Communitization Agreement Wyoming


[16.] The original royalty and gas leasing document, in the printed form of a typical oil patch, contained a pooling clause that was expressly removed in its execution1.1 Neither the lease agreement resulting from the removal of the pooling clause, nor the pooling contract for the well site , executed later, did not include a «pugh» clause. 4 Kuntz, Gas- und Gasgesetz, 48.4-225 (1972); Comment, The Effect of Unitization on the Duration and Extent of Mineral Interests in Louisiana, 36 Tul. L. Rev. 769 (1962); Moses, Some Comments on the `Pugh` Clause in Louisiana Oil and Gas Leases, 37 Tul. L. Rev. L. Clearly, the clause was not necessary because the duration of the tenancy was removed and it was not taken into account in the pool agreement when the agreement was offered to the unsuspected lessor by the representative of the oil company. «4. In 1971, our family was approached by the oil companies to group forty hectares of land in the lease (Exhibit 1) with forty hectares of minerals owned by the federal government to form a distance unit for a well drilled on federal minerals. After much discussion on this subject, we agreed to consolidate forty hectares of our minerals with federal minerals, on the condition that only this forty-hectare wing would be bound in the agreement that the balance of land in the lease (Exhibit 1) would not be maintained by pooling.

The lands on which we have agreed are described as follows: «The payment of rent under the terms of the leases that are the subject of this agreement is not affected by this contract, unless it has been provided for in the terms and conditions of these leases or there may be other provisions.» «The terms `pooling` and `unitization` are not words of art. In many statutes, court decisions and other legal articles on this subject, the reader finds references to concepts such as pooling, inititation, communitization, integration, consolidation, etc. All these terms refer to a single legal outcome that brings the interests of the parties together into a single cooperative development and production unit, so that all parties participate, in relation to their respective interests, in all oils or gases produced from the unit, regardless of the territory of the unit from which the production can be extracted. , is involved. For simplicity`s sake, the terms used in this article to describe such a legal outcome are limited to the terms «pooling» and «unitization.» If so, the merger or association under discussion is considered either «voluntary» or «mandatory.» I do not find this language so clear and clear that the landowner has no right to rely on what the representative of the oil company explained to him during the tender for the execution. Compare McGinnis v. General Petroleum Corp., Wyo., 385 P.2d 198 (1963), where a leasing-pooling clause and a subsequent confirmation agreement were executed. «With about 80.00 hectares and this arrangement, only the Muddy formation that underlies these lands, as well as the associated crude oil and gas hydrocarbons, known as «communitarian substances,» can be included. a.

BLM leasing file. The most obvious legal source is the leasing file managed by the Bureau of Land Management («BLM»). The rental file contains documents relating to the sale of the lease, a copy of the lease agreement, rental confirmations, notices of lease status, all submitted assignments and other documents, such as documents relating to mutualisation contracts.B.

Esta entrada fue publicada en Sin categoría. Guarda el enlace permanente.