Here you go, eyes. Hope this helps clarify, and so you can now see everything is EXACTLY as i said it was in the first place.

.................................................
PGC'S DIRECT RESPONSE TO THE RESOURCE AUDIT:

Release #017-10

GAME COMMISSION ISSUES COMMENTS ON LEGISLATIVE RESOURCES AUDIT

HARRISBURG – Pennsylvania Game Commission Executive Director Carl G. Roe today issued the following statement on the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee’s audit titled “Examination of Current and Future Costs and Revenues from Forest Products, Oil, Gas and Mineral Extraction on Pennsylvania Game Commission Lands.”
“I have to say that I was disappointed in the report, and we have major concerns with the report,” Roe said. “At the beginning of the process, I asked that two things be taken into consideration as this audit was being conducted. The first was to keep in mind that, at all times, we produce habitat first; forestry is a by-product of that operation and is not the primary mission of this agency. Every part of the evaluation has to be taken in the habitat context and not a forestry model.
“Second, we asked that this not be an academic exercise, but that the team would understand our situation and produce a report that takes into the context the real world environment we are operating in. We are a wildlife agency; we are not the forestry division of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources or the U.S. Forest Service. Unfortunately, I believe the report failed to take into consideration the two concerns we raised.”
Roe continued: “As I stressed to the team, the Game Commission operates under a habitat enhancement model; not a forestry model. If I may give some examples as to a habitat approach compared to a forestry one. First, suppose we have growing on our State Game Lands an oak stand that is 125 years old. Under the forestry model, this stand is at its primary value and should be harvested. For the Game Commission, operating under a model which emphasizes maximizing habitat for wildlife, if that oak stand provides hard mast for wildlife living in the area, then we will likely let it remain untouched for the next 50 years.
“The second example is that if we have a State Game Land that is surrounded by either state forest or commercial forest. A forestry model would mandate an attempt to maximize regeneration in order to increase the commercial value of the forest. However, using a model which focuses on habitat, we would attempt to create a landscape that is 90 percent early successional forest or grass lands, so as to provide a diversity of food and cover for the wildlife in the surrounding area.
“I believe these cases are anathemas to a forestry model because we strive to create habitat which benefits wildlife. Unfortunately, in creating the report, the team based its recommendations and findings upon an analysis which is based upon the forestry model, not the habitat model under which we operate.
“We also were disappointed with the report’s examination of our oil, gas and mineral program as the analysis is superficial at best. To come up with an outlandish figure of $1 billion for the specified State Game Lands is beyond comprehension. If you use the data presented by the report, it rightly states that we only own 24 percent of the gas rights in the northeast region of the state.
“Nonetheless, the report includes projections that we could realize revenue in excess of $1 billion dollars, based upon assumptions that we own all of the mineral rights, an assumption that the report itself noted is false. The revenue projection also failed to take into account market factors and environmental concerns and limitations. To include such outlandish projections has no basis in the real-world limitations under which we operate.
“I believe the quickest way to summarize our concerns was that we anticipated a report that was going to attempt to answer the question of whether we doing everything we can based on our current resources to maximize our programs. We all know we could do more with more resources and clearly the report points out things we can do with more resources. But are we doing what we can with what we have? I will offer that we are exceeding standards in our wildlife habitat approach to both timber and OGM with the resources we have.
For a complete copy of the audit and the Game Commission’s comments, please go to the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee’s website (http://lbfc.legis.state.pa.us/), click on “Reports Released” in the left-hand column and scroll down to “Game and Fisheries” section."

“I am sure there will be questions on Marcellus Shale, so I will quickly address the subject. During Fiscal Year 2008, the Game Commission approved three oil/gas leases within the Marcellus Shale development areas of the Commonwealth. These leases totaled 2,693.43 acres and were worth an average upfront payment of $907.38 dollars per acre to the Commission constituting an additional 10 acres of State Game Lands acquisition as well as revenues to the game fund. The average royalty per acre for these leases was 23.08 percent. During Fiscal Year 2008, there were no Marcellus wells drilled on any of these leases but there were four wells planned for drilling in the Fiscal Year 2009. On all other currently active leases on State Game Lands, there were two Marcellus wells commenced and placed into production in Fiscal Year 2008. The Game Commission received a total of $113,336.26 royalty revenues during Fiscal Year 2008 from Marcellus gas production, with the average approximate well production being only 250 mcf/day, rather than the 2,000-3,000 mcf/day production some have assumed would occur. Unfortunately, there have also been two separate environmental degradation incidents which occurred during these wells development causing the need for increased Game Commission coordination, and oversight management scrutiny.

S-10 The Pa budget & finance committee report is brand new, just released a couple of days ago and all that info and data was taken into account.

If i recall correctly, thats the story as told by pgc to the house game & fish committee recently? Of course they are charged with approving or denying a hunting fee increase.

But you can see the attempt to downplay it all by ol' quick carl as always. lol.

The revenue generated was 2,194,590 in 07/08. 08/09 it lept to 5,066,866 due to drilling!! Wonder what it may have been this year... Or next year? Remember this is just getting started!

ORIGINAL: wayne c

No blinders, but why the attempts to misrepresent the facts?

If you had some reasonable excuse It'd be understandable but you dont. Those are the projections. I would think a pgc supporter would be happy with them.

Btw, for the record, I support the current pgc management principals as well. But once you get past those principals into the implemention and pgcs distorted interpretation of them,then all bets are off.

 
There is no hope for you, is there.  Those projections are based on false assumptions, assumptions the report itself states are "false."  Ergo, the report is a piece of crap meant to get legislators all fired up with big money numbers that have NO basis in fact; when you actually read and understand what the report states.
 
Like stated previously, I do agree with the report that the PGC should hire more competent experts in the OGM division so they can maximize the Marcellus shale play in the future.  To do that, they need more funding and how do you get more immediate funding, increase the licenses (which haven't been increased since '99). 

Bottom line is that PGC should have had the mineral rights "in dispute" or unknown figgured out long before they became as valuable as they now are. VERY poor foresight.

"There is no hope for you, is there."

Ha ha ha. Yeah. Im the one. I think you better go back and reread my post and the sources of the info.

"Those projections are based on false assumptions, assumptions the report itself states are "false." "

Lmao. Oh, so thats what it is...The Pennsylvania Budget and Finance committee are the liars now! lol And it doesnt state a thing about being false. ha ha ha. According to your logic, they shoulda said: We find that income from the marcellus shale in the area made up of 4 Pa gamelands in the northeast should account for approx. 3 billion dollars... {oh, and by the way dont quote us on that because its false} lmao.

"Ergo, the report is a piece of crap meant to get legislators all fired up with big money numbers that have NO basis in fact; when you actually read and understand what the report states. "

Oh. Ok. Conspiracy theories now. So if they're lying, i guess we can completely ignore pgc Marcellus holding, give them any fee increase they like and let them just do whatever they like with their newfound bazillions, and take THEIR word for everything because theyd never lie to us would they??. lol

Sorry but me thinks not! Thats not the way things work, nor should they. PGc has and has to have oversight. When governing body has no oversight and unanswerable to anyone, that would be a tyranny. Thats been frowned upon in most modern day countries including the US.

Sorry S-10, I relalized I mis-understood your post and went back and deleted it but you had already read and relpied...
 
MY BAD !!!!
 
The internet is CRAZY TODAY everywhere !!!!

And so in this case, when Penn State produced data which supported the pgc in the deer audit, it was automatically valid, but when it produced data which was against the pgc in the revenue study then it is no good.

Once again PGC pick a position.

Check the credits.....Much of the research used by the PGC comes from PSU and WMI used sources there as well to validate procedures

eyesgills, in all this discussion not ONE THING has changed about my very first post. All said in it is still dead on accurate. Those are the projections, not based on nothing fairy tales. They mentioned possibility of fluctuation and this was a median estimate not absolute top extreme. And thats all anyone should expect, and what was expected from the report.

"is a little bit different than publishing a report that states the PGC will $249 million from 43,000+ acres of gamelands when the known Mineral rights to that said area is only 24%."

And that 24% figure was taken into account IMMEDIATELY by me in the very first post. And as for the signing 249 mill. I didnt even add it into the figures!! As i said a portion of that would be added on top of the over 700,000,000 for only 4 gamelands! lol.

What about the rest of the state? We're talking astronomical otherwordly figures, which we have no way of even guessing at yet, other than to know they will be very significant, on top of that which we already know. In fact in some areas of the state pgc owns even more than 24%. SOme other areas listed ran as high as 49%!!!!! Throw in all the other areas of lesser holdings and all you are doing is STILL adding to the totals mentioned above!

Eyes & gills, your loyalty to pgc is admirable, but with all do respect you clearly dont have a clue about pgc financial issues.

Just checked it out and Pgcs current reserve is now down to $39 mil (guess i was way off? ). Down from a couple of year ago very slightly. And with projections of only losing 2 mil from the reserve. At that rate, the reserve would last many years if need be. You could see the full financial report if i could find it on the new site, as it was posted on the old one before renovation, i'll see if i can find it. If not, only way now will be through the "right to know act"? Feel free to ask them for it....Then again, im guessing you probably already knew that...

But here is from the recent annual report to the legislators just the other day as told by Penn Fed Rep.:

Chairman Staback asked Roe to compare last year's reserve balance with this year's projected balance. Roe replied last year's reserve balance was $39 million and this year an ending balance of $37 million is projected. He quickly added that federal funding requiring matching funds could change this end amount.

That total carries over from year to year and grows a little if income exceeds expenditures, it declines slightly if they need to dip into it. It has been staying around the same with only slight changes in the last few years of slight increase and slight declines.

"Until you really READ the report, it doesn't make much sense to argue with you about it. "

I read it as soon as it was released. Pretty straight forward. Just as i spelled out in my first post of this thread.

Did you take note how the report stated that the PGC should hire more OGM and forestry personnel to be able to maximize their income from these resources?

SO? And he will. What of it?

"Did you take note how Rendell implemented a hiring freeze last year for all state employees, which prevented the PGC from hiring several foresters and an OGM person, even though they were budgeted for and fully funded?"

So? That hasnt stopped the drilling on gamelands. And its also addressed.