Communitization Agreement Wyoming

[21] “unit operator” is defined as the person authorized to carry out operations on unit surfaces in accordance with the unit agreement approved by the BLM. 43 CFR 3100.0-5 (b). lR2000. Das LR2000-System of the BLM ist eine sehr netzliche Resource, die Berichte ber BLM-Berechtigungen bereitstellt. From these reports, a geographic index report listing the authorizations of a given section of basic and serial registration sites is often used by auditors. Serial registry pages are essentially a snapshot of BLM authorizations, including the corresponding oil and gas leasing, and contain relevant information, such as the status of . B their status (active, expired, etc.), the lands concerned, land amounts, relevant data (z.B validity date and expiry date) and other useful information, for example. B if production has been reached, and all communitarianizations concerning the federal leasing contract. In addition, the serial registry page shows the current owner of the registration title and all operating rights recognized by the BLM and may contain entries on the latest rankings that are not yet included in the leasing file. 2Mischaracterization is often found in text and cases with regard to the terminology of pooling and uniting. The competent authorities define the unitization in order to call the production area, for example.

B the field that includes production areas. On the other hand, a pooling agreement includes the areas needed to secure a drilling site within surface restrictions for field-appropriate endowments. It is not uncommon to have pooling agreements that will then be part of a single area. Communitarianization as a term that is not normally used looks pretty much like pooling, as it is 30 U.S. C 226J is used in the disjunctive as “mutuization or drilling agreements.” A drilling agreement may be, but is sometimes not the same as a pooling agreement: [11.] Since the communitarian agreement applies only to the complainant`s 40-hectare land, only those 40 hectares are covered by the agreement. In support of this argument, the applicant cites Hartman v. Potter, Utah, 596, p. 2d 653 (1979), a case that deals with the problem of determining the intent of the perpetrator. In this case, the court stated: “The description of the property in an act is prima facie an expression of the intent of the conceded.” Id.

to 656. However, in this case, the mutualization agreement, in its words, concerns both land that is held as a communal area and any lease agreement that is linked to the agreement.

Posted in Uncategorised