315.18 28 0.38165434 4,747,251.83 

88,522.36 309,828,259.28 840,962.42 $17,660,211 0.368748155 114,248,598.97 29 0.368748155 6,512,170.14 29 0.368748155 4,311,513.63 

83,211.02 291,238,558.59 790,504.66 $16,600,598 0.356278411 103,762,010.76 30 0.356278411 5,914,434.61 30 0.356278411 3,915,770.76 

78,218.35 273,764,239.22 743,074.36 $15,604,562 0.344230348 94,237,959.45 31 0.344230348 5,371,563.69 31 0.344230348 3,556,352.11 

73,525.25 257,338,380.33 698,489.89 $14,668,288 0.332589709 85,588,096.93 32 0.332589709 4,878,521.52 32 0.332589709 3,229,923.60 

69,113.74 241,898,073.64 656,580.49 $13,788,190 0.321342714 77,732,183.41 33 0.321342714 4,430,734.45 33 0.321342714 2,933,457.14 

64,966.91 227,384,185.97 617,185.65 $12,960,899 0.310476052 70,597,344.31 34 0.310476052 4,024,048.63 34 0.310476052 2,664,202.58 

61,068.89 213,741,131.33 580,154.50 $12,183,244 0.299976862 64,117,393.78 35 0.299976862 3,654,691.45 35 0.299976862 2,419,662.21 

57,404.76 200,916,661.85 545,345.23 $11,452,250 0.289832717 58,232,221.91 36 0.289832717 3,319,236.65 36 0.289832717 2,197,567.59 

53,960.47 188,861,661.41 512,624.51 $10,765,115 0.28003161 52,887,235.15 37 0.28003161 3,014,572.40 37 0.28003161 1,995,858.48 

50,722.85 177,529,961.76 481,867.04 $10,119,208 0.270561942 48,032,851.26 38 0.270561942 2,737,872.52 38 0.270561942 1,812,663.74 

47,679.48 166,878,164.52 452,955.02 $9,512,055 0.261412505 43,624,038.95 39 0.261412505 2,486,570.22 39 0.261412505 1,646,283.98 

44,818.71 156,865,474.51 425,777.72 $8,941,332 0.252572468 39,619,900.07 40 0.252572468 2,258,334.30 40 0.252572468 1,495,175.79 

39,952.71 139,834,467.59 379,550.70 $7,970,565 0.24403137 34,123,996.73 41 0.24403137 1,945,067.81 41 0.24403137 1,287,771.39 

35,378.66 123,825,321.91 336,097.30 $7,058,043 0.235779102 29,195,423.16 42 0.235779102 1,664,139.12 42 0.235779102 1,101,776.88 

31,079.06 108,776,725.04 295,251.11 $6,200,273 0.227805895 24,779,979.24 43 0.227805895 1,412,458.82 43 0.227805895 935,146.86 

27,037.44 94,631,044.83 256,855.69 $5,393,970 0.220102314 20,828,511.97 44 0.220102314 1,187,225.18 44 0.220102314 786,026.38 

23,238.32 81,334,105.26 220,764.00 $4,636,044 0.212659241 17,296,449.08 45 0.212659241 985,897.60 45 0.212659241 652,733.40 19,667.14 68,834,982.09 186,837.81 $3,923,594 0.205467866 14,143,376.85 46 0.205467866 806,172.48 46 0.205467866 533,742.76 16,310.23 57,085,806.23 154,947.19 $3,253,891 0.198519677 11,332,655.81 47 0.198519677 645,961.38 47 0.198519677 427,671.76 

A-22 
Appendix A 

Alternative B - 250 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

13,154.74 46,041,580.65 124,970.00 $2,624,370 48 0.191806451 8,831,072.19 48 0.191806451 503,371.11 48 0.191806451 333,267.00 

10,188.57 35,660,008.16 96,791.45 $2,032,620 49 0.185320243 6,608,521.36 49 0.185320243 376,685.72 49 0.185320243 249,392.38 

7,400.38 25,901,329.99 70,303.61 $1,476,376 50 0.179053375 4,637,720.54 50 0.179053375 264,350.07 50 0.179053375 175,018.30 

4,779.48 16,728,171.79 45,405.04 $953,506 51 0.172998429 2,893,947.45 51 0.172998429 164,955.00 51 0.172998429 109,211.79 

2,315.83 8,105,402.57 22,000.38 $462,008 52 0.167148241 1,354,803.78 52 0.167148241 77,223.82 52 0.167148241 51,127.59 

-- - $0 53 0.161495885 - 53 0.161495885 - 53 0.161495885 ­-- - $0 54 0.156034672 - 54 0.156034672 - 54 0.156034672 ­-- - $0 55 0.150758137 - 55 0.150758137 - 55 0.150758137 ­-- - $0 56 0.145660036 - 56 0.145660036 - 56 0.145660036 ­-- - $0 57 0.140734334 - 57 0.140734334 - 57 0.140734334 ­-- - $0 58 0.135975202 - 58 0.135975202 - 58 0.135975202 ­-- - $0 59 0.131377007 - 59 0.131377007 - 59 0.131377007 ­-- - $0 60 0.126934306 - 60 0.126934306 - 60 0.126934306 ­-- - $0 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 ­-- - $0 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 ­-- - $0 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 ­-- - $0 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 ­-- - $0 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 ­-- - $0 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 ­

-- - $0 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 ­

-- - $0 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 ­-- - $0 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 ­-- - $0 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 ­-- - $0 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 ­-- - $0 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 ­-- - $0 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 ­-- - $0 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 ­-- - $0 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 ­-- - $0 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 ­-- - $0 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 ­-- - $0 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 ­-- - $0 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 ­-- - $0 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 ­-- - $0 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 ­

6,124,018.81 $21,434,069,320 58,178,178.65 1,221,741,751.71 12,644,738,391 720,750,088 477,187,137 

A-23 
Appendix A


LOF PRODUCTION CURVE

Alternative B 

0

50

350 300250200150100

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 

Production Year No. 

Thousands of MMCF 

75 Wells 150 Wells 250 Wells 

A-24

1

23456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647

Appendix A 

Alternative C - 75 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

63,766.97 223,184,378.84 605,786.17 $12,721,510 0.966183575 215,637,081.00 1 0.966183575 12,291,313.62 1 0.966183575 8,137,712.16 

95,736.93 335,079,250.01 909,500.82 $19,099,517 0.9335107 312,800,065.36 2 0.9335107 17,829,603.73 2 0.9335107 11,804,448.87 

120,159.44 420,558,025.84 1,141,514.64 $23,971,807 0.901942706 379,319,243.72 3 0.901942706 21,621,196.89 3 0.901942706 14,314,749.62 

140,643.56 492,252,463.76 1,336,113.83 $28,058,390 0.871442228 428,969,583.61 4 0.871442228 24,451,266.27 4 0.871442228 16,188,454.15 

158,608.67 555,130,360.27 1,506,782.41 $31,642,431 0.841973167 467,404,867.46 5 0.841973167 26,642,077.45 5 0.841973167 17,638,924.89 

174,786.18 611,751,647.12 1,660,468.76 $34,869,844 0.813500644 497,660,359.09 6 0.813500644 28,366,640.47 6 0.813500644 18,780,706.63 

189,611.26 663,639,405.92 1,801,306.96 $37,827,446 0.785990961 521,614,574.21 7 0.785990961 29,732,030.73 7 0.785990961 19,684,690.80 

203,367.49 711,786,213.77 1,931,991.15 $40,571,814 0.759411556 540,538,676.29 8 0.759411556 30,810,704.55 8 0.759411556 20,398,848.57 

216,417.35 757,460,725.47 2,055,964.83 $43,175,261 0.733730972 555,772,394.50 9 0.733730972 31,679,026.49 9 0.733730972 20,973,738.62 

228,737.36 800,580,757.98 2,173,004.91 $45,633,103 0.708918814 567,546,761.23 10 0.708918814 32,350,165.39 10 0.708918814 21,418,079.68 

240,318.17 841,113,590.25 2,283,022.60 $47,943,475 0.684945714 576,117,148.40 11 0.684945714 32,838,677.46 11 0.684945714 21,741,508.95 251,204.13 879,214,453.71 2,386,439.23 $50,115,224 0.661783298 581,849,441.08 12 0.661783298 33,165,418.14 12 0.661783298 21,957,834.21 261,436.93 915,029,261.43 2,483,650.85 $52,156,668 0.639404153 585,073,509.82 13 0.639404153 33,349,190.06 13 0.639404153 22,079,504.11 271,055.77 948,695,179.66 2,575,029.77 $54,075,625 0.61778179 586,086,606.52 14 0.61778179 33,406,936.57 14 0.61778179 22,117,736.36 

280,097.47 980,341,142.71 2,660,925.96 $55,879,445 0.596890619 585,156,431.13 15 0.596890619 33,353,916.57 15 0.596890619 22,082,633.40 

288,596.67 1,010,088,347.52 2,741,668.37 $57,575,036 0.576705912 582,523,921.37 16 0.576705912 33,203,863.52 16 0.576705912 21,983,287.74 296,585.92 1,038,050,717.68 2,817,566.23 $59,168,891 0.557203779 578,405,783.13 17 0.557203779 32,969,129.64 17 0.557203779 21,827,877.44 240,328.85 841,150,966.69 2,283,124.05 $47,945,605 0.53836114 452,842,992.96 18 0.53836114 25,812,050.60 18 0.53836114 17,089,388.87 

215,418.18 753,963,644.73 2,046,472.75 $42,975,928 0.52015569 392,178,480.15 19 0.52015569 22,354,173.37 19 0.52015569 14,800,031.48 197,631.42 691,709,964.61 1,877,498.48 $39,427,468 0.502565884 347,629,830.13 20 0.502565884 19,814,900.32 20 0.502565884 13,118,854.53 

183,384.89 641,847,116.19 1,742,156.46 $36,585,286 0.485570903 311,662,283.69 21 0.485570903 17,764,750.17 21 0.485570903 11,761,511.26 171,283.12 599,490,914.23 1,627,189.62 $34,170,982 0.469150631 281,251,540.54 22 0.469150631 16,031,337.81 22 0.469150631 10,613,870.64 160,617.15 562,160,019.08 1,525,862.91 $32,043,121 0.453285634 254,819,060.42 23 0.453285634 14,524,686.44 23 0.453285634 9,616,361.70 

150,972.92 528,405,227.75 1,434,242.76 $30,119,098 0.437957134 231,418,839.08 24 0.437957134 13,190,873.83 24 0.437957134 8,733,284.15 142,086.69 497,303,409.32 1,349,823.54 $28,346,294 0.423146989 210,432,440.41 25 0.423146989 11,994,649.10 25 0.423146989 7,941,299.44 133,614.63 467,651,187.71 1,269,338.94 $26,656,118 0.408837671 191,193,422.33 26 0.408837671 10,898,025.07 26 0.408837671 7,215,257.37 125,597.75 439,592,107.99 1,193,178.58 $25,056,750 0.395012242 173,644,264.28 27 0.395012242 9,897,723.06 27 0.395012242 6,552,987.25 

118,061.88 413,216,571.25 1,121,587.84 $23,553,345 0.38165434 157,705,897.94 28 0.38165434 8,989,236.18 28 0.38165434 5,951,505.18 110,978.16 388,423,564.91 1,054,292.53 $22,140,143 0.368748155 143,230,472.91 29 0.368748155 8,164,136.96 29 0.368748155 5,405,231.59 

104,319.47 365,118,142.82 991,034.96 $20,811,734 0.356278411 130,083,711.60 30 0.356278411 7,414,771.56 30 0.356278411 4,909,099.11 

98,060.30 343,211,046.38 931,572.84 $19,563,030 0.344230348 118,143,658.07 31 0.344230348 6,734,188.51 31 0.344230348 4,458,505.37 

92,176.68 322,618,375.95 875,678.45 $18,389,247 0.332589709 107,299,551.65 32 0.332589709 6,116,074.44 32 0.332589709 4,049,270.48 

86,646.08 303,261,266.19 823,137.72 $17,285,892 0.321342714 97,450,798.21 33 0.321342714 5,554,695.50 33 0.321342714 3,677,598.22 

81,447.31 285,065,585.44 773,749.45 $16,248,738 0.310476052 88,506,037.48 34 0.310476052 5,044,844.14 34 0.310476052 3,340,040.84 

76,560.47 267,961,645.85 727,324.47 $15,273,814 0.299976862 80,382,293.57 35 0.299976862 4,581,790.73 35 0.299976862 3,033,466.99 

71,966.84 251,883,943.98 683,684.99 $14,357,385 0.289832717 73,004,207.75 36 0.289832717 4,161,239.84 36 0.289832717 2,755,032.79 

67,648.83 236,770,904.80 642,663.88 $13,495,942 0.28003161 66,303,337.73 37 0.28003161 3,779,290.25 37 0.28003161 2,502,155.36 

63,589.90 222,564,649.04 604,104.05 $12,686,185 0.270561942 60,217,523.72 38 0.270561942 3,432,398.85 38 0.270561942 2,272,488.91 

59,774.51 209,210,768.62 567,857.80 $11,925,014 0.261412505 54,690,311.01 39 0.261412505 3,117,347.73 39 0.261412505 2,063,902.96 

56,188.03 196,658,121.80 533,786.33 $11,209,513 0.252572468 49,670,427.21 40 0.252572468 2,831,214.35 40 0.252572468 1,874,462.58 

51,007.19 178,525,154.33 484,568.28 $10,175,934 0.24403137 43,565,738.03 41 0.24403137 2,483,247.07 41 0.24403137 1,644,083.82 

46,137.19 161,480,164.92 438,303.30 $9,204,369 0.235779102 38,073,648.22 42 0.235779102 2,170,197.95 42 0.235779102 1,436,823.34 

41,559.39 145,457,874.82 394,814.23 $8,291,099 0.227805895 33,136,161.41 43 0.227805895 1,888,761.20 43 0.227805895 1,250,492.46 

37,256.26 130,396,922.03 353,934.50 $7,432,625 0.220102314 28,700,664.32 44 0.220102314 1,635,937.87 44 0.220102314 1,083,105.67 

33,211.32 116,239,626.50 315,507.56 $6,625,659 0.212659241 24,719,430.73 45 0.212659241 1,409,007.55 45 0.212659241 932,861.88 

29,409.08 102,931,769.38 279,386.23 $5,867,111 0.205467866 21,149,170.96 46 0.205467866 1,205,502.74 46 0.205467866 798,127.41 

25,834.97 90,422,383.75 245,432.18 $5,154,076 0.198519677 17,950,622.41 47 0.198519677 1,023,185.48 47 0.198519677 677,420.59 

A-25 
Appendix A 

Alternative C - 75 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

22,475.30 78,663,561.96 213,515.38 $4,483,823 48 0.191806451 15,088,178.65 48 0.191806451 860,026.18 48 0.191806451 569,397.69 

19,317.22 67,610,269.34 183,513.59 $3,853,785 49 0.185320243 12,529,551.52 49 0.185320243 714,184.44 49 0.185320243 472,840.22 

16,348.62 57,220,174.30 155,311.90 $3,261,550 50 0.179053375 10,245,465.30 50 0.179053375 583,991.52 50 0.179053375 386,643.37 

13,558.14 47,453,484.88 128,802.32 $2,704,849 51 0.172998429 8,209,378.36 51 0.172998429 467,934.57 51 0.172998429 309,805.52 

10,935.08 38,272,796.62 103,883.31 $2,181,549 52 0.167148241 6,397,230.64 52 0.167148241 364,642.15 52 0.167148241 241,418.69 

8,469.41 29,642,949.27 80,459.43 $1,689,648 53 0.161495885 4,787,214.33 53 0.161495885 272,871.22 53 0.161495885 180,659.89 

6,151.68 21,530,892.75 58,440.99 $1,227,261 54 0.156034672 3,359,565.78 54 0.156034672 191,495.25 54 0.156034672 126,783.29 

3,973.02 13,905,559.01 37,743.66 $792,617 55 0.150758137 2,096,376.17 55 0.150758137 119,493.44 55 0.150758137 79,113.04 

1,925.07 6,737,744.88 18,288.16 $384,051 56 0.145660036 981,420.16 56 0.145660036 55,940.95 56 0.145660036 37,036.83 

-- - $0 57 0.140734334 - 57 0.140734334 - 57 0.140734334 ­-- - $0 58 0.135975202 - 58 0.135975202 - 58 0.135975202 ­-- - $0 59 0.131377007 - 59 0.131377007 - 59 0.131377007 ­-- - $0 60 0.126934306 - 60 0.126934306 - 60 0.126934306 ­-- - $0 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 ­-- - $0 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 ­-- - $0 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 ­-- - $0 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 ­-- - $0 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 ­-- - $0 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 ­

-- - $0 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 ­

-- - $0 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 ­-- - $0 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 ­-- - $0 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 ­-- - $0 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 ­-- - $0 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 ­-- - $0 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 ­-- - $0 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 ­-- - $0 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 ­-- - $0 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 ­-- - $0 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 ­-- - $0 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 ­-- - $0 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 ­-- - $0 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 ­-- - $0 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 ­

6,657,053.26 $23,299,689,896 63,242,005.93 1,328,082,124.57 12,907,227,648 735,711,976 487,092,957 

A-26 
1

23456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647

Appendix A 

Alternative C - 150 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

120,448.71 421,570,493.36 1,144,262.77 $24,029,518 0.966183575 407,314,486.34 1 0.966183575 23,216,925.72 1 0.966183575 15,371,234.09 

180,836.42 632,927,472.25 1,717,946.00 $36,076,866 0.9335107 590,844,567.90 2 0.9335107 33,678,140.37 2 0.9335107 22,297,292.30 

226,967.82 794,387,382.14 2,156,194.32 $45,280,081 0.901942706 716,491,904.80 3 0.901942706 40,840,038.57 3 0.901942706 27,038,971.50 

265,660.06 929,810,209.33 2,523,770.57 $52,999,182 0.871442228 810,275,880.15 4 0.871442228 46,185,725.17 4 0.871442228 30,578,191.17 

299,594.16 1,048,579,569.40 2,846,144.55 $59,769,035 0.841973167 882,875,860.75 5 0.841973167 50,323,924.06 5 0.841973167 33,317,969.23 

330,151.68 1,155,530,889.00 3,136,440.98 $65,865,261 0.813500644 940,025,122.72 6 0.813500644 53,581,431.99 6 0.813500644 35,474,668.08 

358,154.60 1,253,541,100.08 3,402,468.70 $71,451,843 0.785990961 985,271,973.51 7 0.785990961 56,160,502.49 7 0.785990961 37,182,193.74 

384,138.59 1,344,485,070.45 3,649,316.62 $76,635,649 0.759411556 1,021,017,499.66 8 0.759411556 58,197,997.48 8 0.759411556 38,531,158.40 

408,788.33 1,430,759,148.12 3,883,489.12 $81,553,271 0.733730972 1,049,792,300.72 9 0.733730972 59,838,161.14 9 0.733730972 39,617,061.84 

311,610.74 1,090,637,605.04 2,960,302.07 $62,166,343 0.708918814 773,173,517.16 10 0.708918814 44,070,890.48 10 0.708918814 29,178,022.19 

273,097.90 955,842,642.67 2,594,430.03 $54,483,031 0.684945714 654,700,321.10 11 0.684945714 37,317,918.30 11 0.684945714 24,707,080.72 

247,528.87 866,351,030.41 2,351,524.23 $49,382,009 0.661783298 573,336,642.38 12 0.661783298 32,680,188.62 12 0.661783298 21,636,578.21 

228,165.26 798,578,395.59 2,167,569.93 $45,518,969 0.639404153 510,614,342.59 13 0.639404153 29,105,017.53 13 0.639404153 19,269,564.06 

212,400.06 743,400,214.40 2,017,800.58 $42,373,812 0.61778179 459,259,115.34 14 0.61778179 26,177,769.57 14 0.61778179 17,331,520.49 

198,921.32 696,224,602.78 1,889,752.49 $39,684,802 0.596890619 415,569,933.85 15 0.596890619 23,687,486.23 15 0.596890619 15,682,778.16 

186,972.44 654,403,556.35 1,776,238.22 $37,301,003 0.576705912 377,398,399.59 16 0.576705912 21,511,708.78 16 0.576705912 14,242,260.80 

176,079.26 616,277,396.27 1,672,752.93 $35,127,812 0.557203779 343,392,094.38 17 0.557203779 19,573,349.38 17 0.557203779 12,958,930.86 

165,614.87 579,652,060.11 1,573,341.31 $33,040,167 0.53836114 312,062,143.62 18 0.53836114 17,787,542.19 18 0.53836114 11,776,601.18 

155,677.98 544,872,925.01 1,478,940.80 $31,057,757 0.52015569 283,418,752.48 19 0.52015569 16,154,868.89 19 0.52015569 10,695,656.88 

146,337.30 512,180,533.70 1,390,204.31 $29,194,290 0.502565884 257,404,462.91 20 0.502565884 14,672,054.39 20 0.502565884 9,713,929.62 

137,557.05 481,449,682.91 1,306,792.00 $27,442,632 0.485570903 233,777,957.20 21 0.485570903 13,325,343.56 21 0.485570903 8,822,312.55 

129,303.63 452,562,691.36 1,228,384.45 $25,796,073 0.469150631 212,320,072.11 22 0.469150631 12,102,244.11 22 0.469150631 8,012,534.88 

121,545.41 425,408,919.02 1,154,681.35 $24,248,308 0.453285634 192,831,751.39 23 0.453285634 10,991,409.83 23 0.453285634 7,277,084.63 

114,252.68 399,884,371.83 1,085,400.44 $22,793,409 0.437957134 175,132,213.38 24 0.437957134 9,982,536.16 24 0.437957134 6,609,139.47 

107,397.51 375,891,298.29 1,020,276.38 $21,425,804 0.423146989 159,057,271.16 25 0.423146989 9,066,264.46 25 0.423146989 6,002,503.30 

100,953.66 353,337,813.73 959,059.78 $20,140,255 0.408837671 144,457,808.77 26 0.408837671 8,234,095.10 26 0.408837671 5,451,548.79 

94,896.44 332,137,538.60 901,516.18 $18,931,840 0.395012242 131,198,393.88 27 0.395012242 7,478,308.45 27 0.395012242 4,951,164.99 

89,202.65 312,209,281.65 847,425.19 $17,795,929 0.38165434 119,156,027.45 28 0.38165434 6,791,893.56 28 0.38165434 4,496,710.16 

83,850.49 293,476,719.88 796,579.67 $16,728,173 0.368748155 108,218,998.98 29 0.368748155 6,168,482.94 29 0.368748155 4,083,968.58 

78,819.46 275,868,112.55 748,784.88 $15,724,482 0.356278411 98,285,852.68 30 0.356278411 5,602,293.60 30 0.356278411 3,709,111.51 

74,090.29 259,316,019.57 703,857.77 $14,781,013 0.344230348 89,264,443.76 31 0.344230348 5,088,073.29 31 0.344230348 3,368,661.58 

69,644.87 243,757,054.65 661,626.29 $13,894,152 0.332589709 81,071,087.78 32 0.332589709 4,621,052.00 32 0.332589709 3,059,460.71 

65,466.18 229,131,628.95 621,928.71 $13,060,503 0.321342714 73,629,779.42 33 0.321342714 4,196,897.43 33 0.321342714 2,778,640.62 

61,538.21 215,383,728.95 584,612.98 $12,276,873 0.310476052 66,871,489.79 34 0.310476052 3,811,674.92 34 0.310476052 2,523,596.28 

57,845.92 202,460,703.26 549,536.19 $11,540,260 0.299976862 60,733,526.37 35 0.299976862 3,461,811.00 35 0.299976862 2,291,961.82 

54,375.16 190,313,059.66 516,564.02 $10,847,844 0.289832717 55,158,951.08 36 0.289832717 3,144,060.21 36 0.289832717 2,081,588.50 

51,112.65 178,894,274.86 485,570.17 $10,196,974 0.28003161 50,096,051.85 37 0.28003161 2,855,474.96 37 0.28003161 1,890,524.80 

48,045.89 168,160,619.59 456,435.97 $9,585,155 0.270561942 45,497,863.84 38 0.270561942 2,593,378.24 38 0.270561942 1,716,998.39 

45,163.14 158,070,984.54 429,049.82 $9,010,046 0.261412505 41,321,731.97 39 0.261412505 2,355,338.72 39 0.261412505 1,559,399.52 

42,453.35 148,586,728.15 403,306.83 $8,469,444 0.252572468 37,528,916.67 40 0.252572468 2,139,148.25 40 0.252572468 1,416,266.26 

36,488.08 127,708,286.53 346,636.78 $7,279,372 0.24403137 31,164,828.15 41 0.24403137 1,776,395.20 41 0.24403137 1,176,098.28 

30,880.73 108,082,551.45 293,366.93 $6,160,705 0.235779102 25,483,606.89 42 0.235779102 1,452,565.59 42 0.235779102 961,700.36 

25,609.82 89,634,360.34 243,293.26 $5,109,159 0.227805895 20,419,235.71 43 0.227805895 1,163,896.44 43 0.227805895 770,581.12 

20,655.16 72,293,060.28 196,224.02 $4,120,704 0.220102314 15,911,869.88 44 0.220102314 906,976.58 44 0.220102314 600,482.15 

15,997.78 55,992,237.51 151,978.93 $3,191,558 0.212659241 11,907,266.73 45 0.212659241 678,714.20 45 0.212659241 449,356.43 

11,619.85 40,669,464.08 110,388.55 $2,318,159 0.205467866 8,356,267.98 46 0.205467866 476,307.27 46 0.205467866 315,348.84 

7,504.59 26,266,055.90 71,293.58 $1,497,165 0.198519677 5,214,328.93 47 0.198519677 297,216.75 47 0.198519677 196,778.35 

A-27 
Appendix A 

Alternative C - 150 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

3,636.24 12,726,851.44 34,544.31 $725,431 48 0.191806451 2,441,092.21 48 0.191806451 139,142.26 48 0.191806451 92,121.94 

-- - $0 49 0.185320243 - 49 0.185320243 - 49 0.185320243 ­-- - $0 50 0.179053375 - 50 0.179053375 - 50 0.179053375 ­-- - $0 51 0.172998429 - 51 0.172998429 - 51 0.172998429 ­-- - $0 52 0.167148241 - 52 0.167148241 - 52 0.167148241 ­-- - $0 53 0.161495885 - 53 0.161495885 - 53 0.161495885 ­-- - $0 54 0.156034672 - 54 0.156034672 - 54 0.156034672 ­-- - $0 55 0.150758137 - 55 0.150758137 - 55 0.150758137 ­-- - $0 56 0.145660036 - 56 0.145660036 - 56 0.145660036 ­-- - $0 57 0.140734334 - 57 0.140734334 - 57 0.140734334 ­-- - $0 58 0.135975202 - 58 0.135975202 - 58 0.135975202 ­-- - $0 59 0.131377007 - 59 0.131377007 - 59 0.131377007 ­-- - $0 60 0.126934306 - 60 0.126934306 - 60 0.126934306 ­-- - $0 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 ­-- - $0 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 ­-- - $0 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 ­-- - $0 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 ­-- - $0 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 ­-- - $0 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 ­

-- - $0 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 ­

-- - $0 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 ­-- - $0 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 ­-- - $0 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 ­-- - $0 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 ­-- - $0 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 ­-- - $0 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 ­-- - $0 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 ­-- - $0 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 ­-- - $0 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 ­-- - $0 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 ­-- - $0 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 ­-- - $0 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 ­-- - $0 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 ­-- - $0 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 ­

6,657,053.26 $23,299,689,896 63,242,005.93 1,328,082,124.57 14,660,748,008 835,662,636 553,267,308 

A-28 
1

23456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647

Appendix A 

Alternative C - 250 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

216,805.95 758,820,817.48 2,059,656.50 $43,252,787 0.966183575 733,160,210.13 1 0.966183575 41,790,131.98 1 0.966183575 27,668,000.01 

325,502.95 1,139,260,335.96 3,092,278.05 $64,937,839 0.9335107 1,063,511,714.12 2 0.9335107 60,620,167.71 2 0.9335107 40,134,805.07 

408,538.81 1,429,885,848.77 3,881,118.73 $81,503,493 0.901942706 1,289,675,111.24 3 0.901942706 73,511,481.34 3 0.901942706 48,669,759.35 

478,184.28 1,673,644,987.63 4,542,750.68 $95,397,764 0.871442228 1,458,484,916.40 4 0.871442228 83,133,640.23 4 0.871442228 55,040,303.78 

539,265.18 1,887,428,125.50 5,123,019.20 $107,583,403 0.841973167 1,589,163,836.04 5 0.841973167 90,582,338.65 5 0.841973167 59,971,864.84 

377,462.33 1,321,118,143.21 3,585,892.10 $75,303,734 0.813500644 1,074,730,460.70 6 0.813500644 61,259,636.26 6 0.813500644 40,558,178.13 

319,170.17 1,117,095,593.33 3,032,116.61 $63,674,449 0.785990961 878,027,038.58 7 0.785990961 50,047,541.20 7 0.785990961 33,134,984.38 

282,905.12 990,167,917.60 2,687,598.63 $56,439,571 0.759411556 751,944,959.22 8 0.759411556 42,860,862.68 8 0.759411556 28,376,898.87 

257,628.82 901,700,876.21 2,447,473.81 $51,396,950 0.733730972 661,605,860.53 9 0.733730972 37,711,534.05 9 0.733730972 24,967,681.96 

238,435.62 834,524,676.01 2,265,138.41 $47,567,907 0.708918814 591,610,243.33 10 0.708918814 33,721,783.87 10 0.708918814 22,326,187.36 

222,806.96 779,824,368.06 2,116,666.14 $44,449,989 0.684945714 534,137,358.36 11 0.684945714 30,445,829.43 11 0.684945714 20,157,275.63 

209,414.09 732,949,298.87 1,989,433.81 $41,778,110 0.661783298 485,053,604.48 12 0.661783298 27,648,055.46 12 0.661783298 18,304,952.93 

197,434.52 691,020,833.89 1,875,627.98 $39,388,188 0.639404153 441,841,590.96 13 0.639404153 25,184,970.68 13 0.639404153 16,674,217.96 

185,769.13 650,191,942.69 1,764,806.70 $37,060,941 0.61778179 401,676,742.38 14 0.61778179 22,895,574.32 14 0.61778179 15,158,476.90 

174,622.98 611,180,418.63 1,658,918.28 $34,837,284 0.596890619 364,807,858.17 15 0.596890619 20,794,047.92 15 0.596890619 13,767,118.95 

164,145.59 574,509,578.64 1,559,383.14 $32,747,046 0.576705912 331,323,070.34 16 0.576705912 18,885,415.01 16 0.576705912 12,503,470.03 

154,296.85 540,038,977.18 1,465,820.08 $30,782,222 0.557203779 300,911,759.13 17 0.557203779 17,151,970.27 17 0.557203779 11,355,807.97 

145,039.04 507,636,624.85 1,377,870.84 $28,935,288 0.53836114 273,291,831.83 18 0.53836114 15,577,634.41 18 0.53836114 10,313,487.15 

136,336.69 477,178,413.88 1,295,198.55 $27,199,170 0.52015569 248,207,067.31 19 0.52015569 14,147,802.84 19 0.52015569 9,366,838.31 

128,156.48 448,547,693.94 1,217,486.60 $25,567,219 0.502565884 225,424,768.52 20 0.502565884 12,849,211.81 20 0.502565884 8,507,079.91 

120,467.09 421,634,817.20 1,144,437.36 $24,033,185 0.485570903 204,733,598.85 21 0.485570903 11,669,815.13 21 0.485570903 7,726,236.55 

113,239.06 396,336,722.52 1,075,771.10 $22,591,193 0.469150631 185,941,623.36 22 0.469150631 10,598,672.53 22 0.469150631 7,017,064.98 

106,444.72 372,556,509.82 1,011,224.81 $21,235,721 0.453285634 168,874,513.60 23 0.453285634 9,625,847.28 23 0.453285634 6,372,986.39 

100,058.03 350,203,110.72 950,551.30 $19,961,577 0.437957134 153,373,950.65 24 0.437957134 8,742,315.19 24 0.437957134 5,788,026.15 

94,054.55 329,190,917.44 893,518.20 $18,763,882 0.423146989 139,296,145.61 25 0.423146989 7,939,880.30 25 0.423146989 5,256,757.94 

88,411.27 309,439,457.46 839,907.10 $17,638,049 0.408837671 126,510,507.04 26 0.408837671 7,211,098.90 26 0.408837671 4,774,253.51 

83,106.60 290,873,083.99 789,512.66 $16,579,766 0.395012242 114,898,429.14 27 0.395012242 6,549,210.46 27 0.395012242 4,336,036.92 

78,120.20 273,420,696.67 742,141.89 $15,584,980 0.38165434 104,352,195.64 28 0.38165434 5,948,075.15 28 0.38165434 3,938,043.16 

73,432.99 257,015,452.70 697,613.37 $14,649,881 0.368748155 94,773,973.98 29 0.368748155 5,402,116.52 29 0.368748155 3,576,580.23 

69,027.01 241,594,523.20 655,756.56 $13,770,888 0.356278411 86,074,912.73 30 0.356278411 4,906,270.03 30 0.356278411 3,248,295.06 

64,885.38 227,098,846.92 616,411.16 $12,944,634 0.344230348 78,174,315.20 31 0.344230348 4,455,935.97 31 0.344230348 2,950,142.31 

60,992.26 213,472,911.36 579,426.47 $12,167,956 0.332589709 70,998,893.39 32 0.332589709 4,046,936.92 32 0.332589709 2,679,356.24 

57,332.72 200,664,532.17 544,660.87 $11,437,878 0.321342714 64,482,085.30 33 0.321342714 3,675,478.86 33 0.321342714 2,433,424.93 

53,892.76 188,624,658.28 511,981.22 $10,751,606 0.310476052 58,563,439.18 34 0.310476052 3,338,116.03 34 0.310476052 2,210,067.07 

50,659.19 177,307,177.80 481,262.34 $10,106,509 0.299976862 53,188,050.75 35 0.299976862 3,031,718.89 35 0.299976862 2,007,210.66 

47,619.64 166,668,749.80 452,386.61 $9,500,119 0.289832717 48,306,056.52 36 0.289832717 2,753,445.22 36 0.289832717 1,822,973.96 

44,762.46 156,668,627.06 425,243.42 $8,930,112 0.28003161 43,872,167.91 37 0.28003161 2,500,713.57 37 0.28003161 1,655,647.87 

42,076.72 147,268,513.83 399,728.82 $8,394,305 0.270561942 39,845,255.13 38 0.270561942 2,271,179.54 38 0.270561942 1,503,680.24 

39,552.12 138,432,408.56 375,745.11 $7,890,647 0.261412505 36,187,962.64 39 0.261412505 2,062,713.87 39 0.261412505 1,365,661.33 

37,178.99 130,126,467.49 353,200.41 $7,417,209 0.252572468 32,866,363.07 40 0.252572468 1,873,382.70 40 0.252572468 1,240,310.81 

28,795.78 100,785,221.23 273,559.89 $5,744,758 0.24403137 24,594,755.64 41 0.24403137 1,401,901.07 41 0.24403137 928,156.89 

20,915.56 73,204,449.71 198,697.79 $4,172,654 0.235779102 17,260,079.39 42 0.235779102 983,824.53 42 0.235779102 651,360.88 

13,508.15 47,278,522.40 128,327.42 $2,694,876 0.227805895 10,770,326.13 43 0.227805895 613,908.59 43 0.227805895 406,450.57 

6,545.19 22,908,149.32 62,179.26 $1,305,765 0.220102314 5,042,136.68 44 0.220102314 287,401.79 44 0.220102314 190,280.15 

-- - $0 0.212659241 - 45 0.212659241 - 45 0.212659241 ­-- - $0 0.205467866 - 46 0.205467866 - 46 0.205467866 ­-- - $0 0.198519677 - 47 0.198519677 - 47 0.198519677 ­

A-29 
Appendix A 

Alternative C - 250 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

-- - $0 48 0.191806451 - 48 0.191806451 - 48 0.191806451 ­

-- - $0 49 0.185320243 - 49 0.185320243 - 49 0.185320243 ­-- - $0 50 0.179053375 - 50 0.179053375 - 50 0.179053375 ­-- - $0 51 0.172998429 - 51 0.172998429 - 51 0.172998429 ­-- - $0 52 0.167148241 - 52 0.167148241 - 52 0.167148241 ­-- - $0 53 0.161495885 - 53 0.161495885 - 53 0.161495885 ­-- - $0 54 0.156034672 - 54 0.156034672 - 54 0.156034672 ­-- - $0 55 0.150758137 - 55 0.150758137 - 55 0.150758137 ­-- - $0 56 0.145660036 - 56 0.145660036 - 56 0.145660036 ­-- - $0 57 0.140734334 - 57 0.140734334 - 57 0.140734334 ­-- - $0 58 0.135975202 - 58 0.135975202 - 58 0.135975202 ­-- - $0 59 0.131377007 - 59 0.131377007 - 59 0.131377007 ­-- - $0 60 0.126934306 - 60 0.126934306 - 60 0.126934306 ­-- - $0 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 ­-- - $0 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 ­-- - $0 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 ­-- - $0 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 ­-- - $0 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 ­-- - $0 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 ­

-- - $0 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 ­

-- - $0 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 ­-- - $0 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 ­-- - $0 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 ­-- - $0 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 ­-- - $0 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 ­-- - $0 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 ­-- - $0 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 ­-- - $0 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 ­-- - $0 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 ­-- - $0 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 ­-- - $0 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 ­-- - $0 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 ­-- - $0 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 ­-- - $0 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 ­

6,657,000.00 $23,299,503,500 63,241,500.00 1,328,071,500.00 15,661,571,739 892,709,589 591,036,394 

A-30 
Appendix A


LOF PRODUCTION CURVE

Alternative C 

0

50

600 550500450400350300250200150100

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 

Production Year No. 

Thousands of MMCF 

75 Wells 150 Wells 250 Wells 

A-31

1

23456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647

Appendix A 

Alternative D - 75 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

41,003.63 143,512,707.56 389,534.49 $8,180,224 0.966183575 138,659,620.84 1 0.966183575 7,903,598.39 1 0.966183575 5,232,736.77 

61,561.06 215,463,692.70 584,830.02 $12,281,430 0.9335107 201,137,662.68 2 0.9335107 11,464,846.77 2 0.9335107 7,590,533.11 

77,265.29 270,428,518.75 734,020.27 $15,414,426 0.901942706 243,911,029.89 3 0.901942706 13,902,928.70 3 0.901942706 9,204,714.45 90,437.06 316,529,697.32 859,152.04 $18,042,193 0.871442228 275,837,344.56 4 0.871442228 15,722,728.64 4 0.871442228 10,409,549.71 

101,989.04 356,961,636.24 968,895.87 $20,346,813 0.841973167 300,552,119.31 5 0.841973167 17,131,470.80 5 0.841973167 11,342,235.88 

112,391.55 393,370,430.73 1,067,719.74 $22,422,115 0.813500644 320,007,098.85 6 0.813500644 18,240,404.63 6 0.813500644 12,076,427.90 

121,924.42 426,735,457.41 1,158,281.96 $24,323,921 0.785990961 335,410,212.13 7 0.785990961 19,118,382.09 7 0.785990961 12,657,710.59 

130,769.99 457,694,966.27 1,242,314.91 $26,088,613 0.759411556 347,578,846.61 8 0.759411556 19,811,994.26 8 0.759411556 13,116,930.51 

139,161.35 487,064,731.65 1,322,032.84 $27,762,690 0.733730972 357,374,479.07 9 0.733730972 20,370,345.31 9 0.733730972 13,486,598.09 

147,083.40 514,791,907.93 1,397,292.32 $29,343,139 0.708918814 364,945,668.68 10 0.708918814 20,801,903.11 10 0.708918814 13,772,319.64 

154,530.13 540,855,454.74 1,468,036.23 $30,828,761 0.684945714 370,456,625.47 11 0.684945714 21,116,027.65 11 0.684945714 13,980,292.13 

161,530.05 565,355,189.46 1,534,535.51 $32,225,246 0.661783298 374,142,621.98 12 0.661783298 21,326,129.45 12 0.661783298 14,119,394.27 

168,109.98 588,384,937.57 1,597,044.83 $33,537,941 0.639404153 376,215,772.61 13 0.639404153 21,444,299.04 13 0.639404153 14,197,630.83 

174,295.11 610,032,900.13 1,655,803.59 $34,771,875 0.61778179 376,867,217.17 14 0.61778179 21,481,431.38 14 0.61778179 14,222,215.04 

180,109.14 630,381,984.88 1,711,036.82 $35,931,773 0.596890619 376,269,092.93 15 0.596890619 21,447,338.30 15 0.596890619 14,199,643.03 

185,574.32 649,510,124.26 1,762,956.05 $37,022,077 0.576705912 374,576,328.38 16 0.576705912 21,350,850.72 16 0.576705912 14,135,761.48 

190,711.59 667,490,573.75 1,811,760.13 $38,046,963 0.557203779 371,928,270.43 17 0.557203779 21,199,911.41 17 0.557203779 14,035,829.07 

195,540.63 684,392,196.22 1,857,635.96 $39,010,355 0.53836114 368,450,162.65 18 0.53836114 21,001,659.27 18 0.53836114 13,904,572.24 

200,079.92 700,279,720.71 1,900,759.24 $39,915,944 0.52015569 364,254,481.59 19 0.52015569 20,762,505.45 19 0.52015569 13,746,235.63 

204,346.86 715,213,993.37 1,941,295.12 $40,767,198 0.502565884 359,442,153.14 20 0.502565884 20,488,202.73 20 0.502565884 13,564,627.98 

208,357.77 729,252,209.38 1,979,398.85 $41,567,376 0.485570903 354,103,653.70 21 0.485570903 20,183,908.26 21 0.485570903 13,363,163.68 

212,128.04 742,448,132.70 2,015,216.36 $42,319,544 0.469150631 348,320,009.76 22 0.469150631 19,854,240.56 22 0.469150631 13,144,900.53 

215,672.09 754,852,299.86 2,048,884.81 $43,026,581 0.453285634 342,163,703.00 23 0.453285634 19,503,331.07 23 0.453285634 12,912,573.82 

219,003.49 766,512,216.52 2,080,533.16 $43,691,196 0.437957134 335,699,493.44 24 0.437957134 19,134,871.13 24 0.437957134 12,668,627.48 

222,135.01 777,472,538.18 2,110,282.60 $44,315,935 0.423146989 328,985,163.77 25 0.423146989 18,752,154.33 25 0.423146989 12,415,242.11 

225,078.64 787,775,240.57 2,138,247.08 $44,903,189 0.408837671 322,072,194.46 26 0.408837671 18,358,115.08 26 0.408837671 12,154,360.47 

227,845.65 797,459,780.88 2,164,533.69 $45,455,208 0.395012242 315,006,376.20 27 0.395012242 17,955,363.44 27 0.395012242 11,887,710.62 

230,446.64 806,563,248.71 2,189,243.10 $45,974,105 0.38165434 307,828,364.68 28 0.38165434 17,546,216.79 28 0.38165434 11,616,826.83 

232,891.57 815,120,508.04 2,212,469.95 $46,461,869 0.368748155 300,574,183.42 29 0.368748155 17,132,728.45 29 0.368748155 11,343,068.53 

235,189.81 823,164,331.76 2,234,303.19 $46,920,367 0.356278411 293,275,679.78 30 0.356278411 16,716,713.75 30 0.356278411 11,067,637.60 

196,346.52 687,212,818.05 1,865,291.93 $39,171,131 0.344230348 236,559,507.79 31 0.344230348 13,483,891.94 31 0.344230348 8,927,282.70 

177,819.82 622,369,355.22 1,689,288.25 $35,475,053 0.332589709 206,993,642.50 32 0.332589709 11,798,637.62 32 0.332589709 7,811,526.08 

164,024.46 574,085,600.13 1,558,232.34 $32,722,879 0.321342714 184,478,224.60 33 0.321342714 10,515,258.80 33 0.321342714 6,961,839.24 

152,647.04 534,264,628.30 1,450,146.85 $30,453,084 0.310476052 165,876,372.42 34 0.310476052 9,454,953.23 34 0.310476052 6,259,842.54 

142,781.74 499,736,083.86 1,356,426.51 $28,484,957 0.299976862 149,909,262.09 35 0.299976862 8,544,827.94 35 0.299976862 5,657,275.73 

133,964.71 468,876,480.44 1,272,664.73 $26,725,959 0.289832717 135,895,744.06 36 0.289832717 7,746,057.41 36 0.289832717 5,128,433.59 

125,922.20 440,727,693.35 1,196,260.88 $25,121,479 0.28003161 123,417,685.64 37 0.28003161 7,034,808.08 37 0.28003161 4,657,536.62 

118,477.56 414,671,450.11 1,125,536.79 $23,636,273 0.270561942 112,194,312.93 38 0.270561942 6,395,075.84 38 0.270561942 4,233,988.98 

111,403.07 389,910,754.68 1,058,329.19 $22,224,913 0.261412505 101,927,546.94 39 0.261412505 5,809,870.18 39 0.261412505 3,846,541.77 

104,718.89 366,516,103.89 994,829.42 $20,891,418 0.252572468 92,571,876.99 40 0.252572468 5,276,596.99 40 0.252572468 3,493,477.49 

97,272.16 340,452,557.08 924,085.51 $19,405,796 0.24403137 83,081,104.01 41 0.24403137 4,735,622.93 41 0.24403137 3,135,314.70 

90,272.23 315,952,822.36 857,586.23 $18,009,311 0.235779102 74,495,072.63 42 0.235779102 4,246,219.14 42 0.235779102 2,811,295.05 

83,692.31 292,923,074.25 795,076.92 $16,696,615 0.227805895 66,729,603.20 43 0.227805895 3,803,587.38 43 0.227805895 2,518,241.77 

77,507.17 271,275,111.69 736,318.16 $15,462,681 0.220102314 59,708,279.90 44 0.220102314 3,403,371.95 44 0.220102314 2,253,271.07 

71,693.15 250,926,026.93 681,084.93 $14,302,784 0.212659241 53,361,738.41 45 0.212659241 3,041,619.09 45 0.212659241 2,013,765.28 

66,227.97 231,797,887.56 629,165.69 $13,212,480 0.205467866 47,627,017.21 46 0.205467866 2,714,739.98 46 0.205467866 1,797,348.38 

61,090.70 213,817,438.06 580,361.62 $12,187,594 0.198519677 42,446,968.72 47 0.198519677 2,419,477.22 47 0.198519677 1,601,863.71 

A-32 
Appendix A 

Alternative D - 75 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

56,261.66 196,915,815.60 534,485.79 $11,224,201 48 0.191806451 37,769,723.76 48 0.191806451 2,152,874.25 48 0.191806451 1,425,353.84 

51,722.37 181,028,291.11 491,362.50 $10,318,613 49 0.185320243 33,548,206.83 49 0.185320243 1,912,247.79 49 0.185320243 1,266,042.23 

47,455.43 166,094,018.45 450,826.62 $9,467,359 50 0.179053375 29,739,694.49 50 0.179053375 1,695,162.59 50 0.179053375 1,122,316.59 

43,444.51 152,055,802.43 412,722.89 $8,667,181 51 0.172998429 26,305,415.02 51 0.172998429 1,499,408.66 51 0.172998429 992,713.75 

39,674.25 138,859,879.12 376,905.39 $7,915,013 52 0.167148241 23,210,184.55 52 0.167148241 1,322,980.52 52 0.167148241 875,905.94 

36,130.20 126,455,711.96 343,236.93 $7,207,976 53 0.161495885 20,422,077.13 53 0.161495885 1,164,058.40 53 0.161495885 770,688.35 

32,798.80 114,795,795.29 311,588.59 $6,543,360 54 0.156034672 17,912,124.22 54 0.156034672 1,020,991.08 54 0.156034672 675,967.74 

29,667.28 103,835,473.64 281,839.14 $5,918,622 55 0.150758137 15,654,042.54 55 0.150758137 892,280.42 55 0.150758137 590,752.26 

26,723.65 93,532,771.25 253,874.66 $5,331,368 56 0.145660036 13,623,986.78 56 0.145660036 776,567.25 56 0.145660036 514,142.01 

23,956.64 83,848,230.94 227,588.06 $4,779,349 57 0.140734334 11,800,324.93 57 0.140734334 672,618.52 57 0.140734334 445,320.66 

21,355.65 74,744,763.10 202,878.64 $4,260,451 58 0.135975202 10,163,434.25 58 0.135975202 579,315.75 58 0.135975202 383,547.68 

18,910.72 66,187,503.78 179,651.80 $3,772,688 59 0.131377007 8,695,516.12 59 0.131377007 495,644.42 59 0.131377007 328,151.39 

16,612.48 58,143,680.06 157,818.56 $3,314,190 60 0.126934306 7,380,427.67 60 0.126934306 420,684.38 60 0.126934306 278,522.58 

14,452.14 50,582,486.21 137,295.32 $2,883,202 61 0.122641841 6,203,529.25 61 0.122641841 353,601.17 61 0.122641841 234,108.79 

12,421.42 43,474,963.90 118,003.47 $2,478,073 62 0.118494533 5,151,545.53 62 0.118494533 293,638.10 62 0.118494533 194,409.03 

10,512.54 36,793,892.94 99,869.14 $2,097,252 63 0.114487471 4,212,439.76 63 0.114487471 240,109.07 63 0.114487471 158,969.05 

8,718.20 30,513,686.19 82,822.86 $1,739,280 64 0.110615914 3,375,299.30 64 0.110615914 192,392.06 64 0.110615914 127,377.04 

7,031.51 24,610,291.71 66,799.36 $1,402,787 65 0.106875279 2,630,231.81 65 0.106875279 149,923.21 65 0.106875279 99,259.69 

5,446.03 19,061,100.66 51,737.27 $1,086,483 66 0.10326114 1,968,270.98 66 0.10326114 112,191.45 66 0.10326114 74,278.61 

3,955.67 13,844,861.06 37,578.91 $789,157 67 0.099769217 1,381,290.95 67 0.099769217 78,733.58 67 0.099769217 52,127.16 

2,554.74 8,941,595.44 24,270.04 $509,671 68 0.096395379 861,928.48 68 0.096395379 49,129.92 68 0.096395379 32,527.46 

1,237.86 4,332,525.49 11,759.71 $246,954 69 0.093135632 403,512.50 69 0.093135632 23,000.21 69 0.093135632 15,227.75 

-- - $0 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 ­

-- - $0 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 ­

-- - $0 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 ­

-- - $0 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 ­

-- - $0 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 ­

-- - $0 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 ­

-- - $0 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 ­

-- - $0 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 ­

-- - $0 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 ­

-- - $0 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 ­

-- - $0 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 ­

-- - $0 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 ­

7,554,068.67 $26,439,243,855 71,763,652.39 1,507,036,700.21 12,065,732,798 687,746,769 455,336,624 

A-33 
1

23456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647

Appendix A 

Alternative D - 150 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

82,006.70 287,023,458.16 779,063.67 $16,360,337 0.966183575 277,317,350.88 1 0.966183575 15,807,089.00 1 0.966183575 10,465,402.19 

123,121.27 430,924,447.29 1,169,652.07 $24,562,693 0.9335107 402,272,582.60 2 0.9335107 22,929,537.21 2 0.9335107 15,180,962.72 

154,529.53 540,853,349.87 1,468,030.52 $30,828,641 0.901942706 487,818,733.75 3 0.901942706 27,805,667.82 3 0.901942706 18,409,303.37 

180,872.88 633,055,078.36 1,718,292.36 $36,084,139 0.871442228 551,670,927.75 4 0.871442228 31,445,242.88 4 0.871442228 20,818,957.47 203,976.69 713,918,404.87 1,937,778.53 $40,693,349 0.841973167 601,100,140.23 5 0.841973167 34,262,707.99 5 0.841973167 22,684,317.09 224,781.57 786,735,497.36 2,135,424.92 $44,843,923 0.813500644 640,009,834.00 6 0.813500644 36,480,560.54 6 0.813500644 24,152,691.12 243,847.17 853,465,095.76 2,316,548.12 $48,647,510 0.785990961 670,815,850.53 7 0.785990961 38,236,503.48 7 0.785990961 25,315,248.57 261,538.20 915,383,691.31 2,484,612.88 $52,176,870 0.759411556 695,152,953.55 8 0.759411556 39,623,718.35 8 0.759411556 26,233,682.16 278,320.81 974,122,821.57 2,644,047.66 $55,525,001 0.733730972 714,744,084.90 9 0.733730972 40,740,412.84 9 0.733730972 26,973,012.28 294,164.80 1,029,576,796.03 2,794,565.59 $58,685,877 0.708918814 729,886,360.87 10 0.708918814 41,603,522.57 10 0.708918814 27,544,451.49 

309,058.15 1,081,703,534.24 2,936,052.45 $61,657,101 0.684945714 740,908,199.30 11 0.684945714 42,231,767.36 11 0.684945714 27,960,393.63 

323,057.91 1,130,702,669.59 3,069,050.10 $64,450,052 0.661783298 748,280,142.07 12 0.661783298 42,651,968.10 12 0.661783298 28,238,596.00 

336,217.67 1,176,761,851.78 3,194,067.88 $67,075,426 0.639404153 752,426,415.05 13 0.639404153 42,888,305.66 13 0.639404153 28,395,068.05 

348,587.85 1,220,057,481.71 3,311,584.59 $69,543,276 0.61778179 753,729,295.29 14 0.61778179 42,962,569.83 14 0.61778179 28,444,236.15 

360,215.82 1,260,755,373.73 3,422,050.30 $71,863,056 0.596890619 752,533,054.96 15 0.596890619 42,894,384.13 15 0.596890619 28,399,092.43 

289,139.41 1,011,987,933.49 2,746,824.39 $57,683,312 0.576705912 583,619,423.83 16 0.576705912 33,266,307.16 16 0.576705912 22,024,629.82 

258,299.31 904,047,598.15 2,453,843.48 $51,530,713 0.557203779 503,738,738.48 17 0.557203779 28,713,108.09 17 0.557203779 19,010,092.51 

236,549.06 827,921,710.03 2,247,216.07 $47,191,537 0.53836114 445,720,875.27 18 0.53836114 25,406,089.89 18 0.53836114 16,820,614.39 

219,284.23 767,494,813.87 2,083,200.21 $43,747,204 0.52015569 399,216,794.78 19 0.52015569 22,755,357.30 19 0.52015569 15,065,643.40 

204,714.24 716,499,829.04 1,944,785.25 $40,840,490 0.502565884 360,088,370.28 20 0.502565884 20,525,037.11 20 0.502565884 13,589,014.92 

191,931.14 671,758,977.15 1,823,345.80 $38,290,262 0.485570903 326,186,613.02 21 0.485570903 18,592,636.94 21 0.485570903 12,309,630.40 

180,406.01 631,421,045.44 1,713,857.12 $35,991,000 0.469150631 296,231,581.74 22 0.469150631 16,885,200.16 22 0.469150631 11,179,187.43 

169,803.03 594,310,615.06 1,613,128.81 $33,875,705 0.453285634 269,392,463.69 23 0.453285634 15,355,370.43 23 0.453285634 10,166,332.79 

159,683.19 558,891,159.14 1,516,990.29 $31,856,796 0.437957134 244,770,370.22 24 0.437957134 13,951,911.10 24 0.437957134 9,237,144.23 

150,102.19 525,357,678.53 1,425,970.84 $29,945,388 0.423146989 222,303,519.96 25 0.423146989 12,671,300.64 25 0.423146989 8,389,290.24 

141,096.06 493,836,204.61 1,340,412.56 $28,148,664 0.408837671 201,898,843.65 26 0.408837671 11,508,234.09 26 0.408837671 7,619,258.56 

132,630.29 464,206,017.81 1,259,987.76 $26,459,743 0.395012242 183,367,059.99 27 0.395012242 10,451,922.42 27 0.395012242 6,919,906.11 

124,672.47 436,353,647.16 1,184,388.47 $24,872,158 0.38165434 166,536,263.39 28 0.38165434 9,492,567.01 28 0.38165434 6,284,745.51 

117,192.12 410,172,419.19 1,113,325.14 $23,379,828 0.368748155 151,250,322.80 29 0.368748155 8,621,268.40 29 0.368748155 5,707,884.68 

110,160.59 385,562,064.93 1,046,525.60 $21,977,038 0.356278411 137,367,439.68 30 0.356278411 7,829,944.06 30 0.356278411 5,183,972.44 

103,550.95 362,428,331.61 983,734.04 $20,658,415 0.344230348 124,758,830.86 31 0.344230348 7,111,253.36 31 0.344230348 4,708,148.76 

97,337.89 340,682,625.50 924,709.98 $19,418,910 0.332589709 113,307,535.14 32 0.332589709 6,458,529.50 32 0.332589709 4,275,999.76 

91,497.62 320,241,661.87 869,227.37 $18,253,775 0.321342714 102,907,324.64 33 0.321342714 5,865,717.50 33 0.321342714 3,883,516.62 

86,007.76 301,027,157.38 817,073.71 $17,158,548 0.310476052 93,461,723.31 34 0.310476052 5,327,318.23 34 0.310476052 3,527,058.51 

80,847.29 282,965,524.16 768,049.28 $16,129,035 0.299976862 84,883,109.90 35 0.299976862 4,838,337.26 35 0.299976862 3,203,318.80 

75,996.45 265,987,590.01 721,966.32 $15,161,293 0.289832717 77,091,905.79 36 0.289832717 4,394,238.63 36 0.289832717 2,909,294.34 

71,436.67 250,028,331.39 678,648.33 $14,251,615 0.28003161 70,015,836.24 37 0.28003161 3,990,902.67 37 0.28003161 2,642,257.63 

67,150.47 235,026,630.60 637,929.43 $13,396,518 0.270561942 63,589,261.65 38 0.270561942 3,624,587.91 38 0.270561942 2,399,731.56 

63,121.44 220,925,033.30 599,653.66 $12,592,727 0.261412505 57,752,566.28 39 0.261412505 3,291,896.28 39 0.261412505 2,179,466.35 

59,334.15 207,669,531.35 563,674.44 $11,837,163 0.252572468 52,451,606.10 40 0.252572468 2,989,741.55 40 0.252572468 1,979,418.71 

53,446.93 187,064,267.06 507,745.87 $10,662,663 0.24403137 45,649,549.41 41 0.24403137 2,602,024.32 41 0.24403137 1,722,722.70 

47,912.95 167,695,318.51 455,173.01 $9,558,633 0.235779102 39,539,051.55 42 0.235779102 2,253,725.94 42 0.235779102 1,492,124.73 

42,711.00 149,488,506.97 405,754.52 $8,520,845 0.227805895 34,054,363.17 43 0.227805895 1,941,098.70 43 0.227805895 1,285,143.56 

37,821.17 132,374,105.01 359,301.14 $7,545,324 0.220102314 29,135,846.87 44 0.220102314 1,660,743.27 44 0.220102314 1,099,528.59 

33,224.73 116,286,567.25 315,634.97 $6,628,334 0.212659241 24,729,413.12 45 0.212659241 1,409,576.55 45 0.212659241 933,238.59 

28,904.08 101,164,282.66 274,588.77 $5,766,364 0.205467866 20,786,009.23 46 0.205467866 1,184,802.53 46 0.205467866 784,422.42 

24,842.67 86,949,334.96 236,005.34 $4,956,112 0.198519677 17,261,153.88 47 0.198519677 983,885.77 47 0.198519677 651,401.43 

A-34 
Appendix A 

Alternative D - 150 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

21,024.94 73,587,284.15 199,736.91 $4,194,475 48 0.191806451 14,114,515.82 48 0.191806451 804,527.40 48 0.191806451 532,653.60 

17,436.27 61,026,956.30 165,644.60 $3,478,537 49 0.185320243 11,309,530.35 49 0.185320243 644,643.23 49 0.185320243 426,799.06 

14,062.93 49,220,247.83 133,597.82 $2,805,554 50 0.179053375 8,813,051.47 50 0.179053375 502,343.93 50 0.179053375 332,586.94 

10,891.98 38,121,941.39 103,473.84 $2,172,951 51 0.172998429 6,595,035.99 51 0.172998429 375,917.05 51 0.172998429 248,883.47 

7,911.30 27,689,533.32 75,157.30 $1,578,303 52 0.167148241 4,628,256.79 52 0.167148241 263,810.64 52 0.167148241 174,661.15 

5,109.45 17,883,068.94 48,539.76 $1,019,335 53 0.161495885 2,888,042.05 53 0.161495885 164,618.40 53 0.161495885 108,988.93 

2,475.71 8,664,991.90 23,519.26 $493,905 54 0.156034672 1,352,039.17 54 0.156034672 77,066.23 54 0.156034672 51,023.25 

-- - $0 55 0.150758137 - 55 0.150758137 - 55 0.150758137 ­

-- - $0 56 0.145660036 - 56 0.145660036 - 56 0.145660036 ­

-- - $0 57 0.140734334 - 57 0.140734334 - 57 0.140734334 ­

-- - $0 58 0.135975202 - 58 0.135975202 - 58 0.135975202 ­

-- - $0 59 0.131377007 - 59 0.131377007 - 59 0.131377007 ­

-- - $0 60 0.126934306 - 60 0.126934306 - 60 0.126934306 ­

-- - $0 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 ­

-- - $0 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 ­

-- - $0 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 ­

-- - $0 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 ­

-- - $0 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 ­

-- - $0 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 ­

-- - $0 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 ­

-- - $0 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 ­

-- - $0 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 ­

-- - $0 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 ­

-- - $0 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 ­

-- - $0 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 ­

-- - $0 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 ­

-- - $0 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 ­

-- - $0 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 ­

-- - $0 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 ­

-- - $0 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 ­

-- - $0 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 ­

-- - $0 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 ­

-- - $0 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 ­

-- - $0 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 ­

7,554,017.17 $26,439,063,589 71,763,163.10 1,507,026,425.05 15,111,430,165 861,351,519 570,275,152 

A-35 
1

23456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647

Appendix A 

Alternative D - 250 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

136,677.84 478,372,430.26 1,298,439.45 $27,267,229 0.966183575 462,195,584.79 1 0.966183575 26,345,148.33 1 0.966183575 17,442,336.98 

205,202.12 718,207,412.16 1,949,420.12 $40,937,822 0.9335107 670,454,304.33 2 0.9335107 38,215,895.35 2 0.9335107 25,301,604.54 

257,549.21 901,422,249.78 2,446,717.54 $51,381,068 0.901942706 813,031,222.91 3 0.901942706 46,342,779.71 3 0.901942706 30,682,172.29 

301,454.80 1,055,091,797.27 2,863,820.59 $60,140,232 0.871442228 919,451,546.24 4 0.871442228 52,408,738.14 4 0.871442228 34,698,262.45 

339,961.15 1,189,864,008.12 3,229,630.88 $67,822,248 0.841973167 1,001,833,567.05 5 0.841973167 57,104,513.32 5 0.841973167 37,807,195.15 

374,635.95 1,311,225,828.93 3,559,041.54 $74,739,872 0.813500644 1,066,683,056.67 6 0.813500644 60,800,934.23 6 0.813500644 40,254,485.19 

406,411.95 1,422,441,826.27 3,860,913.53 $81,079,184 0.785990961 1,118,026,417.54 7 0.785990961 63,727,505.80 7 0.785990961 42,192,080.95 

435,897.00 1,525,639,485.51 4,141,021.46 $86,961,451 0.759411556 1,158,588,255.92 8 0.759411556 66,039,530.59 8 0.759411556 43,722,803.60 

463,868.01 1,623,538,035.94 4,406,746.10 $92,541,668 0.733730972 1,191,240,141.50 9 0.733730972 67,900,688.07 9 0.733730972 44,955,020.46 

353,596.83 1,237,588,896.46 3,359,169.86 $70,542,567 0.708918814 877,350,052.34 10 0.708918814 50,008,952.98 10 0.708918814 33,109,436.28 

309,894.80 1,084,631,811.58 2,944,000.63 $61,824,013 0.684945714 742,913,910.31 11 0.684945714 42,346,092.89 11 0.684945714 28,036,085.15 

280,880.63 983,082,199.55 2,668,365.97 $56,035,685 0.661783298 650,587,380.51 12 0.661783298 37,083,480.69 12 0.661783298 24,551,866.57 

258,907.99 906,177,955.69 2,459,625.88 $51,652,143 0.639404153 579,413,948.17 13 0.639404153 33,026,595.05 13 0.639404153 21,865,923.58 

241,018.61 843,565,128.06 2,289,676.78 $48,083,212 0.61778179 521,139,175.03 14 0.61778179 29,704,932.98 14 0.61778179 19,666,750.19 

225,723.75 790,033,127.28 2,144,375.63 $45,031,888 0.596890619 471,563,362.08 15 0.596890619 26,879,111.64 15 0.596890619 17,795,858.16 

212,164.90 742,577,159.81 2,015,566.58 $42,326,898 0.576705912 428,248,637.97 16 0.576705912 24,410,172.36 16 0.576705912 16,161,247.10 

199,803.98 699,313,923.56 1,898,137.79 $39,860,894 0.557203779 389,660,361.22 17 0.557203779 22,210,640.59 17 0.557203779 14,705,002.71 

187,929.64 657,753,730.55 1,785,331.55 $37,491,963 0.53836114 354,109,047.92 18 0.53836114 20,184,215.73 18 0.53836114 13,363,367.25 

176,653.86 618,288,493.68 1,678,211.63 $35,242,444 0.52015569 321,606,278.29 19 0.52015569 18,331,557.86 19 0.52015569 12,136,777.73 

166,054.62 581,191,166.12 1,577,518.88 $33,127,896 0.502565884 292,086,852.43 20 0.502565884 16,648,950.59 20 0.502565884 11,022,773.64 

156,091.34 546,319,674.86 1,482,867.69 $31,140,221 0.485570903 265,276,937.76 21 0.485570903 15,120,785.45 21 0.485570903 10,011,021.08 

146,725.85 513,540,482.36 1,393,895.59 $29,271,807 0.469150631 240,927,841.22 22 0.469150631 13,732,886.95 22 0.469150631 9,092,134.87 

137,922.30 482,728,041.10 1,310,261.83 $27,515,498 0.453285634 218,813,685.96 23 0.453285634 12,472,380.10 23 0.453285634 8,257,590.88 

129,646.96 453,764,344.96 1,231,646.08 $25,864,568 0.437957134 198,729,331.98 24 0.437957134 11,327,571.92 24 0.437957134 7,499,647.53 

121,868.13 426,538,471.52 1,157,747.28 $24,312,693 0.423146989 180,488,470.03 25 0.423146989 10,287,842.79 25 0.423146989 6,811,273.88 

114,556.04 400,946,155.68 1,088,282.42 $22,853,931 0.408837671 163,921,892.40 26 0.408837671 9,343,547.87 26 0.408837671 6,186,084.38 

107,682.68 376,889,379.18 1,022,985.46 $21,482,695 0.395012242 148,875,918.77 27 0.395012242 8,485,927.37 27 0.395012242 5,618,279.42 

101,221.72 354,276,011.17 961,606.32 $20,193,733 0.38165434 135,210,977.36 28 0.38165434 7,707,025.71 28 0.38165434 5,102,591.86 

95,148.41 333,019,444.97 903,909.92 $18,982,108 0.368748155 122,800,305.90 29 0.368748155 6,999,617.44 29 0.368748155 4,634,237.94 

89,439.51 313,038,273.58 849,675.31 $17,843,182 0.356278411 111,528,778.57 30 0.356278411 6,357,140.38 30 0.356278411 4,208,873.05 

84,073.13 294,255,970.09 798,694.78 $16,772,590 0.344230348 101,291,835.11 31 0.344230348 5,773,634.60 31 0.344230348 3,822,551.27 

79,028.75 276,600,607.64 750,773.08 $15,766,235 0.332589709 91,994,515.49 32 0.332589709 5,243,687.38 32 0.332589709 3,471,689.03 

74,287.02 260,004,568.43 705,726.69 $14,820,260 0.321342714 83,550,573.58 33 0.321342714 4,762,382.69 33 0.321342714 3,153,031.55 

69,829.80 244,404,291.76 663,383.08 $13,931,045 0.310476052 75,881,679.55 34 0.310476052 4,325,255.73 34 0.310476052 2,863,622.82 

65,640.01 229,740,032.04 623,580.09 $13,095,182 0.299976862 68,916,693.81 35 0.299976862 3,928,251.55 35 0.299976862 2,600,778.19 

61,701.61 215,955,628.53 586,165.28 $12,309,471 0.289832717 62,591,006.48 36 0.289832717 3,567,687.37 36 0.289832717 2,362,059.40 

57,999.51 202,998,289.42 550,995.36 $11,570,902 0.28003161 56,845,937.86 37 0.28003161 3,240,218.46 37 0.28003161 2,145,252.00 

54,519.54 190,818,393.45 517,935.64 $10,876,648 0.270561942 51,628,195.15 38 0.270561942 2,942,807.12 38 0.270561942 1,948,344.83 

51,248.37 179,369,292.25 486,859.51 $10,224,050 0.261412505 46,889,375.93 39 0.261412505 2,672,694.43 39 0.261412505 1,769,511.27 

48,173.47 168,607,137.76 457,647.95 $9,610,607 0.252572468 42,585,520.94 40 0.252572468 2,427,374.69 40 0.252572468 1,607,092.39 

41,404.45 144,915,558.27 393,342.23 $8,260,187 0.24403137 35,363,942.25 41 0.24403137 2,015,744.71 41 0.24403137 1,334,564.45 

35,041.56 122,645,473.58 332,894.86 $6,990,792 0.235779102 28,917,239.58 42 0.235779102 1,648,282.66 42 0.235779102 1,091,278.79 

29,060.46 101,711,593.83 276,074.33 $5,797,561 0.227805895 23,170,500.70 43 0.227805895 1,320,718.54 43 0.227805895 874,408.36 

23,438.21 82,033,746.39 222,663.03 $4,675,924 0.220102314 18,055,817.43 44 0.220102314 1,029,181.59 44 0.220102314 681,390.44 

18,153.31 63,536,568.98 172,456.40 $3,621,584 0.212659241 13,511,638.53 45 0.212659241 770,163.40 45 0.212659241 509,902.21 

13,185.49 46,149,222.20 125,262.17 $2,630,506 0.205467866 9,482,182.18 46 0.205467866 540,484.38 46 0.205467866 357,838.59 

8,515.75 29,805,114.91 80,899.60 $1,698,892 0.198519677 5,916,901.78 47 0.198519677 337,263.40 47 0.198519677 223,292.04 

A-36 
Appendix A 

Alternative D - 250 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

4,126.19 14,441,653.17 39,198.77 $823,174 48 0.191806451 2,770,002.24 48 0.191806451 157,890.13 48 0.191806451 104,534.34 

-- - $0 49 0.185320243 - 49 0.185320243 - 49 0.185320243 ­

-- - $0 50 0.179053375 - 50 0.179053375 - 50 0.179053375 ­-- - $0 51 0.172998429 - 51 0.172998429 - 51 0.172998429 ­-- - $0 52 0.167148241 - 52 0.167148241 - 52 0.167148241 ­-- - $0 53 0.161495885 - 53 0.161495885 - 53 0.161495885 ­-- - $0 54 0.156034672 - 54 0.156034672 - 54 0.156034672 ­-- - $0 55 0.150758137 - 55 0.150758137 - 55 0.150758137 ­-- - $0 56 0.145660036 - 56 0.145660036 - 56 0.145660036 ­-- - $0 57 0.140734334 - 57 0.140734334 - 57 0.140734334 ­-- - $0 58 0.135975202 - 58 0.135975202 - 58 0.135975202 ­-- - $0 59 0.131377007 - 59 0.131377007 - 59 0.131377007 ­-- - $0 60 0.126934306 - 60 0.126934306 - 60 0.126934306 ­-- - $0 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 ­-- - $0 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 ­-- - $0 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 ­-- - $0 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 ­-- - $0 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 ­-- - $0 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 ­

-- - $0 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 ­

-- - $0 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 ­-- - $0 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 ­-- - $0 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 ­-- - $0 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 ­-- - $0 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 ­-- - $0 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 ­-- - $0 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 ­-- - $0 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 ­-- - $0 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 ­-- - $0 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 ­-- - $0 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 ­-- - $0 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 ­-- - $0 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 ­-- - $0 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 ­

7,554,017.17 $26,439,063,589 71,763,163.10 1,507,026,425.05 16,636,120,802 948,258,886 627,813,927 

A-37 
Appendix A


LOF PRODUCTION CURVE

Alternative D 

0

50

500 450400350300250200150100

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 

Production Year No. 

Thousands of MMCF 

75 wells 150 Wells 250 Wells 

A-38

1

23456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647

Appendix A 

Alternative E - 75 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

25,655.53 89,794,366.68 243,727.57 $5,118,279 0.966183575 86,757,842.20 1 0.966183575 4,945,197.01 1 0.966183575 3,274,067.45 

38,518.09 134,813,328.77 365,921.89 $7,684,360 0.9335107 125,849,684.96 2 0.9335107 7,173,432.04 2 0.9335107 4,749,315.41 

48,344.07 169,204,232.74 459,268.63 $9,644,641 0.901942706 152,612,523.49 3 0.901942706 8,698,913.84 3 0.901942706 5,759,291.41 

56,585.50 198,049,247.26 537,562.24 $11,288,807 0.871442228 172,588,477.23 4 0.871442228 9,837,543.20 4 0.871442228 6,513,143.95 

63,813.45 223,347,079.14 606,227.79 $12,730,784 0.841973167 188,052,247.54 5 0.841973167 10,718,978.11 5 0.841973167 7,096,715.72 

70,322.19 246,127,672.57 668,060.83 $14,029,277 0.813500644 200,225,020.22 6 0.813500644 11,412,826.15 6 0.813500644 7,556,091.81 

76,286.80 267,003,813.02 724,724.64 $15,219,217 0.785990961 209,862,583.51 7 0.785990961 11,962,167.26 7 0.785990961 7,919,794.18 

81,821.38 286,374,846.70 777,303.16 $16,323,366 0.759411556 217,476,367.99 8 0.759411556 12,396,152.98 8 0.759411556 8,207,123.18 

87,071.77 304,751,194.87 827,181.81 $17,370,818 0.733730972 223,605,390.49 9 0.733730972 12,745,507.26 9 0.733730972 8,438,420.23 

92,028.51 322,099,792.61 874,270.87 $18,359,688 0.708918814 228,342,602.87 10 0.708918814 13,015,528.36 10 0.708918814 8,617,193.15 

96,687.85 338,407,475.17 918,534.58 $19,289,226 0.684945714 231,790,749.61 11 0.684945714 13,212,072.73 11 0.684945714 8,747,319.31 

101,067.63 353,736,697.23 960,142.46 $20,162,992 0.661783298 234,097,038.22 12 0.661783298 13,343,531.18 12 0.661783298 8,834,354.03 105,184.62 368,146,164.39 999,253.87 $20,984,331 0.639404153 235,394,186.40 13 0.639404153 13,417,468.62 13 0.639404153 8,883,305.81 109,054.59 381,691,063.11 1,036,018.60 $21,756,391 0.61778179 235,801,788.30 14 0.61778179 13,440,701.93 14 0.61778179 8,898,687.89 

112,692.36 394,423,267.86 1,070,577.44 $22,482,126 0.596890619 235,427,548.35 15 0.596890619 13,419,370.26 15 0.596890619 8,884,564.82 

116,111.87 406,391,540.15 1,103,062.75 $23,164,318 0.576705912 234,368,403.68 16 0.576705912 13,358,999.01 16 0.576705912 8,844,594.82 

119,326.20 417,641,715.15 1,133,598.94 $23,805,578 0.557203779 232,711,542.13 17 0.557203779 13,264,557.90 17 0.557203779 8,782,068.18 

122,347.68 428,216,879.61 1,162,302.96 $24,408,362 0.53836114 230,535,327.28 18 0.53836114 13,140,513.66 18 0.53836114 8,699,942.18 

125,187.87 438,157,533.82 1,189,284.73 $24,974,979 0.52015569 227,910,134.50 19 0.52015569 12,990,877.67 19 0.52015569 8,600,872.66 

127,857.64 447,501,748.54 1,214,647.60 $25,507,600 0.502565884 224,899,112.04 20 0.502565884 12,819,249.39 20 0.502565884 8,487,242.69 

130,367.23 456,285,310.21 1,238,488.70 $26,008,263 0.485570903 221,558,870.03 21 0.485570903 12,628,855.59 21 0.485570903 8,361,188.64 

132,726.25 464,541,858.33 1,260,899.33 $26,478,886 0.469150631 217,940,105.85 22 0.469150631 12,422,586.03 22 0.469150631 8,224,623.71 

134,943.72 472,303,013.10 1,281,965.32 $26,921,272 0.453285634 214,088,170.53 23 0.453285634 12,203,025.72 23 0.453285634 8,079,259.38 

137,028.14 479,598,498.29 1,301,767.35 $27,337,114 0.437957134 210,043,583.73 24 0.437957134 11,972,484.27 24 0.437957134 7,926,624.76 

138,987.50 486,456,254.36 1,320,381.26 $27,728,006 0.423146989 205,842,499.44 25 0.423146989 11,733,022.47 25 0.423146989 7,768,084.24 

140,829.30 492,902,545.09 1,337,878.34 $28,095,445 0.408837671 201,517,128.46 26 0.408837671 11,486,476.32 26 0.408837671 7,604,853.39 

142,560.59 498,962,058.41 1,354,325.59 $28,440,837 0.395012242 197,096,121.52 27 0.395012242 11,234,478.93 27 0.395012242 7,438,013.43 

144,188.00 504,658,000.90 1,369,786.00 $28,765,506 0.38165434 192,604,916.46 28 0.38165434 10,978,480.24 28 0.38165434 7,268,524.34 

145,717.77 510,012,186.57 1,384,318.79 $29,070,695 0.368748155 188,066,052.81 29 0.368748155 10,719,765.01 29 0.368748155 7,097,236.70 

147,155.75 515,045,121.06 1,397,979.61 $29,357,572 0.356278411 183,499,457.12 30 0.356278411 10,459,469.06 30 0.356278411 6,924,902.51 

148,507.45 519,776,079.21 1,410,820.79 $29,627,237 0.344230348 178,922,700.84 31 0.344230348 10,198,593.95 31 0.344230348 6,752,184.88 

149,778.05 524,223,179.93 1,422,891.49 $29,880,721 0.332589709 174,351,234.66 32 0.332589709 9,938,020.38 32 0.332589709 6,579,666.89 

150,972.42 528,403,454.59 1,434,237.95 $30,118,997 0.321342714 169,798,599.99 33 0.321342714 9,678,520.20 33 0.321342714 6,407,859.57 

152,095.12 532,332,912.80 1,444,903.62 $30,342,976 0.310476052 165,276,621.02 34 0.310476052 9,420,767.40 34 0.310476052 6,237,209.12 

153,150.46 536,026,603.61 1,454,929.35 $30,553,516 0.299976862 160,795,578.32 35 0.299976862 9,165,347.96 35 0.299976862 6,068,103.53 

154,142.48 539,498,673.12 1,464,353.54 $30,751,424 0.289832717 156,364,366.02 36 0.289832717 8,912,768.86 36 0.289832717 5,900,878.44 

155,074.98 542,762,418.47 1,473,212.28 $30,937,458 0.28003161 151,990,634.01 37 0.28003161 8,663,466.14 37 0.28003161 5,735,822.55 

155,951.53 545,830,339.34 1,481,539.49 $31,112,329 0.270561942 147,680,916.75 38 0.270561942 8,417,812.25 38 0.270561942 5,573,182.44 

156,775.48 548,714,185.12 1,489,367.07 $31,276,709 0.261412505 143,440,749.43 39 0.261412505 8,176,122.72 39 0.261412505 5,413,167.00 

157,550.00 551,425,000.00 1,496,725.00 $31,431,225 0.252572468 139,274,773.27 40 0.252572468 7,938,662.08 40 0.252572468 5,255,951.39 

131,894.47 461,630,633.32 1,252,997.43 $26,312,946 0.24403137 112,652,355.99 41 0.24403137 6,421,184.29 41 0.24403137 4,251,274.61 119,031.91 416,611,671.23 1,130,803.11 $23,746,865 0.235779102 98,228,325.59 42 0.235779102 5,599,014.56 42 0.235779102 3,706,940.55 

109,205.93 382,220,767.26 1,037,456.37 $21,786,584 0.227805895 87,072,144.10 43 0.227805895 4,963,112.21 43 0.227805895 3,285,928.57 

100,964.50 353,375,752.74 959,162.76 $20,142,418 0.220102314 77,778,821.01 44 0.220102314 4,433,392.80 44 0.220102314 2,935,217.15 

93,736.55 328,077,920.86 890,497.21 $18,700,441 0.212659241 69,768,801.61 45 0.212659241 3,976,821.69 45 0.212659241 2,632,935.04 

87,227.81 305,297,327.43 828,664.17 $17,401,948 0.205467866 62,728,790.24 46 0.205467866 3,575,541.04 46 0.205467866 2,367,259.09 

81,263.20 284,421,186.98 772,000.36 $16,212,008 0.198519677 56,463,202.15 47 0.198519677 3,218,402.52 47 0.198519677 2,130,808.32 

A-39 
Appendix A 

Alternative E - 75 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

75,728.62 265,050,153.30 719,421.84 $15,107,859 48 0.191806451 50,838,329.28 48 0.191806451 2,897,784.77 48 0.191806451 1,918,536.87 

70,478.23 246,673,805.13 669,543.19 $14,060,407 49 0.185320243 45,713,649.42 49 0.185320243 2,605,678.02 49 0.185320243 1,725,141.70 

65,521.49 229,325,207.39 622,454.13 $13,071,537 50 0.179053375 41,061,452.25 50 0.179053375 2,340,502.78 50 0.179053375 1,549,577.08 

60,862.15 213,017,524.83 578,190.42 $12,141,999 51 0.172998429 36,851,697.25 51 0.172998429 2,100,546.74 51 0.172998429 1,390,709.35 

56,482.37 197,688,302.77 536,582.54 $11,268,233 52 0.167148241 33,043,252.09 52 0.167148241 1,883,465.37 52 0.167148241 1,246,986.25 

52,365.38 183,278,835.61 497,471.13 $10,446,894 53 0.161495885 29,598,777.77 53 0.161495885 1,687,130.33 53 0.161495885 1,116,998.68 

48,495.41 169,733,936.89 460,706.40 $9,674,834 54 0.156034672 26,484,379.10 54 0.156034672 1,509,609.61 54 0.156034672 999,467.50 

44,857.64 157,001,732.14 426,147.56 $8,949,099 55 0.150758137 23,669,288.61 55 0.150758137 1,349,149.45 55 0.150758137 893,231.61 

41,438.13 145,033,459.85 393,662.25 $8,266,907 56 0.145660036 21,125,578.92 56 0.145660036 1,204,158.00 56 0.145660036 797,237.10 

38,223.80 133,783,284.85 363,126.06 $7,625,647 57 0.140734334 18,827,901.47 57 0.140734334 1,073,190.38 57 0.140734334 710,527.35 

35,202.32 123,208,120.39 334,422.04 $7,022,863 58 0.135975202 16,753,249.03 58 0.135975202 954,935.19 58 0.135975202 632,234.11 

32,362.13 113,267,466.18 307,440.27 $6,456,246 59 0.131377007 14,880,740.65 59 0.131377007 848,202.22 59 0.131377007 561,569.39 

29,692.36 103,923,251.46 282,077.40 $5,923,625 60 0.126934306 13,191,425.79 60 0.126934306 751,911.27 60 0.126934306 497,818.03 

27,182.77 95,139,689.79 258,236.30 $5,422,962 61 0.122641841 11,668,106.75 61 0.122641841 665,082.08 61 0.122641841 440,331.01 

24,823.75 86,883,141.67 235,825.67 $4,952,339 62 0.118494533 10,295,177.28 62 0.118494533 586,825.10 62 0.118494533 388,519.40 

22,606.28 79,121,986.90 214,759.68 $4,509,953 63 0.114487471 9,058,476.20 63 0.114487471 516,333.14 63 0.114487471 341,848.77 

20,521.86 71,826,501.71 194,957.65 $4,094,111 64 0.110615914 7,945,154.16 64 0.110615914 452,873.79 64 0.110615914 299,834.23 

18,562.50 64,968,745.64 176,343.74 $3,703,219 65 0.106875279 6,943,552.85 65 0.106875279 395,782.51 65 0.106875279 262,035.80 

16,720.70 58,522,454.91 158,846.66 $3,335,780 66 0.10326114 6,043,095.39 66 0.10326114 344,456.44 66 0.10326114 228,054.33 14,989.41 52,462,941.59 142,399.41 $2,990,388 67 0.099769217 5,234,186.60 67 0.099769217 298,348.64 67 0.099769217 197,527.73 

13,362.00 46,766,999.10 126,939.00 $2,665,719 68 0.096395379 4,508,122.59 68 0.096395379 256,962.99 68 0.096395379 170,127.53 

11,832.23 41,412,813.43 112,406.21 $2,360,530 69 0.093135632 3,857,008.54 69 0.093135632 219,849.49 69 0.093135632 145,555.79 

10,394.25 36,379,878.94 98,745.39 $2,073,653 70 0.089986118 3,273,684.06 70 0.089986118 186,599.99 70 0.089986118 123,542.29 

9,042.55 31,648,920.79 85,904.21 $1,803,988 71 0.086943109 2,751,655.56 71 0.086943109 156,844.37 71 0.086943109 103,841.98 

7,771.95 27,201,820.07 73,833.51 $1,550,504 72 0.084003004 2,285,034.59 72 0.084003004 130,246.97 72 0.084003004 86,232.64 

6,577.58 23,021,545.41 62,487.05 $1,312,228 73 0.081162322 1,868,482.09 73 0.081162322 106,503.48 73 0.081162322 70,512.78 

5,454.88 19,092,087.20 51,821.38 $1,088,249 74 0.078417703 1,497,157.62 74 0.078417703 85,337.98 74 0.078417703 56,499.73 

4,399.54 15,398,396.39 41,795.65 $877,709 75 0.075765896 1,166,673.30 75 0.075765896 66,500.38 75 0.075765896 44,027.92 

3,407.52 11,926,326.88 32,371.46 $679,801 76 0.073203765 873,052.03 76 0.073203765 49,763.97 76 0.073203765 32,947.24 

2,475.02 8,662,581.53 23,512.72 $493,767 77 0.070728275 612,689.45 77 0.070728275 34,923.30 77 0.070728275 23,121.67 

1,598.47 5,594,660.66 15,185.51 $318,896 78 0.068336498 382,319.51 78 0.068336498 21,792.21 78 0.068336498 14,427.97 

774.52	 2,710,814.88 7,357.93 $154,516 79 0.066025601 178,983.18 79 0.066025601 10,202.04 79 0.066025601 6,754.47 

-- - $0 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 ­

-- - $0 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 ­

6,302,000.00 $22,057,003,500 59,869,000.00 1,257,249,000.00	 8,765,636,425 499,641,276 330,797,587 

A-40 
1

23456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647

Appendix A 

Alternative E - 150 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

48,868.00 171,037,992.37 464,245.98 $9,749,166 0.966183575 165,254,098.91 1 0.966183575 9,419,483.64 1 0.966183575 6,236,359.18 

73,368.27 256,788,949.60 696,998.58 $14,636,970 0.9335107 239,715,232.18 2 0.9335107 13,663,768.23 2 0.9335107 9,046,373.43 

92,084.53 322,295,855.97 874,803.04 $18,370,864 0.901942706 290,692,396.36 3 0.901942706 16,569,466.59 3 0.901942706 10,970,149.65 

107,782.60 377,239,095.23 1,023,934.69 $21,502,628 0.871442228 328,742,077.52 4 0.871442228 18,738,298.42 4 0.871442228 12,406,068.52 

121,550.22 425,425,752.56 1,154,727.04 $24,249,268 0.841973167 358,197,068.14 5 0.841973167 20,417,232.88 5 0.841973167 13,517,640.96 

133,947.90 468,817,639.02 1,272,505.02 $26,722,605 0.813500644 381,383,451.41 6 0.813500644 21,738,856.73 6 0.813500644 14,392,648.69 

145,309.14 508,581,972.63 1,380,436.78 $28,989,172 0.785990961 399,740,833.25 7 0.785990961 22,785,227.50 7 0.785990961 15,085,419.57 

155,851.26 545,479,417.67 1,480,586.99 $31,092,327 0.759411556 414,243,373.46 8 0.759411556 23,611,872.29 8 0.759411556 15,632,716.43 

165,852.06 580,482,211.44 1,575,594.57 $33,087,486 0.733730972 425,917,777.34 9 0.733730972 24,277,313.31 9 0.733730972 16,073,285.08 

175,293.54 613,527,372.71 1,665,288.58 $34,971,060 0.708918814 434,941,097.24 10 0.708918814 24,791,642.54 10 0.708918814 16,413,807.13 

184,168.52 644,589,825.61 1,749,600.96 $36,741,620 0.684945714 441,509,038.17 11 0.684945714 25,166,015.18 11 0.684945714 16,661,668.08 

192,511.01 673,788,532.20 1,828,854.59 $38,405,946 0.661783298 445,901,997.19 12 0.661783298 25,416,413.84 12 0.661783298 16,827,449.57 

200,352.95 701,235,313.39 1,903,352.99 $39,970,413 0.639404153 448,372,771.57 13 0.639404153 25,557,247.98 13 0.639404153 16,920,691.65 

207,724.37 727,035,286.91 1,973,381.49 $41,441,011 0.61778179 449,149,161.14 14 0.61778179 25,601,502.19 14 0.61778179 16,949,991.04 

214,653.50 751,287,261.96 2,039,208.28 $42,823,374 0.596890619 448,436,318.56 15 0.596890619 25,560,870.16 15 0.596890619 16,923,089.79 

221,166.89 774,084,118.16 2,101,085.46 $44,122,795 0.576705912 446,418,887.11 16 0.576705912 25,445,876.57 16 0.576705912 16,846,955.96 

227,289.47 795,513,161.17 2,159,250.01 $45,344,250 0.557203779 443,262,939.99 17 0.557203779 25,265,987.58 17 0.557203779 16,727,856.83 

233,044.70 815,656,461.53 2,213,924.68 $46,492,418 0.53836114 439,117,742.11 18 0.53836114 25,029,711.30 18 0.53836114 16,571,425.35 

238,454.62 834,591,163.13 2,265,318.87 $47,571,696 0.52015569 434,117,342.65 19 0.52015569 24,744,688.53 19 0.52015569 16,382,720.28 

243,539.94 852,389,782.20 2,313,629.41 $48,586,218 0.502565884 428,382,024.77 20 0.502565884 24,417,775.41 20 0.502565884 16,166,280.85 

248,320.14 869,120,483.77 2,359,041.31 $49,539,868 0.485570903 422,019,617.98 21 0.485570903 24,055,118.22 21 0.485570903 15,926,176.34 

203,945.53 713,809,351.20 1,937,482.52 $40,687,133 0.469150631 334,884,107.36 22 0.469150631 19,088,394.12 22 0.469150631 12,637,856.44 

183,669.04 642,841,641.29 1,744,855.88 $36,641,974 0.453285634 291,390,880.66 23 0.453285634 16,609,280.20 23 0.453285634 10,996,509.05 

168,923.14 591,230,986.84 1,604,769.82 $33,700,166 0.437957134 258,933,828.46 24 0.437957134 14,759,228.22 24 0.437957134 9,771,644.82 

156,957.21 549,350,224.36 1,491,093.47 $31,312,963 0.423146989 232,455,893.49 25 0.423146989 13,249,985.93 25 0.423146989 8,772,420.51 

146,697.80 513,442,295.26 1,393,629.09 $29,266,211 0.408837671 209,914,552.08 26 0.408837671 11,965,129.47 26 0.408837671 7,921,755.37 

137,597.83 481,592,413.40 1,307,179.41 $27,450,768 0.395012242 190,234,899.10 27 0.395012242 10,843,389.25 27 0.395012242 7,179,084.62 

129,336.45 452,677,564.06 1,228,696.25 $25,802,621 0.38165434 172,766,357.12 28 0.38165434 9,847,682.36 28 0.38165434 6,519,856.79 

121,708.18 425,978,633.69 1,156,227.72 $24,280,782 0.368748155 157,078,835.23 29 0.368748155 8,953,493.61 29 0.368748155 5,927,841.08 

114,446.41 400,562,443.68 1,087,240.92 $22,832,059 0.356278411 142,711,750.78 30 0.356278411 8,134,569.79 30 0.356278411 5,385,656.05 

107,579.63 376,528,689.40 1,022,006.44 $21,462,135 0.344230348 129,612,601.94 31 0.344230348 7,387,918.31 31 0.344230348 4,891,320.37 

101,124.85 353,936,959.17 960,686.03 $20,174,407 0.332589709 117,715,790.12 32 0.332589709 6,709,800.04 32 0.332589709 4,442,358.49 

95,057.35 332,700,731.88 903,044.84 $18,963,942 0.321342714 106,910,956.01 33 0.321342714 6,093,924.49 33 0.321342714 4,034,605.66 

89,353.91 312,738,681.29 848,862.13 $17,826,105 0.310476052 97,097,871.02 34 0.310476052 5,534,578.65 34 0.310476052 3,664,279.46 

83,992.67 293,974,354.70 797,930.39 $16,756,538 0.299976862 88,185,504.33 35 0.299976862 5,026,573.75 35 0.299976862 3,327,944.56 

78,953.11 276,335,888.06 750,054.55 $15,751,146 0.289832717 80,091,181.12 36 0.289832717 4,565,197.32 36 0.289832717 3,022,480.99 

74,215.92 259,755,729.77 705,051.27 $14,806,077 0.28003161 72,739,815.27 37 0.28003161 4,146,169.47 37 0.28003161 2,745,055.15 

69,762.97 244,170,383.26 662,748.18 $13,917,712 0.270561942 66,063,213.13 38 0.270561942 3,765,603.15 38 0.270561942 2,493,093.54 

65,577.19 229,520,157.93 622,983.29 $13,082,649 0.261412505 59,999,439.34 39 0.261412505 3,419,968.04 39 0.261412505 2,264,258.84 

61,642.56 215,748,946.55 585,604.28 $12,297,690 0.252572468 54,492,243.94 40 0.252572468 3,106,057.90 40 0.252572468 2,056,428.30 

56,557.24 197,950,327.48 537,293.75 $11,283,169 0.24403137 48,306,089.65 41 0.24403137 2,753,447.11 41 0.24403137 1,822,975.21 

51,777.04 181,219,625.90 491,881.84 $10,329,519 0.235779102 42,727,800.60 42 0.235779102 2,435,484.63 42 0.235779102 1,612,461.74 

47,283.65 165,492,766.10 449,194.65 $9,433,088 0.227805895 37,700,227.75 43 0.227805895 2,148,912.98 43 0.227805895 1,422,731.19 

43,059.86 150,709,518.79 409,068.69 $8,590,443 0.220102314 33,171,513.88 44 0.220102314 1,890,776.29 44 0.220102314 1,251,826.59 

39,089.50 136,813,266.87 371,350.30 $7,798,356 0.212659241 29,094,605.48 45 0.212659241 1,658,392.51 45 0.212659241 1,097,972.22 

35,357.37 123,750,790.08 335,895.00 $7,053,795 0.205467866 25,426,810.71 46 0.205467866 1,449,328.21 46 0.205467866 959,556.98 

31,849.16 111,472,061.86 302,567.03 $6,353,908 0.198519677 22,129,397.71 47 0.198519677 1,261,375.67 47 0.198519677 835,119.21 

A-41 
Appendix A 

Alternative E - 150 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

28,551.44 99,930,057.26 271,238.73 $5,696,013 48 0.191806451 19,167,229.64 48 0.191806451 1,092,532.09 48 0.191806451 723,332.91 

25,451.59 89,080,572.99 241,790.13 $5,077,593 49 0.185320243 16,508,433.40 49 0.185320243 940,980.70 49 0.185320243 622,995.26 

22,537.73 78,882,058.31 214,108.44 $4,496,277 50 0.179053375 14,124,098.73 50 0.179053375 805,073.63 50 0.179053375 533,015.24 

19,798.70 69,295,454.56 188,087.66 $3,949,841 51 0.172998429 11,988,004.81 51 0.172998429 683,316.27 51 0.172998429 452,403.33 

17,224.01 60,284,047.57 163,628.13 $3,436,191 52 0.167148241 10,076,372.52 52 0.167148241 574,353.23 52 0.167148241 380,262.15 

14,803.81 51,813,324.89 140,636.17 $2,953,360 53 0.161495885 8,367,638.76 53 0.161495885 476,955.41 53 0.161495885 315,777.95 

12,528.81 43,850,845.59 119,023.72 $2,499,498 54 0.156034672 6,842,252.29 54 0.156034672 390,008.38 54 0.156034672 258,212.92 

10,390.32 36,366,114.99 98,708.03 $2,072,869 55 0.150758137 5,482,487.74 55 0.150758137 312,501.80 55 0.150758137 206,898.12 

8,380.13 29,330,468.07 79,611.27 $1,671,837 56 0.145660036 4,272,277.02 56 0.145660036 243,519.79 56 0.145660036 161,227.19 

6,490.56 22,716,959.66 61,660.32 $1,294,867 57 0.140734334 3,197,056.19 57 0.140734334 182,232.20 57 0.140734334 120,650.51 

4,714.36 16,500,261.75 44,786.42 $940,515 58 0.135975202 2,243,626.42 58 0.135975202 127,886.71 58 0.135975202 84,669.97 

3,044.73 10,656,565.25 28,924.96 $607,424 59 0.131377007 1,400,027.64 59 0.131377007 79,801.58 59 0.131377007 52,834.24 

1,475.28 5,163,490.22 14,015.19 $294,319 60 0.126934306 655,424.05 60 0.126934306 37,359.17 60 0.126934306 24,734.39 

-- - $0 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 ­

-- - $0 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 ­

-- - $0 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 ­

-- - $0 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 ­

-- - $0 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 ­

-- - $0 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 ­

-- - $0 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 ­

-- - $0 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 ­

-- - $0 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 ­

-- - $0 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 ­

-- - $0 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 ­

-- - $0 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 ­

-- - $0 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 ­

-- - $0 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 ­

-- - $0 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 ­

-- - $0 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 ­

-- - $0 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 ­

-- - $0 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 ­

-- - $0 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 ­

-- - $0 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 ­

-- - $0 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 ­

6,302,040.66 $22,057,145,803 59,869,386.25 1,257,257,111.28 11,491,676,343 655,025,552 433,672,882 

A-42 
1

23456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748

Appendix A 

Alternative E - 250 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

78,941.25 276,294,369.67 749,941.86 $15,748,779 0.966183575 266,951,081.81 1 0.966183575 15,216,211.66 1 0.966183575 10,074,199.93 

118,518.93 414,816,263.82 1,125,929.86 $23,644,527 0.9335107 387,235,420.97 2 0.9335107 22,072,419.00 2 0.9335107 14,613,490.32 

148,753.13 520,635,965.95 1,413,154.76 $29,676,250 0.901942706 469,583,811.80 3 0.901942706 26,766,277.27 3 0.901942706 17,721,153.89 

174,111.76 609,391,145.13 1,654,061.68 $34,735,295 0.871442228 531,049,177.05 4 0.871442228 30,269,803.09 4 0.871442228 20,040,733.84 

196,351.93 687,231,757.78 1,865,343.34 $39,172,210 0.841973167 578,630,699.46 5 0.841973167 32,981,949.87 5 0.841973167 21,836,365.34 

216,379.12 757,326,908.89 2,055,601.61 $43,167,634 0.813500644 616,085,928.33 6 0.813500644 35,116,897.91 6 0.813500644 23,249,850.76 

234,732.03 821,562,119.65 2,229,954.32 $46,829,041 0.785990961 645,740,399.68 7 0.785990961 36,807,202.78 7 0.785990961 24,368,951.20 

251,761.76 881,166,165.39 2,391,736.73 $50,226,471 0.759411556 669,167,768.94 8 0.759411556 38,142,562.83 8 0.759411556 25,253,053.26 

267,917.03 937,709,595.93 2,545,211.76 $53,449,447 0.733730972 688,026,573.45 9 0.733730972 39,217,514.69 9 0.733730972 25,964,746.83 

283,168.76 991,090,671.54 2,690,103.25 $56,492,168 0.708918814 702,602,823.14 10 0.708918814 40,048,360.92 10 0.708918814 26,514,825.34 

297,505.40 1,041,268,884.73 2,826,301.26 $59,352,326 0.684945714 713,212,659.44 11 0.684945714 40,653,121.59 11 0.684945714 26,915,219.34 

310,981.83 1,088,436,406.53 2,954,327.39 $62,040,875 0.661783298 720,309,035.09 12 0.661783298 41,057,615.00 12 0.661783298 27,183,022.37 

323,649.68 1,132,773,872.15 3,074,671.94 $64,568,111 0.639404153 724,300,318.19 13 0.639404153 41,285,118.14 13 0.639404153 27,333,645.41 

256,616.21 898,156,718.89 2,437,853.95 $51,194,933 0.61778179 554,864,865.74 14 0.61778179 31,627,297.35 14 0.61778179 20,939,490.30 228,231.83 798,811,408.06 2,168,202.39 $45,532,250 0.596890619 476,803,035.52 15 0.596890619 27,177,773.02 15 0.596890619 17,993,592.95 

208,519.34 729,817,693.69 1,980,933.74 $41,599,609 0.576705912 420,890,178.43 16 0.576705912 23,990,740.17 16 0.576705912 15,883,553.55 

193,051.13 675,678,940.07 1,833,985.69 $38,513,700 0.557203779 376,490,859.09 17 0.557203779 21,459,978.97 17 0.557203779 14,208,012.04 

180,107.93 630,377,767.34 1,711,025.37 $35,931,533 0.53836114 339,370,893.17 18 0.53836114 19,344,140.91 18 0.53836114 12,807,178.77 

168,819.91 590,869,688.56 1,603,789.15 $33,679,572 0.52015569 307,344,230.78 19 0.52015569 17,518,621.15 19 0.52015569 11,598,556.58 158,681.81 555,386,325.08 1,507,477.17 $31,657,021 0.502565884 279,118,219.67 20 0.502565884 15,909,738.52 20 0.502565884 10,533,363.37 

149,374.00 522,809,015.23 1,419,053.04 $29,800,114 0.485570903 253,860,845.54 21 0.485570903 14,470,068.20 21 0.485570903 9,580,200.59 

140,477.35 491,670,716.94 1,334,534.80 $28,025,231 0.469150631 230,667,626.98 22 0.469150631 13,148,054.74 22 0.469150631 8,704,934.91 

132,048.70 462,170,464.18 1,254,462.69 $26,343,716 0.453285634 209,495,231.68 23 0.453285634 11,941,228.21 23 0.453285634 7,905,931.05 

124,125.78 434,440,223.58 1,179,194.89 $24,763,093 0.437957134 190,266,195.17 24 0.437957134 10,845,173.12 24 0.437957134 7,180,265.67 

116,678.23 408,373,796.00 1,108,443.16 $23,277,306 0.423146989 172,802,142.27 25 0.423146989 9,849,722.11 25 0.423146989 6,521,207.25 

109,677.53 383,871,359.00 1,041,936.55 $21,880,667 0.408837671 156,941,072.30 26 0.408837671 8,945,641.12 26 0.408837671 5,922,642.19 

103,096.88 360,839,069.62 979,420.33 $20,567,827 0.395012242 142,535,850.00 27 0.395012242 8,124,543.45 27 0.395012242 5,379,017.91 

96,911.06 339,188,717.60 920,655.09 $19,333,757 0.38165434 129,452,846.29 28 0.38165434 7,378,812.24 28 0.38165434 4,885,291.51 

91,096.40 318,837,386.41 865,415.76 $18,173,731 0.368748155 117,570,697.98 29 0.368748155 6,701,529.78 29 0.368748155 4,436,883.00 

85,630.61 299,707,137.95 813,490.80 $17,083,307 0.356278411 106,779,182.75 30 0.356278411 6,086,413.42 30 0.356278411 4,029,632.80 80,492.77 281,724,703.64 764,681.34 $16,058,308 0.344230348 96,978,192.89 31 0.344230348 5,527,756.99 31 0.344230348 3,659,763.04 75,663.20 264,821,216.76 718,800.45 $15,094,809 0.332589709 88,076,811.32 32 0.332589709 5,020,378.25 32 0.332589709 3,323,842.71 71,123.41 248,931,939.77 675,672.41 $14,189,121 0.321342714 79,992,465.04 33 0.321342714 4,559,570.51 33 0.321342714 3,018,755.65 66,856.01 233,996,020.04 635,132.05 $13,337,773 0.310476052 72,650,160.44 34 0.310476052 4,141,059.15 34 0.310476052 2,741,671.75 62,844.64 219,956,255.26 597,024.12 $12,537,507 0.299976862 65,981,787.15 35 0.299976862 3,760,961.87 35 0.299976862 2,490,020.68 59,073.97 206,758,878.29 561,202.67 $11,785,256 0.289832717 59,925,487.37 36 0.289832717 3,415,752.78 36 0.289832717 2,261,468.04 55,529.53 194,353,344.85 527,530.51 $11,078,141 0.28003161 54,425,080.11 37 0.28003161 3,102,229.57 37 0.28003161 2,053,893.67 

52,197.76 182,692,144.19 495,878.68 $10,413,452 0.270561942 49,429,541.36 38 0.270561942 2,817,483.86 38 0.270561942 1,865,372.03 

49,065.89 171,730,616.01 466,125.96 $9,788,645 0.261412505 44,892,530.45 39 0.261412505 2,558,874.24 39 0.261412505 1,694,154.31 46,121.94 161,426,778.92 438,158.40 $9,201,326 0.252572468 40,771,959.98 40 0.252572468 2,324,001.72 40 0.252572468 1,538,652.23 41,114.44 143,900,547.62 390,587.20 $8,202,331 0.24403137 35,116,247.81 41 0.24403137 2,001,626.13 41 0.24403137 1,325,216.96 

36,407.40 127,425,891.04 345,870.28 $7,263,276 0.235779102 30,044,362.12 42 0.235779102 1,712,528.64 42 0.235779102 1,133,814.14 

31,982.78 111,939,713.94 303,836.37 $6,380,564 0.227805895 25,500,526.76 43 0.227805895 1,453,530.03 43 0.227805895 962,338.88 27,823.63 97,382,708.33 264,324.49 $5,550,814 0.220102314 21,434,159.48 44 0.220102314 1,221,747.09 44 0.220102314 808,882.31 23,914.04 83,699,122.89 227,183.33 $4,770,850 0.212659241 17,799,391.94 45 0.212659241 1,014,565.34 45 0.212659241 671,713.45 20,239.02 70,836,552.59 192,270.64 $4,037,683 0.205467866 14,554,635.27 46 0.205467866 829,614.21 46 0.205467866 549,262.83 16,784.50 58,745,736.43 159,452.71 $3,348,507 0.198519677 11,662,184.62 47 0.198519677 664,744.52 47 0.198519677 440,107.52 13,537.25 47,380,368.97 128,603.86 $2,700,681 0.191806451 9,087,860.43 48 0.191806451 518,008.04 48 0.191806451 342,957.68 

A-43 
Appendix A 

Alternative E - 250 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

10,484.84 36,696,923.08 99,605.93 $2,091,725 49 0.185320243 6,800,682.69 49 0.185320243 387,638.91 49 0.185320243 256,644.16 

7,615.57 26,654,483.94 72,347.88 $1,519,306 50 0.179053375 4,772,575.30 50 0.179053375 272,036.79 50 0.179053375 180,107.45 4,918.45 17,214,590.38 46,725.32 $981,232 51 0.172998429 2,978,097.10 51 0.172998429 169,751.53 51 0.172998429 112,387.43 

2,383.17 8,341,089.93 22,640.10 $475,442 52 0.167148241 1,394,198.51 52 0.167148241 79,469.32 52 0.167148241 52,614.26 

-- -$0 53 0.161495885 - 53 0.161495885 - 53 0.161495885 ­

-- -$0 54 0.156034672 - 54 0.156034672 - 54 0.156034672 ­-- -$0 55 0.150758137 - 55 0.150758137 - 55 0.150758137 ­-- -$0 56 0.145660036 - 56 0.145660036 - 56 0.145660036 ­-- -$0 57 0.140734334 - 57 0.140734334 - 57 0.140734334 ­-- -$0 58 0.135975202 - 58 0.135975202 - 58 0.135975202 ­-- -$0 59 0.131377007 - 59 0.131377007 - 59 0.131377007 ­-- -$0 60 0.126934306 - 60 0.126934306 - 60 0.126934306 ­-- -$0 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 ­-- -$0 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 ­-- -$0 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 ­-- -$0 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 ­-- -$0 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 ­-- -$0 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 ­-- -$0 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 ­-- -$0 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 ­-- -$0 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 ­-- -$0 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 ­-- -$0 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 ­-- -$0 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 ­-- -$0 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 ­-- -$0 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 ­-- -$0 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 ­-- -$0 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 ­-- -$0 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 ­-- -$0 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 ­-- -$0 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 ­-- -$0 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 ­-- -$0 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 ­

6,302,091.48 $22,057,323,682 59,869,869.07 1,257,267,250.39 13,012,418,609 741,707,861 491,062,653 

A-44 
Appendix A


LOF PRODUCTION CURVES

Alternative E 

0

755025

350 325300275250225200175150125100

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79

Production Year Number 

Thousands of MMCF 

75 wells 150 wells 250 wells 

A-45

1

23456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647

Appendix A 

Alternative F - 75 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

29,254.31 102,390,085.52 277,915.95 $5,836,235 0.966183575 98,927,618.86 1 0.966183575 5,638,874.27 1 0.966183575 3,733,330.48 

43,921.14 153,723,989.30 417,250.83 $8,762,267 0.9335107 143,502,988.92 2 0.9335107 8,179,670.37 2 0.9335107 5,415,515.80 

55,125.43 192,939,006.11 523,691.59 $10,997,523 0.901942706 174,019,929.20 3 0.901942706 9,919,135.96 3 0.901942706 6,567,164.09 64,522.91 225,830,195.30 612,967.67 $12,872,321 0.871442228 196,797,968.48 4 0.871442228 11,217,484.20 4 0.871442228 7,426,761.73 72,764.75 254,676,628.17 691,265.13 $14,516,568 0.841973167 214,430,887.15 5 0.841973167 12,222,560.57 5 0.841973167 8,092,192.82 80,186.49 280,652,722.16 761,771.67 $15,997,205 0.813500644 228,311,170.31 6 0.813500644 13,013,736.71 6 0.813500644 8,616,006.95 86,987.78 304,457,219.99 826,383.88 $17,354,062 0.785990961 239,300,622.83 7 0.785990961 13,640,135.50 7 0.785990961 9,030,726.90 93,298.71 326,545,485.30 886,337.75 $18,613,093 0.759411556 247,982,415.17 8 0.759411556 14,134,997.66 8 0.759411556 9,358,360.38 

99,285.58 347,499,537.66 943,213.03 $19,807,474 0.733730972 254,971,173.60 9 0.733730972 14,533,356.90 9 0.733730972 9,622,102.15 

104,937.62 367,281,674.02 996,907.40 $20,935,055 0.708918814 260,372,888.64 10 0.708918814 14,841,254.65 10 0.708918814 9,825,952.07 

110,250.54 385,876,882.99 1,047,380.11 $21,994,982 0.684945714 264,304,717.03 11 0.684945714 15,065,368.87 11 0.684945714 9,974,331.41 

115,244.68 403,356,379.93 1,094,824.46 $22,991,314 0.661783298 266,934,515.50 12 0.661783298 15,215,267.38 12 0.661783298 10,073,574.75 119,939.17 419,787,105.26 1,139,422.14 $23,927,865 0.639404153 268,413,618.45 13 0.639404153 15,299,576.25 13 0.639404153 10,129,393.13 124,352.00 435,231,986.59 1,181,343.96 $24,808,223 0.61778179 268,878,395.86 14 0.61778179 15,326,068.56 14 0.61778179 10,146,932.90 

128,500.05 449,750,175.00 1,220,750.48 $25,635,760 0.596890619 268,451,660.18 15 0.596890619 15,301,744.63 15 0.596890619 10,130,828.75 132,399.22 463,397,271.90 1,257,792.60 $26,413,644 0.576705912 267,243,946.18 16 0.576705912 15,232,904.93 16 0.576705912 10,085,252.04 136,064.44 476,225,541.90 1,292,612.19 $27,144,856 0.557203779 265,354,671.81 17 0.557203779 15,125,216.29 17 0.557203779 10,013,954.60 139,509.75 488,284,115.66 1,325,342.60 $27,832,195 0.53836114 262,873,192.93 18 0.53836114 14,983,772.00 18 0.53836114 9,920,308.55 

142,748.34 499,619,174.55 1,356,109.19 $28,478,293 0.52015569 259,879,756.67 19 0.52015569 14,813,146.13 19 0.52015569 9,807,342.26 

145,792.61 510,274,129.65 1,385,029.78 $29,085,625 0.502565884 256,446,369.27 20 0.502565884 14,617,443.05 20 0.502565884 9,677,773.08 148,654.22 520,289,787.23 1,412,215.14 $29,656,518 0.485570903 252,637,581.72 21 0.485570903 14,400,342.16 21 0.485570903 9,534,037.06 151,344.14 529,704,505.55 1,437,769.37 $30,193,157 0.469150631 248,511,202.89 22 0.469150631 14,165,138.56 22 0.469150631 9,378,315.77 153,872.67 538,554,340.23 1,461,790.35 $30,697,597 0.453285634 244,118,945.33 23 0.453285634 13,914,779.88 23 0.453285634 9,212,560.76 156,249.48 546,873,184.50 1,484,370.07 $31,171,772 0.437957134 239,507,012.49 24 0.437957134 13,651,899.71 24 0.437957134 9,038,515.64 158,483.69 554,692,898.10 1,505,595.01 $31,617,495 0.423146989 234,716,629.80 25 0.423146989 13,378,847.90 25 0.423146989 8,857,736.18 160,583.84 562,043,428.91 1,525,546.45 $32,036,475 0.408837671 229,784,526.36 26 0.408837671 13,097,718.00 26 0.408837671 8,671,608.46 162,557.98 568,952,927.92 1,544,300.80 $32,430,317 0.395012242 224,743,371.83 27 0.395012242 12,810,372.19 27 0.395012242 8,481,365.37 164,413.67 575,447,856.95 1,561,929.90 $32,800,528 0.38165434 219,622,172.28 28 0.38165434 12,518,463.82 28 0.38165434 8,288,101.54 

166,158.03 581,553,089.92 1,578,501.24 $33,148,526 0.368748155 214,446,628.93 29 0.368748155 12,223,457.85 29 0.368748155 8,092,786.88 

167,797.72 587,292,008.88 1,594,078.31 $33,475,645 0.356278411 209,239,463.48 30 0.356278411 11,926,649.42 30 0.356278411 7,896,278.87 169,339.03 592,686,592.39 1,608,720.75 $33,783,136 0.344230348 204,020,712.19 31 0.344230348 11,629,180.60 31 0.344230348 7,699,333.64 170,787.86 597,757,500.94 1,622,484.65 $34,072,178 0.332589709 198,807,993.06 32 0.332589709 11,332,055.60 32 0.332589709 7,502,616.04 172,149.76 602,524,154.98 1,635,422.71 $34,343,877 0.321342714 193,616,746.99 33 0.321342714 11,036,154.58 33 0.321342714 7,306,708.80 173,429.95 607,004,809.81 1,647,584.48 $34,599,274 0.310476052 188,460,456.78 34 0.310476052 10,742,246.04 34 0.310476052 7,112,120.72 174,633.32 611,216,625.44 1,659,016.55 $34,839,348 0.299976862 183,350,845.09 35 0.299976862 10,450,998.17 35 0.299976862 6,919,294.19 175,764.49 615,175,732.32 1,669,762.70 $35,065,017 0.289832717 178,298,053.67 36 0.289832717 10,162,989.06 36 0.289832717 6,728,611.95 

176,827.80 618,897,292.78 1,679,864.08 $35,277,146 0.28003161 173,310,805.46 37 0.28003161 9,878,715.91 37 0.28003161 6,540,403.18 

177,827.30 622,395,559.90 1,689,359.38 $35,476,547 0.270561942 168,396,551.53 38 0.270561942 9,598,603.44 38 0.270561942 6,354,949.06 

178,766.84 625,683,931.18 1,698,284.96 $35,663,984 0.261412505 163,561,603.53 39 0.261412505 9,323,011.40 39 0.261412505 6,172,487.79 

179,650.00 628,775,000.00 1,706,675.00 $35,840,175 0.252572468 158,811,253.69 40 0.252572468 9,052,241.46 40 0.252572468 5,993,219.09 

150,395.69 526,384,914.48 1,428,759.05 $30,003,940 0.24403137 128,454,431.95 41 0.24403137 7,321,902.62 41 0.24403137 4,847,613.35 

135,728.86 475,051,010.70 1,289,424.17 $27,077,908 0.235779102 112,007,100.55 42 0.235779102 6,384,404.73 42 0.235779102 4,226,923.96 

124,524.57 435,835,993.89 1,182,983.41 $24,842,652 0.227805895 99,286,008.81 43 0.227805895 5,659,302.50 43 0.227805895 3,746,855.40 

115,127.09 402,944,804.70 1,093,707.33 $22,967,854 0.220102314 88,689,084.06 44 0.220102314 5,055,277.79 44 0.220102314 3,346,948.65 

106,885.25 374,098,371.83 1,015,409.87 $21,323,607 0.212659241 79,555,475.78 45 0.212659241 4,534,662.12 45 0.212659241 3,002,264.54 

99,463.51 348,122,277.84 944,903.33 $19,842,970 0.205467866 71,527,941.40 46 0.205467866 4,077,092.66 46 0.205467866 2,699,321.45 

92,662.22 324,317,780.01 880,291.12 $18,486,113 0.198519677 64,383,460.91 47 0.198519677 3,669,857.27 47 0.198519677 2,429,703.05 

A-46 
Appendix A 

Alternative F - 75 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

86,351.29 302,229,514.70 820,337.25 $17,227,082 48 0.191806451 57,969,570.64 48 0.191806451 3,304,265.53 48 0.191806451 2,187,655.66 

80,364.42 281,275,462.34 763,461.97 $16,032,701 49 0.185320243 52,126,036.93 49 0.185320243 2,971,184.10 49 0.185320243 1,967,132.38 

74,712.38 261,493,325.98 709,767.60 $14,905,120 50 0.179053375 46,821,262.43 50 0.179053375 2,668,811.96 50 0.179053375 1,766,940.80 

69,399.46 242,898,117.01 659,294.89 $13,845,193 51 0.172998429 42,020,992.77 51 0.172998429 2,395,196.59 51 0.172998429 1,585,788.23 

64,405.32 225,418,620.07 611,850.54 $12,848,861 52 0.167148241 37,678,325.85 52 0.167148241 2,147,664.57 52 0.167148241 1,421,904.66 

59,710.83 208,987,894.74 567,252.86 $11,912,310 53 0.161495885 33,750,685.03 53 0.161495885 1,923,789.05 53 0.161495885 1,273,683.35 

55,298.00 193,543,013.41 525,331.04 $11,031,952 54 0.156034672 30,199,420.53 54 0.156034672 1,721,366.97 54 0.156034672 1,139,665.73 

51,149.95 179,024,825.00 485,924.52 $10,204,415 55 0.150758137 26,989,449.06 55 0.150758137 1,538,398.60 55 0.150758137 1,018,527.83 

47,250.78 165,377,728.10 448,882.40 $9,426,531 56 0.145660036 24,088,925.75 56 0.145660036 1,373,068.77 56 0.145660036 909,067.88 

43,585.56 152,549,458.10 414,062.81 $8,695,319 57 0.140734334 21,468,946.37 57 0.140734334 1,223,729.94 57 0.140734334 810,195.10 

40,140.25 140,490,884.34 381,332.40 $8,007,980 58 0.135975202 19,103,276.35 58 0.135975202 1,088,886.75 58 0.135975202 720,919.44 

36,901.66 129,155,825.45 350,565.81 $7,361,882 59 0.131377007 16,968,105.73 59 0.131377007 967,182.03 59 0.131377007 640,342.37 

33,857.39 118,500,870.35 321,645.22 $6,754,550 60 0.126934306 15,041,825.72 60 0.126934306 857,384.07 60 0.126934306 567,648.42 

30,995.78 108,485,212.77 294,459.86 $6,183,657 61 0.122641841 13,304,826.26 61 0.122641841 758,375.10 61 0.122641841 502,097.53 

28,305.86 99,070,494.45 268,905.63 $5,647,018 62 0.118494533 11,739,311.95 62 0.118494533 669,140.78 62 0.118494533 443,018.15 

25,777.33 90,220,659.77 244,884.65 $5,142,578 63 0.114487471 10,329,135.19 63 0.114487471 588,760.71 63 0.114487471 389,800.90 

23,400.52 81,901,815.50 222,304.93 $4,668,403 64 0.110615914 9,059,644.20 64 0.110615914 516,399.72 64 0.110615914 341,892.85 

21,166.31 74,082,101.90 201,079.99 $4,222,680 65 0.106875279 7,917,545.35 65 0.106875279 451,300.08 65 0.106875279 298,792.33 

19,066.16 66,731,571.09 181,128.55 $3,803,700 66 0.10326114 6,890,778.08 66 0.10326114 392,774.35 66 0.10326114 260,044.18 

17,092.02 59,822,072.08 162,374.20 $3,409,858 67 0.099769217 5,968,401.29 67 0.099769217 340,198.87 67 0.099769217 225,235.53 

15,236.33 53,327,143.05 144,745.10 $3,039,647 68 0.096395379 5,140,490.15 68 0.096395379 293,007.94 68 0.096395379 193,991.82 

13,491.97 47,221,910.08 128,173.76 $2,691,649 69 0.093135632 4,398,042.42 69 0.093135632 250,688.42 69 0.093135632 165,973.32 

11,852.28 41,482,991.12 112,596.69 $2,364,530 70 0.089986118 3,732,893.31 70 0.089986118 212,774.92 70 0.089986118 140,871.93 

10,310.97 36,088,407.61 97,954.25 $2,057,039 71 0.086943109 3,137,638.35 71 0.086943109 178,845.39 71 0.086943109 118,408.20 

8,862.14 31,017,499.06 84,190.35 $1,767,997 72 0.084003004 2,605,563.08 72 0.084003004 148,517.10 72 0.084003004 98,328.74 

7,500.24 26,250,845.02 71,252.29 $1,496,298 73 0.081162322 2,130,579.54 73 0.081162322 121,443.03 73 0.081162322 80,403.81 

6,220.05 21,770,190.19 59,090.52 $1,240,901 74 0.078417703 1,707,168.30 74 0.078417703 97,308.59 74 0.078417703 64,425.12 

5,016.68 17,558,374.56 47,658.45 $1,000,827 75 0.075765896 1,330,325.99 75 0.075765896 75,828.58 75 0.075765896 50,203.84 

3,885.51 13,599,267.68 36,912.30 $775,158 76 0.073203765 995,517.59 76 0.073203765 56,744.50 76 0.073203765 37,568.84 

2,822.20 9,877,707.22 26,810.92 $563,029 77 0.070728275 698,633.19 77 0.070728275 39,822.09 77 0.070728275 26,365.02 

1,822.70 6,379,440.10 17,315.62 $363,628 78 0.068336498 435,948.59 78 0.068336498 24,849.07 78 0.068336498 16,451.83 

883.16	 3,091,068.82 8,390.04 $176,191 79 0.066025601 204,089.68 79 0.066025601 11,633.11 79 0.066025601 7,701.94 

-- - $0 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 ­

-- - $0 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 ­

7,186,000.00 $25,151,003,500 68,267,000.00 1,433,607,000.00	 9,995,217,923 569,727,422 377,199,534 

A-47 
1

23456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647

Appendix A 

Alternative F - 150 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

55,722.86 195,029,992.57 529,367.12 $11,116,710 0.966183575 188,434,775.43 1 0.966183575 10,740,782.20 1 0.966183575 7,111,151.56 

83,659.85 292,809,487.75 794,768.61 $16,690,141 0.9335107 273,340,789.98 2 0.9335107 15,580,425.03 2 0.9335107 10,315,334.73 

105,001.50 367,505,239.76 997,514.22 $20,947,799 0.901942706 331,468,670.30 3 0.901942706 18,893,714.21 3 0.901942706 12,508,964.68 122,901.58 430,155,528.14 1,167,565.00 $24,518,865 0.871442228 374,855,691.70 4 0.871442228 21,366,774.43 4 0.871442228 14,146,304.09 138,600.42 485,101,469.04 1,316,703.99 $27,650,784 0.841973167 408,442,420.13 5 0.841973167 23,281,217.95 5 0.841973167 15,413,800.05 152,737.16 534,580,062.52 1,451,003.03 $30,471,064 0.813500644 434,881,225.30 6 0.813500644 24,788,229.84 6 0.813500644 16,411,547.68 165,692.07 579,922,255.68 1,574,074.69 $33,055,569 0.785990961 455,813,650.86 7 0.785990961 25,981,378.10 7 0.785990961 17,201,495.56 177,712.98 621,995,413.42 1,688,273.26 $35,453,739 0.759411556 472,350,504.86 8 0.759411556 26,923,978.78 8 0.759411556 17,825,563.35 189,116.61 661,908,151.60 1,796,607.84 $37,728,765 0.733730972 485,662,511.58 9 0.733730972 27,682,763.16 9 0.733730972 18,327,931.86 199,882.47 699,588,654.44 1,898,883.49 $39,876,553 0.708918814 495,951,558.99 10 0.708918814 28,269,238.86 10 0.708918814 18,716,219.93 

210,002.38 735,008,328.60 1,995,022.61 $41,895,475 0.684945714 503,440,804.23 11 0.684945714 28,696,125.84 11 0.684945714 18,998,849.07 

219,515.09 768,302,823.29 2,085,393.38 $43,793,261 0.661783298 508,449,976.48 12 0.661783298 28,981,648.66 12 0.661783298 19,187,885.21 

228,457.04 799,599,644.88 2,170,341.89 $45,577,180 0.639404153 511,267,333.62 13 0.639404153 29,142,238.02 13 0.639404153 19,294,206.64 

236,862.47 829,018,656.26 2,250,193.50 $47,254,063 0.61778179 512,152,629.64 14 0.61778179 29,192,699.89 14 0.61778179 19,327,615.94 

244,763.58 856,672,526.89 2,325,254.00 $48,830,334 0.596890619 511,339,794.53 15 0.596890619 29,146,368.29 15 0.596890619 19,296,941.17 

252,190.62 882,667,164.88 2,395,810.88 $50,312,028 0.576705912 509,039,372.06 16 0.576705912 29,015,244.21 16 0.576705912 19,210,127.82 

259,172.04 907,102,122.53 2,462,134.33 $51,704,821 0.557203779 505,440,731.00 17 0.557203779 28,810,121.67 17 0.557203779 19,074,322.31 

265,734.57 930,070,982.63 2,524,478.38 $53,014,046 0.53836114 500,714,074.07 18 0.53836114 28,540,702.22 18 0.53836114 18,895,947.73 

271,903.35 951,661,710.29 2,583,081.79 $54,244,717 0.52015569 495,012,253.93 19 0.52015569 28,215,698.47 19 0.52015569 18,680,772.44 

277,702.00 971,956,993.79 2,638,168.98 $55,401,549 0.502565884 488,472,426.21 20 0.502565884 27,842,928.29 20 0.502565884 18,433,972.42 

283,152.73 991,034,559.89 2,689,950.95 $56,488,970 0.485570903 481,217,545.98 21 0.485570903 27,429,400.12 21 0.485570903 18,160,187.75 

232,553.57 813,937,479.81 2,209,258.87 $46,394,436 0.469150631 381,859,282.05 22 0.469150631 21,765,979.08 22 0.469150631 14,410,605.59 

209,432.83 733,014,921.34 1,989,611.93 $41,781,851 0.453285634 332,265,133.04 23 0.453285634 18,939,112.58 23 0.453285634 12,539,021.59 

192,618.48 674,164,689.21 1,829,875.58 $38,427,387 0.437957134 295,255,235.06 24 0.437957134 16,829,548.40 24 0.437957134 11,142,342.06 

178,974.05 626,409,189.51 1,700,253.51 $35,705,324 0.423146989 265,063,162.59 25 0.423146989 15,108,600.27 25 0.423146989 10,002,953.63 

167,275.53 585,464,350.01 1,589,117.52 $33,371,468 0.408837671 239,359,881.19 26 0.408837671 13,643,513.23 26 0.408837671 9,032,963.20 156,899.08 549,146,791.92 1,490,541.29 $31,301,367 0.395012242 216,919,705.63 27 0.395012242 12,364,423.22 27 0.395012242 8,186,115.85 147,478.85 516,175,971.96 1,401,049.07 $29,422,030 0.38165434 197,000,800.11 28 0.38165434 11,229,045.61 28 0.38165434 7,434,416.19 138,780.54 485,731,904.43 1,318,415.17 $27,686,719 0.368748155 179,112,743.57 29 0.368748155 10,209,426.38 29 0.368748155 6,759,356.72 130,500.15 456,750,510.99 1,239,751.39 $26,034,779 0.356278411 162,730,346.10 30 0.356278411 9,275,629.73 30 0.356278411 6,141,117.80 

122,670.13 429,345,471.60 1,165,366.28 $24,472,692 0.344230348 147,793,741.28 31 0.344230348 8,424,243.25 31 0.344230348 5,577,440.21 

115,309.92 403,584,733.20 1,095,444.28 $23,004,330 0.332589709 134,228,128.81 32 0.332589709 7,651,003.34 32 0.332589709 5,065,501.13 

108,391.33 379,369,638.10 1,029,717.59 $21,624,069 0.321342714 121,907,668.98 33 0.321342714 6,948,737.13 33 0.321342714 4,600,551.61 

101,887.84 356,607,452.20 967,934.51 $20,326,625 0.310476052 110,718,073.81 34 0.310476052 6,310,930.21 34 0.310476052 4,178,278.67 

95,774.57 335,210,998.55 909,858.42 $19,107,027 0.299976862 100,555,543.34 35 0.299976862 5,731,665.97 35 0.299976862 3,794,765.09 

90,028.10 315,098,332.53 855,266.90 $17,960,605 0.289832717 91,325,805.71 36 0.289832717 5,205,570.93 36 0.289832717 3,446,453.26 

84,626.41 296,192,426.87 803,950.87 $16,882,968 0.28003161 82,943,242.23 37 0.28003161 4,727,764.81 37 0.28003161 3,130,112.08 

79,548.82 278,420,878.15 755,713.81 $15,869,990 0.270561942 75,330,093.55 38 0.270561942 4,293,815.33 38 0.270561942 2,842,807.07 

74,775.89 261,715,622.80 710,370.98 $14,917,790 0.261412505 68,415,736.44 39 0.261412505 3,899,696.98 39 0.261412505 2,581,873.06 

70,289.34 246,012,683.26 667,748.71 $14,022,723 0.252572468 62,136,030.62 40 0.252572468 3,541,753.75 40 0.252572468 2,344,889.52 

64,490.69 225,717,399.76 612,661.51 $12,865,892 0.24403137 55,082,126.35 41 0.24403137 3,139,681.20 41 0.24403137 2,078,689.28 

59,039.95 206,639,833.66 560,879.55 $11,778,471 0.235779102 48,721,354.35 42 0.235779102 2,777,117.20 42 0.235779102 1,838,646.47 

53,916.26 188,706,921.17 512,204.50 $10,756,295 0.227805895 42,988,549.13 43 0.227805895 2,450,347.30 43 0.227805895 1,622,301.87 

49,100.00 171,849,984.46 466,449.96 $9,795,449 0.220102314 37,824,579.30 44 0.220102314 2,156,001.02 44 0.220102314 1,427,423.97 

44,572.70 156,004,464.58 423,440.69 $8,892,254 0.212659241 33,175,791.01 45 0.212659241 1,891,020.09 45 0.212659241 1,251,988.00 

40,317.05 141,109,675.90 383,011.98 $8,043,252 0.205467866 28,993,503.92 46 0.205467866 1,652,629.72 46 0.205467866 1,094,156.85 

36,316.74 127,108,574.50 345,008.99 $7,245,189 0.198519677 25,233,553.14 47 0.198519677 1,438,312.53 47 0.198519677 952,263.83 

A-48 
Appendix A 

Alternative F - 150 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

32,556.44 113,947,539.11 309,286.18 $6,495,010 48 0.191806451 21,855,873.09 48 0.191806451 1,245,784.77 48 0.191806451 824,796.94 

29,021.76 101,576,165.91 275,706.74 $5,789,841 49 0.185320243 18,824,119.71 49 0.185320243 1,072,974.82 49 0.185320243 710,384.63 

25,699.16 89,947,075.70 244,142.06 $5,126,983 50 0.179053375 16,105,327.43 50 0.179053375 918,003.66 50 0.179053375 607,782.85 

22,575.92 79,015,730.96 214,471.27 $4,503,897 51 0.172998429 13,669,597.36 51 0.172998429 779,167.05 51 0.172998429 515,863.27 

19,640.08 68,740,267.51 186,580.73 $3,918,195 52 0.167148241 11,489,814.80 52 0.167148241 654,919.44 52 0.167148241 433,602.63 

16,880.38 59,081,331.75 160,363.61 $3,367,636 53 0.161495885 9,541,391.96 53 0.161495885 543,859.34 53 0.161495885 360,073.05 

14,286.27 50,001,932.15 135,719.53 $2,850,110 54 0.156034672 7,802,035.06 54 0.156034672 444,716.00 54 0.156034672 294,433.20 

11,847.80 41,467,296.47 112,554.09 $2,363,636 55 0.150758137 6,251,532.35 55 0.150758137 356,337.34 55 0.150758137 235,920.33 

9,555.64 33,444,738.74 90,778.58 $1,906,350 56 0.145660036 4,871,561.83 56 0.145660036 277,679.02 56 0.145660036 183,843.00 

7,401.01 25,903,534.14 70,309.59 $1,476,501 57 0.140734334 3,645,516.62 57 0.140734334 207,794.45 57 0.140734334 137,574.51 

5,375.66 18,814,801.80 51,068.75 $1,072,444 58 0.135975202 2,558,346.47 58 0.135975202 145,825.75 58 0.135975202 96,546.88 

3,471.83 12,151,392.87 32,982.35 $692,629 59 0.131377007 1,596,413.62 59 0.131377007 90,995.58 59 0.131377007 60,245.46 

1,682.23 5,887,788.12 15,981.14 $335,604 60 0.126934306 747,362.30 60 0.126934306 42,599.65 60 0.126934306 28,203.96 

-- - $0 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 ­

-- - $0 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 ­

-- - $0 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 ­

-- - $0 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 ­

-- - $0 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 ­

-- - $0 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 ­

-- - $0 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 ­

-- - $0 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 ­

-- - $0 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 ­

-- - $0 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 ­

-- - $0 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 ­

-- - $0 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 ­

-- - $0 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 ­

-- - $0 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 ­

-- - $0 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 ­

-- - $0 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 ­

-- - $0 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 ­

-- - $0 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 ­

-- - $0 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 ­

-- - $0 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 ­

-- - $0 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 ­

7,186,046.36 $25,151,165,765 68,267,440.43 1,433,616,249.08 13,103,647,445 746,907,904 494,505,447 

A-49 
1

23456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748

Appendix A 

Alternative F - 250 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

90,014.19 315,049,669.07 855,134.82 $17,957,831 0.966183575 304,395,815.53 1 0.966183575 17,350,561.49 1 0.966183575 11,487,289.29 

135,143.36 473,001,772.71 1,283,861.95 $26,961,101 0.9335107 441,552,216.11 2 0.9335107 25,168,476.32 2 0.9335107 16,663,297.53 

169,618.46 593,664,608.42 1,611,375.37 $33,838,883 0.901942706 535,451,463.18 3 0.901942706 30,520,733.40 3 0.901942706 20,206,867.32 

198,534.09 694,869,312.17 1,886,073.85 $39,607,551 0.871442228 605,538,461.36 4 0.871442228 34,515,692.30 4 0.871442228 22,851,810.45 

223,893.85 783,628,483.35 2,126,991.60 $44,666,824 0.841973167 659,794,155.77 5 0.841973167 37,608,266.88 5 0.841973167 24,899,311.85 

246,730.21 863,555,751.46 2,343,937.04 $49,222,678 0.813500644 702,503,160.20 6 0.813500644 40,042,680.13 6 0.813500644 26,511,064.26 

267,657.46 936,801,116.24 2,542,745.89 $53,397,664 0.785990961 736,317,209.32 7 0.785990961 41,970,080.93 7 0.785990961 27,787,138.85 

287,075.92 1,004,765,711.05 2,727,221.22 $57,271,646 0.759411556 763,030,692.26 8 0.759411556 43,492,749.46 8 0.759411556 28,795,252.26 

305,497.25 1,069,240,383.85 2,902,223.90 $60,946,702 0.733730972 784,534,786.35 9 0.733730972 44,718,482.82 9 0.733730972 29,606,773.77 

322,888.32 1,130,109,124.05 3,067,439.05 $64,416,220 0.708918814 801,155,619.58 10 0.708918814 45,665,870.32 10 0.708918814 30,234,010.77 

339,235.93 1,187,325,742.25 3,222,741.30 $67,677,567 0.684945714 813,253,677.96 11 0.684945714 46,355,459.64 11 0.684945714 30,690,567.30 

354,602.68 1,241,109,364.95 3,368,725.42 $70,743,234 0.661783298 821,345,449.07 12 0.661783298 46,816,690.60 12 0.661783298 30,995,934.56 

369,047.42 1,291,665,964.75 3,505,950.48 $73,624,960 0.639404153 825,896,582.06 13 0.639404153 47,076,105.18 13 0.639404153 31,167,685.21 

292,611.29 1,024,139,498.02 2,779,807.21 $58,375,951 0.61778179 632,694,732.58 14 0.61778179 36,063,599.76 14 0.61778179 23,876,633.82 260,245.49 910,859,204.47 2,472,332.13 $51,918,975 0.596890619 543,683,314.04 15 0.596890619 30,989,948.90 15 0.596890619 20,517,520.91 

237,767.96 832,187,869.61 2,258,795.65 $47,434,709 0.576705912 479,927,664.06 16 0.576705912 27,355,876.85 16 0.576705912 18,111,510.19 

220,130.05 770,455,173.31 2,091,235.47 $43,915,945 0.557203779 429,300,534.45 17 0.557203779 24,470,130.46 17 0.557203779 16,200,943.57 

205,371.34 718,799,689.00 1,951,027.73 $40,971,582 0.53836114 386,973,819.68 18 0.53836114 22,057,507.72 18 0.53836114 14,603,618.01 

192,499.97 673,749,885.19 1,828,749.69 $38,403,743 0.52015569 350,454,836.68 19 0.52015569 19,975,925.69 19 0.52015569 13,225,464.63 180,939.81 633,289,336.05 1,718,928.20 $36,097,492 0.502565884 318,269,615.27 20 0.502565884 18,141,368.07 20 0.502565884 12,010,858.74 

170,326.42 596,142,467.30 1,618,100.98 $33,980,121 0.485570903 289,469,436.06 21 0.485570903 16,499,757.86 21 0.485570903 10,923,997.58 

160,181.85 560,636,457.59 1,521,727.53 $31,956,278 0.469150631 263,022,947.70 22 0.469150631 14,992,308.02 22 0.469150631 9,925,960.00 

150,570.93 526,998,259.03 1,430,423.85 $30,038,901 0.453285634 238,880,739.74 23 0.453285634 13,616,202.17 23 0.453285634 9,014,881.36 

141,536.67 495,378,348.94 1,344,598.38 $28,236,566 0.437957134 216,954,481.90 24 0.437957134 12,366,405.47 24 0.437957134 8,187,428.24 

133,044.47 465,655,631.86 1,263,922.43 $26,542,371 0.423146989 197,040,778.66 25 0.423146989 11,231,324.38 25 0.423146989 7,435,924.90 

125,061.80 437,716,283.41 1,188,087.05 $24,949,828 0.408837671 178,954,905.78 26 0.408837671 10,200,429.63 26 0.408837671 6,753,400.23 

117,558.08 411,453,297.46 1,116,801.81 $23,452,838 0.395012242 162,529,089.64 27 0.395012242 9,264,158.11 27 0.395012242 6,133,522.78 

110,504.60 386,766,090.67 1,049,793.67 $22,045,667 0.38165434 147,610,957.22 28 0.38165434 8,413,824.56 28 0.38165434 5,570,542.30 103,874.32 363,560,115.96 986,806.03 $20,722,927 0.368748155 134,062,121.98 29 0.368748155 7,641,540.95 29 0.368748155 5,059,236.36 

97,641.86 341,746,502.98 927,597.65 $19,479,551 0.356278411 121,756,900.91 30 0.356278411 6,940,143.35 30 0.356278411 4,594,861.93 91,783.34 321,241,705.93 871,941.77 $18,310,777 0.344230348 110,581,144.36 31 0.344230348 6,303,125.23 31 0.344230348 4,173,111.23 86,276.34 301,967,198.26 819,625.25 $17,212,130 0.332589709 100,431,182.48 32 0.332589709 5,724,577.40 32 0.332589709 3,790,071.96 81,099.76 283,849,161.82 770,447.72 $16,179,402 0.321342714 91,212,859.92 33 0.321342714 5,199,133.02 33 0.321342714 3,442,190.91 76,233.77 266,818,208.30 724,220.85 $15,208,638 0.310476052 82,840,663.87 34 0.310476052 4,721,917.84 34 0.310476052 3,126,240.97 71,659.75 250,809,111.71 680,767.59 $14,296,119 0.299976862 75,236,930.21 35 0.299976862 4,288,505.02 35 0.299976862 2,839,291.27 67,360.16 235,760,563.13 639,921.53 $13,438,352 0.289832717 68,331,124.47 36 0.289832717 3,894,874.10 36 0.289832717 2,578,679.98 63,318.55 221,614,928.49 601,526.23 $12,632,051 0.28003161 62,059,185.27 37 0.28003161 3,537,373.56 37 0.28003161 2,341,989.53 

59,519.44 208,318,032.82 565,434.66 $11,874,128 0.270561942 56,362,931.56 38 0.270561942 3,212,687.10 38 0.270561942 2,127,024.31 

55,948.27 195,818,951.39 531,508.58 $11,161,680 0.261412505 51,189,522.53 39 0.261412505 2,917,802.78 39 0.261412505 1,931,790.20 52,591.38 184,069,814.15 499,618.07 $10,491,979 0.252572468 46,490,967.28 40 0.252572468 2,649,985.14 40 0.252572468 1,754,476.12 46,881.49 164,085,210.85 445,374.14 $9,352,857 0.24403137 40,041,938.84 41 0.24403137 2,282,390.51 41 0.24403137 1,511,102.69 

41,514.20 145,299,684.72 394,384.86 $8,282,082 0.235779102 34,258,629.14 42 0.235779102 1,952,741.86 42 0.235779102 1,292,852.15 

36,468.94 127,641,290.25 346,454.93 $7,275,554 0.227805895 29,077,438.41 43 0.227805895 1,657,413.99 43 0.227805895 1,097,324.37 31,726.40 111,042,400.43 301,400.80 $6,329,417 0.220102314 24,440,689.32 44 0.220102314 1,393,119.29 44 0.220102314 922,342.73 27,268.41 95,439,443.80 259,049.92 $5,440,048 0.212659241 20,296,079.67 45 0.212659241 1,156,876.54 45 0.212659241 765,933.45 23,077.90 80,772,664.60 219,240.09 $4,604,042 0.205467866 16,596,187.00 46 0.205467866 945,982.66 46 0.205467866 626,306.90 19,138.83 66,985,892.06 181,818.85 $3,818,196 0.198519677 13,298,017.65 47 0.198519677 757,987.01 47 0.198519677 501,840.59 15,436.09 54,026,325.55 146,642.88 $3,079,501 0.191806451 10,362,597.77 48 0.191806451 590,668.07 48 0.191806451 391,063.71 

A-50 
Appendix A 

Alternative F - 250 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

11,955.52 41,844,332.50 113,577.47 $2,385,127 49 0.185320243 7,754,601.85 49 0.185320243 442,012.31 49 0.185320243 292,643.16 

8,683.79 30,393,259.02 82,495.99 $1,732,416 50 0.179053375 5,442,015.59 50 0.179053375 310,194.89 50 0.179053375 205,370.78 5,608.36 19,629,249.08 53,279.39 $1,118,867 51 0.172998429 3,395,829.26 51 0.172998429 193,562.27 51 0.172998429 128,151.80 2,717.45 9,511,079.16 25,815.79 $542,132 52 0.167148241 1,589,760.15 52 0.167148241 90,616.33 52 0.167148241 59,994.37 

-- -$0 53 0.161495885 - 53 0.161495885 - 53 0.161495885 ­-- -$0 54 0.156034672 - 54 0.156034672 - 54 0.156034672 ­-- -$0 55 0.150758137 - 55 0.150758137 - 55 0.150758137 ­-- -$0 56 0.145660036 - 56 0.145660036 - 56 0.145660036 ­-- -$0 57 0.140734334 - 57 0.140734334 - 57 0.140734334 ­-- -$0 58 0.135975202 - 58 0.135975202 - 58 0.135975202 ­-- -$0 59 0.131377007 - 59 0.131377007 - 59 0.131377007 ­-- -$0 60 0.126934306 - 60 0.126934306 - 60 0.126934306 ­-- -$0 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 ­-- -$0 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 ­-- -$0 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 ­-- -$0 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 ­-- -$0 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 ­-- -$0 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 ­-- -$0 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 ­-- -$0 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 ­-- -$0 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 ­-- -$0 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 ­-- -$0 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 ­-- -$0 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 ­-- -$0 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 ­-- -$0 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 ­-- -$0 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 ­-- -$0 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 ­-- -$0 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 ­-- -$0 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 ­-- -$0 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 ­-- -$0 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 ­-- -$0 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 ­

7,186,074.18 $25,151,263,123 68,267,704.69 1,433,621,798.52 14,837,646,462 845,745,848 559,943,102 

A-51 
Appendix A


LOF PRODUCTION CURVES

Alternative F 

0

755025

375 350325300275250225200175150125100

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79

Production Year Number 

Thousands of MMCF 

75 wells 150 wells 250 wells 

A-52

1

23456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647

Appendix A 

Alternative G - 75 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

32,063.31 112,221,585.52 304,601.45 $6,396,630 0.966183575 108,426,652.68 1 0.966183575 6,180,319.20 1 0.966183575 4,091,805.02 

48,138.45 168,484,572.74 457,315.27 $9,603,621 0.9335107 157,282,151.50 2 0.9335107 8,965,082.64 2 0.9335107 5,935,513.83 

60,418.58 211,465,016.99 573,976.47 $12,053,506 0.901942706 190,729,329.58 3 0.901942706 10,871,571.79 3 0.901942706 7,197,743.44 70,718.41 247,514,419.46 671,824.85 $14,108,322 0.871442228 215,694,517.08 4 0.871442228 12,294,587.47 4 0.871442228 8,139,879.69 79,751.63 279,130,687.93 757,640.44 $15,910,449 0.841973167 235,020,549.28 5 0.841973167 13,396,171.31 5 0.841973167 8,869,205.49 

87,886.00 307,601,007.48 834,917.02 $17,533,257 0.813500644 250,233,617.77 6 0.813500644 14,263,316.21 6 0.813500644 9,443,316.27 

95,340.35 333,691,214.12 905,733.30 $19,020,399 0.785990961 262,278,277.96 7 0.785990961 14,949,861.84 7 0.785990961 9,897,857.65 

102,257.26 357,900,395.52 971,443.93 $20,400,323 0.759411556 271,793,696.33 8 0.759411556 15,492,240.69 8 0.759411556 10,256,950.51 

108,818.99 380,866,456.81 1,033,780.38 $21,709,388 0.733730972 279,453,515.63 9 0.733730972 15,928,850.39 9 0.733730972 10,546,016.77 

115,013.74 402,548,074.67 1,092,630.49 $22,945,240 0.708918814 285,373,903.56 10 0.708918814 16,266,312.50 10 0.708918814 10,769,440.37 

120,836.80 422,928,796.33 1,147,949.59 $24,106,941 0.684945714 289,683,266.26 11 0.684945714 16,511,946.18 11 0.684945714 10,932,067.10 

126,310.48 442,086,675.25 1,199,949.55 $25,198,940 0.661783298 292,565,578.08 12 0.661783298 16,676,237.95 12 0.661783298 11,040,839.79 

131,455.74 460,095,079.46 1,248,829.50 $26,225,420 0.639404153 294,186,704.55 13 0.639404153 16,768,642.16 13 0.639404153 11,102,017.86 

136,292.28 477,022,978.90 1,294,776.66 $27,190,310 0.61778179 294,696,109.91 14 0.61778179 16,797,678.26 14 0.61778179 11,121,241.80 

140,838.63 492,935,204.33 1,337,966.98 $28,097,307 0.596890619 294,228,399.05 15 0.596890619 16,771,018.75 15 0.596890619 11,103,591.32 

145,112.20 507,892,696.01 1,378,565.89 $28,949,884 0.576705912 292,904,720.30 16 0.576705912 16,695,569.06 16 0.576705912 11,053,638.33 

149,129.35 521,952,736.99 1,416,728.86 $29,751,306 0.557203779 290,834,037.74 17 0.557203779 16,577,540.15 17 0.557203779 10,975,494.92 

152,905.48 535,169,175.47 1,452,602.05 $30,504,643 0.53836114 288,114,287.16 18 0.53836114 16,422,514.37 18 0.53836114 10,872,856.97 

156,455.04 547,592,627.16 1,486,322.85 $31,212,780 0.52015569 284,833,421.03 19 0.52015569 16,235,505.00 19 0.52015569 10,749,043.64 

159,791.62 559,270,671.46 1,518,020.39 $31,878,428 0.502565884 281,070,359.64 20 0.502565884 16,021,010.50 20 0.502565884 10,607,033.23 

162,928.01 570,248,032.88 1,547,816.09 $32,504,138 0.485570903 276,895,852.16 21 0.485570903 15,783,063.57 21 0.485570903 10,449,495.67 

165,876.22 580,566,752.81 1,575,824.04 $33,092,305 0.469150631 272,373,258.28 22 0.469150631 15,525,275.72 22 0.469150631 10,278,822.02 

168,647.53 590,266,348.96 1,602,151.52 $33,645,182 0.453285634 267,559,255.97 23 0.453285634 15,250,877.59 23 0.453285634 10,097,151.20 

171,252.56 599,383,968.98 1,626,899.34 $34,164,886 0.437957134 262,504,485.16 24 0.437957134 14,962,755.65 24 0.437957134 9,906,394.26 

173,701.29 607,954,531.79 1,650,162.30 $34,653,408 0.423146989 257,254,129.74 25 0.423146989 14,663,485.40 25 0.423146989 9,708,256.35 

176,003.10 616,010,860.86 1,672,029.48 $35,112,619 0.408837671 251,848,445.54 26 0.408837671 14,355,361.40 26 0.408837671 9,504,256.64 

178,166.80 623,583,810.23 1,692,584.63 $35,544,277 0.395012242 246,323,239.15 27 0.395012242 14,040,424.63 27 0.395012242 9,295,746.40 

180,200.68 630,702,382.59 1,711,906.47 $35,950,036 0.38165434 240,710,301.82 28 0.38165434 13,720,487.20 28 0.38165434 9,083,925.37 

182,112.53 637,393,840.27 1,730,069.00 $36,331,449 0.368748155 235,037,802.59 29 0.368748155 13,397,154.75 29 0.368748155 8,869,856.59 

183,909.66 643,683,810.46 1,747,141.77 $36,689,977 0.356278411 229,330,644.92 30 0.356278411 13,071,846.76 30 0.356278411 8,654,479.88 

185,598.97 649,596,382.08 1,763,190.18 $37,026,994 0.344230348 223,610,788.93 31 0.344230348 12,745,814.97 31 0.344230348 8,438,623.95 

187,186.91 655,154,199.48 1,778,275.68 $37,343,789 0.332589709 217,897,544.30 32 0.332589709 12,420,160.02 32 0.332589709 8,223,017.53 

188,679.59 660,378,547.82 1,792,456.06 $37,641,577 0.321342714 212,207,834.58 33 0.321342714 12,095,846.57 33 0.321342714 8,008,299.26 

190,082.70 665,289,435.30 1,805,785.61 $37,921,498 0.310476052 206,556,437.19 34 0.310476052 11,773,716.92 34 0.310476052 7,795,026.83 

191,401.62 669,905,669.63 1,818,315.39 $38,184,623 0.299976862 200,956,200.38 35 0.299976862 11,454,503.42 35 0.299976862 7,583,685.09 

192,641.41 674,244,930.10 1,830,093.38 $38,431,961 0.289832717 195,418,239.73 36 0.289832717 11,138,839.66 36 0.289832717 7,374,693.53 

193,806.81 678,323,834.95 1,841,164.69 $38,664,459 0.28003161 189,952,115.75 37 0.28003161 10,827,270.60 37 0.28003161 7,168,412.94 

194,902.29 682,158,005.81 1,851,571.73 $38,883,006 0.270561942 184,565,994.97 38 0.270561942 10,520,261.71 38 0.270561942 6,965,151.52 

195,932.04 685,762,126.63 1,861,354.34 $39,088,441 0.261412505 179,266,795.07 39 0.261412505 10,218,207.32 39 0.261412505 6,765,170.31 

196,900.00 689,150,000.00 1,870,550.00 $39,281,550 0.252572468 174,060,316.46 40 0.252572468 9,921,438.04 40 0.252572468 6,568,688.22 

164,836.69 576,928,414.48 1,565,948.55 $32,884,920 0.24403137 140,788,631.51 41 0.24403137 8,024,952.00 41 0.24403137 5,313,081.38 

148,761.55 520,665,427.26 1,413,234.73 $29,677,929 0.235779102 122,762,026.71 42 0.235779102 6,997,435.52 42 0.235779102 4,632,793.36 

136,481.42 477,684,983.01 1,296,573.53 $27,228,044 0.227805895 108,819,455.24 43 0.227805895 6,202,708.95 43 0.227805895 4,106,628.60 

126,181.59 441,635,580.54 1,198,725.15 $25,173,228 0.220102314 97,205,013.37 44 0.220102314 5,540,685.76 44 0.220102314 3,668,322.79 

117,148.37 410,019,312.07 1,112,909.56 $23,371,101 0.212659241 87,194,395.66 45 0.212659241 4,970,080.55 45 0.212659241 3,290,542.10 

109,014.00 381,548,992.52 1,035,632.98 $21,748,293 0.205467866 78,396,057.12 46 0.205467866 4,468,575.26 46 0.205467866 2,958,510.40 

101,559.65 355,458,785.88 964,816.70 $20,261,151 0.198519677 70,565,563.33 47 0.198519677 4,022,237.11 47 0.198519677 2,663,003.23 

A-53 
Appendix A 

Alternative G - 75 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

94,642.74 331,249,604.48 899,106.07 $18,881,227 48 0.191806451 63,535,811.07 48 0.191806451 3,621,541.23 48 0.191806451 2,397,714.44 

88,081.01 308,283,543.19 836,769.62 $17,572,162 49 0.185320243 57,131,181.03 49 0.185320243 3,256,477.32 49 0.185320243 2,156,016.51 

81,886.26 286,601,925.33 777,919.51 $16,336,310 50 0.179053375 51,317,041.88 50 0.179053375 2,925,071.39 50 0.179053375 1,936,602.53 

76,063.20 266,221,203.67 722,600.41 $15,174,609 51 0.172998429 46,055,850.13 51 0.172998429 2,625,183.46 51 0.172998429 1,738,055.67 

70,589.52 247,063,324.75 670,600.45 $14,082,610 52 0.167148241 41,296,200.16 52 0.167148241 2,353,883.41 52 0.167148241 1,558,436.00 

65,444.26 229,054,920.54 621,720.50 $13,056,130 53 0.161495885 36,991,427.12 53 0.161495885 2,108,511.35 53 0.161495885 1,395,982.48 

60,607.72 212,127,021.10 575,773.34 $12,091,240 54 0.156034672 33,099,170.07 54 0.156034672 1,886,652.69 54 0.156034672 1,249,096.48 

56,061.37 196,214,795.67 532,583.02 $11,184,243 55 0.150758137 29,580,977.01 55 0.150758137 1,686,115.69 55 0.150758137 1,116,326.91 

51,787.80 181,257,303.99 491,984.11 $10,331,666 56 0.145660036 26,401,945.34 56 0.145660036 1,504,910.88 56 0.145660036 996,356.61 

47,770.65 167,197,263.01 453,821.14 $9,530,244 57 0.140734334 23,530,395.43 57 0.140734334 1,341,232.54 57 0.140734334 887,990.06 

43,994.52 153,980,824.53 417,947.95 $8,776,907 58 0.135975202 20,937,573.69 58 0.135975202 1,193,441.70 58 0.135975202 790,142.16 

40,444.96 141,557,372.84 384,227.15 $8,068,770 59 0.131377007 18,597,383.90 59 0.131377007 1,060,050.88 59 0.131377007 701,828.07 

37,108.38 129,879,328.54 352,529.61 $7,403,122 60 0.126934306 16,486,142.41 60 0.126934306 939,710.12 60 0.126934306 622,154.04 

33,971.99 118,901,967.12 322,733.91 $6,777,412 61 0.122641841 14,582,356.20 61 0.122641841 831,194.30 61 0.122641841 550,308.96 

31,023.78 108,583,247.19 294,725.96 $6,189,245 62 0.118494533 12,866,521.14 62 0.118494533 733,391.71 62 0.118494533 485,556.77 

28,252.47 98,883,651.04 268,398.48 $5,636,368 63 0.114487471 11,320,939.16 63 0.114487471 645,293.53 63 0.114487471 427,229.60 

25,647.44 89,766,031.02 243,650.66 $5,116,664 64 0.110615914 9,929,551.59 64 0.110615914 565,984.44 64 0.110615914 374,721.42 

23,198.71 81,195,468.21 220,387.70 $4,628,142 65 0.106875279 8,677,788.36 65 0.106875279 494,633.94 65 0.106875279 327,482.38 

20,896.90 73,139,139.14 198,520.52 $4,168,931 66 0.10326114 7,552,430.86 66 0.10326114 430,488.56 66 0.10326114 285,013.64 

18,733.20 65,566,189.77 177,965.37 $3,737,273 67 0.099769217 6,541,487.42 67 0.099769217 372,864.78 67 0.099769217 246,862.65 

16,699.32 58,447,617.41 158,643.53 $3,331,514 68 0.096395379 5,634,080.22 68 0.096395379 321,142.57 68 0.096395379 212,618.92 

14,787.47 51,756,159.73 140,481.00 $2,950,101 69 0.093135632 4,820,342.63 69 0.093135632 274,759.53 69 0.093135632 181,910.09 

12,990.34 45,466,189.54 123,408.23 $2,591,573 70 0.089986118 4,091,325.88 70 0.089986118 233,205.57 70 0.089986118 154,398.46 

11,301.03 39,553,617.92 107,359.82 $2,254,556 71 0.086943109 3,438,914.50 71 0.086943109 196,018.13 71 0.086943109 129,777.76 

9,713.09 33,995,800.52 92,274.32 $1,937,761 72 0.084003004 2,855,749.35 72 0.084003004 162,777.71 72 0.084003004 107,770.27 

8,220.41 28,771,452.18 78,093.94 $1,639,973 73 0.081162322 2,335,157.88 73 0.081162322 133,104.00 73 0.081162322 88,124.19 

6,817.30 23,860,564.70 64,764.39 $1,360,052 74 0.078417703 1,871,090.67 74 0.078417703 106,652.17 74 0.078417703 70,611.22 

5,498.38 19,244,330.37 52,234.61 $1,096,927 75 0.075765896 1,458,063.94 75 0.075765896 83,109.64 75 0.075765896 55,024.42 

4,258.59 14,905,069.90 40,456.62 $849,589 76 0.073203765 1,091,107.23 76 0.073203765 62,193.11 76 0.073203765 41,176.20 

3,093.19 10,826,165.05 29,385.31 $617,091 77 0.070728275 765,715.98 77 0.070728275 43,645.81 77 0.070728275 28,896.59 

1,997.71 6,991,994.19 18,978.27 $398,544 78 0.068336498 477,808.39 78 0.068336498 27,235.08 78 0.068336498 18,031.53 

967.96	 3,387,873.37 9,195.66 $193,109 79 0.066025601 223,686.38 79 0.066025601 12,750.12 79 0.066025601 8,441.48 

-- - $0 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 ­

-- - $0 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 ­

7,876,000.00 $27,566,003,500 74,822,000.00 1,571,262,000.00	 10,954,959,138 624,432,671 413,418,248 

A-54 
1

23456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748

Appendix A 

Alternative G - 150 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

61,073.37 213,756,780.06 580,196.97 $12,184,136 0.966183575 206,528,289.91 1 0.966183575 11,772,112.52 1 0.966183575 7,793,964.60 

91,692.88 320,925,066.17 871,082.32 $18,292,729 0.9335107 299,586,983.29 2 0.9335107 17,076,458.05 2 0.9335107 11,305,813.58 

115,083.74 402,793,107.21 1,093,295.58 $22,959,207 0.901942706 363,296,304.94 3 0.901942706 20,707,889.38 3 0.901942706 13,710,075.96 

134,702.59 471,459,078.71 1,279,674.64 $26,873,167 0.871442228 410,849,349.82 4 0.871442228 23,418,412.94 4 0.871442228 15,504,632.76 

151,908.84 531,680,931.00 1,443,133.96 $30,305,813 0.841973167 447,661,077.23 5 0.841973167 25,516,681.40 5 0.841973167 16,893,833.73 

167,402.99 585,910,460.96 1,590,328.39 $33,396,896 0.813500644 476,638,537.50 6 0.813500644 27,168,396.64 6 0.813500644 17,987,385.13 

181,601.83 635,606,413.27 1,725,217.41 $36,229,566 0.785990961 499,580,895.38 7 0.785990961 28,476,111.04 7 0.785990961 18,853,183.83 

194,776.98 681,719,437.25 1,850,381.33 $38,858,008 0.759411556 517,705,618.75 8 0.759411556 29,509,220.27 8 0.759411556 19,537,174.64 

207,275.60 725,464,598.11 1,969,118.19 $41,351,482 0.733730972 532,295,844.86 9 0.733730972 30,340,863.16 9 0.733730972 20,087,780.59 

219,075.20 766,763,184.30 2,081,214.36 $43,705,502 0.708918814 543,572,847.01 10 0.708918814 30,983,652.28 10 0.708918814 20,513,352.10 

230,166.82 805,583,856.95 2,186,584.75 $45,918,280 0.684945714 551,781,209.87 11 0.684945714 31,451,528.96 11 0.684945714 20,823,119.30 

240,592.94 842,075,290.32 2,285,632.93 $47,998,292 0.661783298 557,271,363.04 12 0.661783298 31,764,467.69 12 0.661783298 21,030,306.70 

250,393.50 876,377,233.93 2,378,738.21 $49,953,502 0.639404153 560,359,242.92 13 0.639404153 31,940,476.85 13 0.639404153 21,146,837.11 

259,606.02 908,621,059.94 2,466,257.16 $51,791,400 0.61778179 561,329,545.09 14 0.61778179 31,995,784.07 14 0.61778179 21,183,454.37 268,265.79 938,930,256.30 2,548,524.98 $53,519,025 0.596890619 560,438,661.53 15 0.596890619 31,945,003.71 15 0.596890619 21,149,834.21 

276,405.97 967,420,900.45 2,625,856.73 $55,142,991 0.576705912 557,917,352.40 16 0.576705912 31,801,289.09 16 0.576705912 21,054,685.05 

284,057.74 994,202,103.68 2,698,548.57 $56,669,520 0.557203779 553,973,169.69 17 0.557203779 31,576,470.67 17 0.557203779 20,905,839.48 

291,250.41 1,019,376,434.62 2,766,878.89 $58,104,457 0.53836114 548,792,658.98 18 0.53836114 31,281,181.56 18 0.53836114 20,710,337.36 

298,011.52 1,043,040,304.79 2,831,109.40 $59,453,297 0.52015569 542,543,349.84 19 0.52015569 30,924,970.94 19 0.52015569 20,474,500.94 304,366.95 1,065,284,342.20 2,891,486.07 $60,721,208 0.502565884 535,375,567.61 20 0.502565884 30,516,407.35 20 0.502565884 20,204,003.17 

310,341.07 1,086,193,736.94 2,948,240.14 $61,913,043 0.485570903 527,424,073.50 21 0.485570903 30,063,172.19 21 0.485570903 19,903,929.69 

254,883.37 892,091,788.33 2,421,392.00 $50,849,232 0.469150631 418,525,425.19 22 0.469150631 23,855,949.24 22 0.469150631 15,794,312.50 

229,542.58 803,399,042.65 2,180,654.54 $45,793,745 0.453285634 364,169,244.07 23 0.453285634 20,757,646.91 23 0.453285634 13,743,018.93 

211,113.72 738,898,008.94 2,005,580.31 $42,117,187 0.437957134 323,605,654.23 24 0.437957134 18,445,522.29 24 0.437957134 12,212,230.18 

196,159.15 686,557,024.29 1,863,511.92 $39,133,750 0.423146989 290,514,537.79 25 0.423146989 16,559,328.65 25 0.423146989 10,963,437.63 

183,337.33 641,680,659.71 1,741,704.65 $36,575,798 0.408837671 262,343,226.31 26 0.408837671 14,953,563.90 26 0.408837671 9,900,308.67 

171,964.54 601,875,888.28 1,633,663.13 $34,306,926 0.395012242 237,748,344.22 27 0.395012242 13,551,655.62 27 0.395012242 8,972,147.01 

161,639.77 565,739,208.90 1,535,577.85 $32,247,135 0.38165434 215,916,824.61 28 0.38165434 12,307,259.00 28 0.38165434 8,148,269.13 152,106.26 532,371,900.82 1,445,009.45 $30,345,198 0.368748155 196,311,156.19 29 0.368748155 11,189,735.90 29 0.368748155 7,408,390.41 

143,030.78 500,607,712.85 1,358,792.36 $28,534,640 0.356278411 178,355,720.27 30 0.356278411 10,166,276.06 30 0.356278411 6,730,788.17 

134,448.93 470,571,240.52 1,277,264.80 $26,822,561 0.344230348 161,984,902.07 31 0.344230348 9,233,139.42 31 0.344230348 6,112,986.23 

126,381.99 442,336,955.00 1,200,628.88 $25,213,206 0.332589709 147,116,718.97 32 0.332589709 8,385,652.98 32 0.332589709 5,551,890.74 

118,799.06 415,796,725.54 1,128,591.11 $23,700,413 0.321342714 133,613,248.10 33 0.321342714 7,615,955.14 33 0.321342714 5,042,296.76 

111,671.12 390,848,913.66 1,060,875.62 $22,278,388 0.310476052 121,349,227.57 34 0.310476052 6,916,905.97 34 0.310476052 4,579,477.15 

104,970.85 367,397,971.69 997,223.07 $20,941,684 0.299976862 110,210,890.53 35 0.299976862 6,282,020.76 35 0.299976862 4,159,138.59 

98,672.60 345,354,086.69 937,389.66 $19,685,183 0.289832717 100,094,913.13 36 0.289832717 5,705,410.05 36 0.289832717 3,777,381.83 92,752.24 324,632,835.23 881,146.27 $18,504,072 0.28003161 90,907,455.58 37 0.28003161 5,181,724.97 37 0.28003161 3,430,665.56 

87,187.10 305,154,861.72 828,277.48 $17,393,827 0.270561942 82,563,292.07 38 0.270561942 4,706,107.65 38 0.270561942 3,115,773.52 

81,955.88 286,845,567.10 778,580.82 $16,350,197 0.261412505 74,985,018.12 39 0.261412505 4,274,146.03 39 0.261412505 2,829,784.61 77,038.52 269,634,830.69 731,865.97 $15,369,185 0.252572468 68,102,334.70 40 0.252572468 3,881,833.08 40 0.252572468 2,570,045.91 70,683.08 247,390,793.28 671,489.30 $14,101,275 0.24403137 60,371,114.27 41 0.24403137 3,441,153.51 41 0.24403137 2,278,285.11 

64,708.97 226,481,398.54 614,735.22 $12,909,440 0.235779102 53,399,580.69 42 0.235779102 3,043,776.10 42 0.235779102 2,015,193.38 

59,093.30 206,826,567.09 561,386.40 $11,789,114 0.227805895 47,116,311.30 43 0.227805895 2,685,629.74 43 0.227805895 1,778,075.36 53,814.58 188,351,026.66 511,238.50 $10,736,009 0.220102314 41,456,496.88 44 0.220102314 2,363,020.32 44 0.220102314 1,564,485.28 48,852.58 170,984,019.34 464,099.48 $9,746,089 0.212659241 36,361,331.76 45 0.212659241 2,072,595.91 45 0.212659241 1,372,203.94 44,188.29 154,659,032.48 419,788.80 $8,815,565 0.205467866 31,777,461.30 46 0.205467866 1,811,315.29 46 0.205467866 1,199,217.83 39,803.87 139,313,544.78 378,136.76 $7,940,872 0.198519677 27,656,479.90 47 0.198519677 1,576,419.35 47 0.198519677 1,043,700.24 35,682.51 124,888,786.25 338,983.85 $7,118,661 0.191806451 23,954,474.88 48 0.191806451 1,365,405.07 48 0.191806451 903,993.97 

A-55 
Appendix A 

Alternative G - 150 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

31,808.43 111,329,513.31 302,180.11 $6,345,782 49 0.185320243 20,631,612.42 49 0.185320243 1,176,001.91 49 0.185320243 778,595.79 

28,166.80 98,583,797.41 267,584.59 $5,619,276 50 0.179053375 17,651,761.60 50 0.179053375 1,006,150.41 50 0.179053375 666,142.18 24,743.66 86,602,824.52 235,064.81 $4,936,361 51 0.172998429 14,982,152.63 51 0.172998429 853,982.70 51 0.172998429 565,396.48 21,525.92 75,340,710.67 204,496.21 $4,294,421 52 0.167148241 12,593,067.27 52 0.167148241 717,804.83 52 0.167148241 475,237.17 18,501.24 64,754,323.53 175,761.74 $3,690,996 53 0.161495885 10,457,556.79 53 0.161495885 596,080.74 53 0.161495885 394,647.28 15,658.03 54,803,119.62 148,751.32 $3,123,778 54 0.156034672 8,551,186.77 54 0.156034672 487,417.65 54 0.156034672 322,704.69 12,985.43 45,448,987.89 123,361.54 $2,590,592 55 0.150758137 6,851,804.73 55 0.150758137 390,552.87 55 0.150758137 258,573.41 10,473.17 36,656,103.85 99,495.14 $2,089,398 56 0.145660036 5,339,329.39 56 0.145660036 304,341.78 56 0.145660036 201,495.61 

8,111.65 28,390,792.49 77,060.72 $1,618,275 57 0.140734334 3,995,559.27 57 0.140734334 227,746.88 57 0.140734334 150,784.42 5,891.83 20,621,399.80 55,972.37 $1,175,420 58 0.135975202 2,803,999.00 58 0.135975202 159,827.94 58 0.135975202 105,817.31 3,805.19 13,318,170.09 36,149.32 $759,136 59 0.131377007 1,749,701.32 59 0.131377007 99,732.98 59 0.131377007 66,030.23 

1,843.75 6,453,133.76 17,515.65 $367,829 60 0.126934306 819,124.05 60 0.126934306 46,690.07 60 0.126934306 30,912.10 

-- -$0 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 ­

-- -$0 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 ­-- -$0 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 ­-- -$0 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 ­-- -$0 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 ­-- -$0 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 ­-- -$0 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 ­-- -$0 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 ­-- -$0 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 ­-- -$0 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 ­-- -$0 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 ­-- -$0 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 ­-- -$0 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 ­-- -$0 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 ­-- -$0 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 ­-- -$0 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 ­-- -$0 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 ­-- -$0 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 ­-- -$0 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 ­-- -$0 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 ­-- -$0 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 ­

7,876,050.81 $27,566,181,345 74,822,482.72 1,571,272,137.17 14,361,860,183 818,626,030 541,987,880 

A-56 
1

23456789

1011121314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647

Appendix A 

Alternative G and Preferred Action - 250 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

98,657.36 345,300,750.58 937,244.89 $19,682,143 0.966183575 333,623,913.60 1 0.966183575 19,016,563.08 1 0.966183575 12,590,299.25 

148,119.83 518,419,421.35 1,407,138.43 $29,549,907 0.9335107 483,950,077.11 2 0.9335107 27,585,154.40 2 0.9335107 18,263,308.01 185,905.23 650,668,307.25 1,766,099.69 $37,088,094 0.901942706 586,865,533.54 3 0.901942706 33,451,335.41 3 0.901942706 22,147,131.50 

217,597.34 761,590,690.60 2,067,174.73 $43,410,669 0.871442228 663,682,288.01 4 0.871442228 37,829,890.42 4 0.871442228 25,046,042.18 

245,392.15 858,872,520.86 2,331,225.41 $48,955,734 0.841973167 723,147,616.32 5 0.841973167 41,219,414.13 5 0.841973167 27,290,144.74 

270,421.26 946,474,408.36 2,569,001.97 $53,949,041 0.813500644 769,957,541.02 6 0.813500644 43,887,579.84 6 0.813500644 29,056,657.68 

293,357.94 1,026,752,795.92 2,786,900.45 $58,524,909 0.785990961 807,018,416.45 7 0.785990961 46,000,049.74 7 0.785990961 30,455,261.00 

314,640.96 1,101,243,353.78 2,989,089.10 $62,770,871 0.759411556 836,296,929.07 8 0.759411556 47,668,924.96 8 0.759411556 31,560,173.51 

334,831.11 1,171,908,887.17 3,180,895.55 $66,798,807 0.733730972 859,865,847.10 9 0.733730972 49,012,353.28 9 0.733730972 32,449,617.34 

353,892.07 1,238,622,246.17 3,361,974.67 $70,601,468 0.708918814 878,082,613.39 10 0.708918814 50,050,708.96 10 0.708918814 33,137,081.66 

371,809.37 1,301,332,806.29 3,532,189.05 $74,175,970 0.684945714 891,342,327.80 11 0.684945714 50,806,512.68 11 0.684945714 33,637,476.77 

388,651.64 1,360,280,734.53 3,692,190.57 $77,536,002 0.661783298 900,211,071.10 12 0.661783298 51,312,031.05 12 0.661783298 33,972,165.40 

404,483.37 1,415,691,781.01 3,842,591.98 $80,694,432 0.639404153 905,199,204.06 13 0.639404153 51,596,354.63 13 0.639404153 34,160,407.56 

320,707.83 1,122,477,412.52 3,046,724.41 $63,981,213 0.61778179 693,446,105.45 14 0.61778179 39,526,428.01 14 0.61778179 26,169,269.13 

285,234.27 998,319,940.78 2,709,725.55 $56,904,237 0.596890619 595,887,807.04 15 0.596890619 33,965,605.00 15 0.596890619 22,487,614.06 

260,598.45 912,094,581.27 2,475,685.29 $51,989,391 0.576705912 526,010,337.06 16 0.576705912 29,982,589.21 16 0.576705912 19,850,578.10 

241,266.95 844,434,309.07 2,292,035.98 $48,132,756 0.557203779 470,521,988.50 17 0.557203779 26,819,753.34 17 0.557203779 17,756,558.80 

225,091.10 787,818,863.14 2,138,365.49 $44,905,675 0.53836114 424,131,060.92 18 0.53836114 24,175,470.47 18 0.53836114 16,005,857.98 

210,983.82 738,443,375.42 2,004,346.30 $42,091,272 0.52015569 384,105,523.75 19 0.52015569 21,894,014.85 19 0.52015569 14,495,374.26 

198,313.66 694,097,802.78 1,883,979.75 $39,563,575 0.502565884 348,829,876.13 20 0.502565884 19,883,302.94 20 0.502565884 13,164,141.87 

186,681.17 653,384,090.24 1,773,471.10 $37,242,893 0.485570903 317,264,302.59 21 0.485570903 18,084,065.25 21 0.485570903 11,972,920.25 

175,562.51 614,468,792.09 1,667,843.86 $35,024,721 0.469150631 288,278,421.39 22 0.469150631 16,431,870.02 22 0.469150631 10,879,051.07 

165,028.76 577,600,652.40 1,567,773.20 $32,923,237 0.453285634 261,818,077.68 23 0.453285634 14,923,630.43 23 0.453285634 9,880,490.62 

155,127.03 542,944,597.31 1,473,706.76 $30,947,842 0.437957134 237,786,459.70 24 0.437957134 13,553,828.20 24 0.437957134 8,973,585.42 

145,819.40 510,367,903.77 1,385,284.31 $29,090,971 0.423146989 215,960,641.90 25 0.423146989 12,309,756.59 25 0.423146989 8,149,922.70 

137,070.23 479,745,818.00 1,302,167.22 $27,345,512 0.408837671 196,138,162.80 26 0.408837671 11,179,875.28 26 0.408837671 7,401,861.99 

128,846.02 450,961,059.12 1,224,037.16 $25,704,780 0.395012242 178,135,139.16 27 0.395012242 10,153,702.93 27 0.395012242 6,722,463.88 

121,115.25 423,903,385.77 1,150,594.90 $24,162,493 0.38165434 161,784,567.09 28 0.38165434 9,221,720.32 28 0.38165434 6,105,425.99 

113,848.33 398,469,172.46 1,081,559.18 $22,712,743 0.368748155 146,934,772.16 29 0.368748155 8,375,282.01 29 0.368748155 5,545,024.43 

107,017.43 374,561,015.51 1,016,665.61 $21,349,978 0.356278411 133,448,003.28 30 0.356278411 7,606,536.19 30 0.356278411 5,036,060.75 

100,596.38 352,087,347.05 955,665.66 $20,068,979 0.344230348 121,199,150.15 31 0.344230348 6,908,351.56 31 0.344230348 4,573,813.53 

94,560.60 330,962,100.40 898,325.70 $18,864,840 0.332589709 110,074,588.53 32 0.332589709 6,274,251.55 32 0.332589709 4,153,994.82 

88,886.96 311,104,369.40 844,426.15 $17,732,949 0.321342714 99,971,122.28 33 0.321342714 5,698,353.97 33 0.321342714 3,772,710.21 

83,553.74 292,438,103.06 793,760.57 $16,668,972 0.310476052 90,795,027.64 34 0.310476052 5,175,316.58 34 0.310476052 3,426,422.75 

78,540.52 274,891,812.39 746,134.92 $15,668,833 0.299976862 82,461,183.18 35 0.299976862 4,700,287.44 35 0.299976862 3,111,920.13 

73,828.09 258,398,301.59 701,366.82 $14,728,703 0.289832717 74,892,281.71 36 0.289832717 4,268,860.06 36 0.289832717 2,826,284.93 

69,398.40 242,894,402.56 659,284.81 $13,844,981 0.28003161 68,018,110.66 37 0.28003161 3,877,032.31 37 0.28003161 2,566,867.46 

65,234.50 228,320,738.45 619,727.72 $13,014,282 0.270561942 61,774,902.45 38 0.270561942 3,521,169.44 38 0.270561942 2,331,261.27 

61,320.43 214,621,494.73 582,544.06 $12,233,425 0.261412505 56,104,742.48 39 0.261412505 3,197,970.32 39 0.261412505 2,117,280.77 

57,641.20 201,744,204.88 547,591.41 $11,499,420 0.252572468 50,955,031.77 40 0.252572468 2,904,436.81 40 0.252572468 1,922,940.99 

51,383.05 179,840,679.19 488,138.99 $10,250,919 0.24403137 43,886,767.37 41 0.24403137 2,501,545.74 41 0.24403137 1,656,198.83 

45,500.39 159,251,366.11 432,253.71 $9,077,328 0.235779102 37,548,144.04 42 0.235779102 2,140,244.21 42 0.235779102 1,416,991.86 

39,970.69 139,897,411.91 379,721.55 $7,974,152 0.227805895 31,869,455.18 43 0.227805895 1,816,558.95 43 0.227805895 1,202,689.50 

34,772.77 121,704,696.04 330,341.32 $6,937,168 0.220102314 26,787,485.27 44 0.220102314 1,526,886.66 44 0.220102314 1,010,906.12 

29,886.73 104,603,542.92 283,923.90 $5,962,402 0.212659241 22,244,910.03 45 0.212659241 1,267,959.87 45 0.212659241 839,478.41 

25,293.85 88,528,459.00 240,291.53 $5,046,122 0.205467866 18,189,753.52 46 0.205467866 1,036,815.95 46 0.205467866 686,444.92 

20,976.54 73,417,880.02 199,277.10 $4,184,819 0.198519677 14,574,893.82 47 0.198519677 830,768.95 47 0.198519677 550,027.34 

A-57 
Appendix A 

Alternative G and Preferred Action - 250 Wells/Year Development Rate 

MMCF Natural Gas Price / MMCF Condensate Production Value/bbl Natural Gas Condensate Labor 

Total Production for Year $3,500 $21 NG Production Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Condensate Discount Factor PV of LOP Production Labor Earnings Discount Factor PV of LOP Labor 

16,918.27 59,213,935.44 160,723.54 $3,375,194 48 0.191806451 11,357,614.81 48 0.191806451 647,384.04 48 0.191806451 428,613.67 

13,103.49 45,862,226.94 124,483.19 $2,614,147 49 0.185320243 8,499,199.02 49 0.185320243 484,454.34 49 0.185320243 320,742.77 

9,517.61 33,311,620.94 90,417.26 $1,898,762 50 0.179053375 5,964,558.14 50 0.179053375 339,979.81 50 0.179053375 225,090.50 

6,146.87 21,514,050.35 58,395.28 $1,226,301 51 0.172998429 3,721,896.92 51 0.172998429 212,148.12 51 0.172998429 140,456.95 

2,978.38 10,424,333.35 28,294.62 $594,187 52 0.167148241 1,742,408.98 52 0.167148241 99,317.31 52 0.167148241 65,755.03 

-- - $0 53 0.161495885 - 53 0.161495885 - 53 0.161495885 ­

-- - $0 54 0.156034672 - 54 0.156034672 - 54 0.156034672 ­-- - $0 55 0.150758137 - 55 0.150758137 - 55 0.150758137 ­-- - $0 56 0.145660036 - 56 0.145660036 - 56 0.145660036 ­-- - $0 57 0.140734334 - 57 0.140734334 - 57 0.140734334 ­-- - $0 58 0.135975202 - 58 0.135975202 - 58 0.135975202 ­-- - $0 59 0.131377007 - 59 0.131377007 - 59 0.131377007 ­-- - $0 60 0.126934306 - 60 0.126934306 - 60 0.126934306 ­-- - $0 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 - 61 0.122641841 ­-- - $0 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 - 62 0.118494533 ­-- - $0 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 - 63 0.114487471 ­-- - $0 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 - 64 0.110615914 ­-- - $0 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 - 65 0.106875279 ­-- - $0 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 - 66 0.10326114 ­

-- - $0 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 - 67 0.099769217 ­

-- - $0 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 - 68 0.096395379 ­-- - $0 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 - 69 0.093135632 ­-- - $0 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 - 70 0.089986118 ­-- - $0 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 - 71 0.086943109 ­-- - $0 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 - 72 0.084003004 ­-- - $0 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 - 73 0.081162322 ­-- - $0 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 - 74 0.078417703 ­-- - $0 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 - 75 0.075765896 ­-- - $0 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 - 76 0.073203765 ­-- - $0 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 - 77 0.070728275 ­-- - $0 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 - 78 0.068336498 ­-- - $0 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 - 79 0.066025601 ­-- - $0 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 - 80 0.063792852 ­-- - $0 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 - 81 0.061635605 ­

7,876,081.30 $27,566,288,052 74,822,772.36 1,571,278,219.48 16,262,357,853 926,954,398 613,708,861 

A-58 
Appendix A


LOF PRODUCTION CURVES

Alternative G and Preferred Action--3,100 New Wells on 2,553 New Well Pads Scenario

(Preferred Action Would be for the 250 Wells/Year Development Rate Only) 

0

755025

425 400375350325300275250225200175150125100

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 76 79 

Production Year Number 

Thousands of MMCF 

75 wells 150 wells 250 wells 

A-59

Appendix A 

This page intentionally left blank. 

A-60