Opinion ID: 2509156
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: Williams reviews Barrett's point of valuation

Text: 27. On October 29, 2001, Storts attended a seminar hosted by the Wyoming Department of Revenue. [Transcript Vol. II, p. 392]. The seminar was designed to instruct mineral taxpayers on how to correctly fill out the different forms associated with the Mineral Tax Division. [Transcript Vol. II, p. 392]. The seminar prompted Storts to review Barrett's calculation of taxable value. [Transcript Vol. II, p. 393]. According to Storts, Williams had been told that Barrett was using the custody transfer meter as the point of valuation. [Transcript Vol. II, p. 394]. 28. Storts reviewed the appropriate Wyoming statutes, and contacted Dean Tinsley, an engineer in Barrett's Denver offices, to learn about Barrett's coalbed methane operations. [Transcript Vol. II, pp. 393-394]. 29. Tinsley advised Storts that the field layout went from the well to the POD to the screw compressor to the [reciprocating] station and then into the pipelines. [Transcript Vol. III, p. 598]. Tinsley also explained such details as what a screw compressor was and where it was located in the system. [Transcript Vol. III, p. 599]. 30. Storts then reached a conclusion based on his own reading of the Wyoming statutes. [Transcript Vol. II, p. 394]. Storts saw that there was no statutory definition of processing facility, but decided that a processing facility must be a facility where processing occurred. Storts then analyzed Western's facilities in light of the statutory definition of processing. [Transcript Vol. II, p. 395]. Based on what Tinsley had told him about the Western facilities, Storts concluded that Western's facilities were a processing facility. [Transcript Vol. II, pp. 395-396]. Storts then consulted the portion of the statute that identifies the point of valuation for processing facilities, and concluded that the point of valuation was the custody transfer meter. [Transcript Vol. II, pp. 394-396]. 31. Prior to this time, no one from either Barrett or the DOA had referred to the Western's facilities as a processing facility. We find that the previous usages are entitled to heavier weight, particularly with respect to the customary usage in the industry.