Court Opinion

ID: 9557506
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 16:51:24.782569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:54.459575
License: Public Domain

MACY, Justice,
dissenting.
I believe that the Wyoming State Board of Equalization’s decision should be affirmed, and, therefore, I dissent from the majority’s opinion in this case.
I do not agree with the majority’s interpretation of Wyo.Stat. § 39-2-202(a) (1985) (amended 1989, 1990 & 1991) and Wyo.Stat. § 39-2-202(b) (1985) (amended 1990). Section 39-2-202(a) directed the State Board of Equalization to determine the value of the natural gas “at the mine or mining claim where produced, after the ... production process [was] completed.” See Amax Coal West, Inc. v. Wyoming State Board of Equalization, 896 P.2d 1329 (Wyo.1995) (valuing coal production). Section 39-2-202(b) stated that the “production process [was] deemed completed when the [gas was] removed from the ... well, and prior to any ... further processing [was] placed in ... the pipeline for transportation to market.” (Emphasis added.)
The statute clearly and unambiguously stated that, when the gas was not subjected to further processing between the wellhead and the inlet to the pipeline, the point of valuation was at the inlet to the pipeline. The majority reads the statute without giving any effect to the phrase “placed ... in the pipeline for transportation to market.” The majority further concludes that compression amounted to “further processing” of the gas. The Court did not, however, define the term “processing” in reaching its conclusion.
A common definition of the word “process” is “mode, method or operation whereby a result is produced; and means to prepare for market or to convert into marketable form.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1084 (5th ed. 1979). This definition is consistent with the State Board of Equalization’s regulatory definition of processing which is quoted in the majority opinion. The State Board of Equalization specifically found that the compressor facility did not change the gas in any way which would affect its marketability. Therefore, under the plain language of the statute, the compression did not amount to further processing, and the gas should have been valued at the inlet to the pipeline.