Oklahoma County BOE sets assessed value for Cactus Drilling rigs at about $10.7 million; total account $11.0 million

The Oklahoma County Board of Equalization set the assessed value for BOE case 155 (Cactus Drilling Company LLC) at $10,714,980 for drilling rigs and an agreed equipment/inventory amount of $441,871, producing a total assessed value of about $11,000,001 during a July 14, 2025 special meeting. The board voted 3-0 to approve the valuation and instructed the clerk to mail the formal decision to the appellant.

The decision ended an appeal in which Eric, representing Cactus Drilling Company LLC, argued that seven rigs on the company's yard were obsolete and effectively scrap. “These rigs are essentially useless,” Eric said during the hearing, describing the equipment as old, underpowered and functioning only as a parts source rather than deployable drilling rigs. He told the board his client treats many of the units as salvage and that restoring any single rig to field-ready condition would require “millions of dollars” of capital investment.

The assessor’s office, speaking for the county, described an independent contractor review by Total Assessment Solutions (TAS/TACS) and said the contractor had applied a roughly 70% obsolescence adjustment to new cost to arrive at a combined rigs value of about $12.4 million before the hearing review. The assessor’s representative said TAS reviewed the account twice and returned the same result. The assessor’s official noted there is also a separate inventory/equipment valuation that the appellant did not contest.

Why it matters: The board’s ruling determines the taxable value for the account and affects the company’s 2025 property tax liability in Oklahoma County. The hearing also illustrates a recurring valuation issue in county appeals: whether out-of-service drilling rigs should be valued as stacked (idle but serviceable) equipment with a reduced percentage of new cost, or as salvaged/scrap material with substantially lower value.

Discussion and evidence: Eric told the board the rigs in question were mostly put in service between 2003 and 2008 and that many are roughly 20 years old. He said horsepower for the units ranges generally from about 1,000 to 2,000 horsepower and that typical depths assigned range from about 15,000 to 20,000 feet. The appellant asked the board to adopt a substantially lower value (a lower, scrap-based figure provided in the appellant’s packet); the transcript shows some confusion about the exact number in the mailed packet, so the company’s stated requested value is recorded in the hearing materials rather than quoted here.

The assessor’s office explained it used TAS (Total Assessment Solutions) — described in the hearing as a specialist contractor for oil-and-gas equipment valuation — to derive a new-cost basis for seven rigs and then apply a 70% reduction (obsolescence/salvage adjustment) that resulted in a combined rigs valuation of about $12.4 million before the board’s reduction. The assessor’s representative told the board TAS reconfirmed that result when asked to re-review the materials.

Board action and vote: Board members discussed prior-year treatment of the account (the board reduced the earlier assessment roughly in half during the prior appeal). After discussion about whether one rig had been removed or replaced since last year, a board member proposed reducing the assessor’s rigs figure modestly and retaining the agreed-upon inventory/equipment valuation. The motion to set the rigs value at $10,714,980 plus equipment/inventory of $441,871 (total assessed value approximately $11,000,001) was moved, seconded and approved on recorded voice votes (three yes votes recorded). The board directed staff to issue the written decision by mail; the appellant was told to expect a letter within a few days.

Process notes and limits: The presiding official reminded the parties that the Board of Equalization is an appellate forum and generally reviews matters presented at the assessor’s informal review; the board declined to accept some materials submitted by the appellant on the morning of the hearing because the county’s contractor had not had an opportunity to review them. The assessor’s representative likewise said the contractor had not examined the late-submitted packet and recommended against considering it during today’s proceeding.

Next steps: The board said it will finalize and mail the written determination to the appellant. The panel also noted a tentative follow-up meeting date—Monday, July 28—to handle any late filings or clerical follow-ups for multiple accounts.

Ending: The board adjourned after confirming the vote and mailing procedures.