43 C.F.R. § 3162.3

Conduct of operations

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Whenever a change in operator occurs, the authorized officer shall be notified promptly in writing, and the new operator shall furnish evidence of sufficient bond coverage in accordance with § 3106.6 and subpart 3104 of this title.

(b) A contractor on a leasehold shall be considered the agent of the operator for such operations with full responsibility for acting on behalf of the operator for purposes of complying with applicable laws, regulations, the lease terms, NTL's, Onshore Oil and Gas Orders, and other orders and instructions of the authorized officer.

[53 FR 17363, May 16, 1988; 53 FR 31959, Aug. 22, 1988]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1989–2014 · leading case: San Juan Citizens All. v. Stiles, 654 F.3d 1038 (10th Cir. 2011).
San Juan Citizens All. v. Stiles, 654 F.3d 1038 (10th Cir. 2011). · cites it 3× “§ 226 (g); 43 C.F.R. § 3162.3 — 1(d)(2). The SUPO, which may be submitted for several wells, must provide the location of the drillpad and road, details of pad construction and methods of containing and disposing of waste, and a surface reclamation plan for when the well is put…”
Barlow & Haun, Inc. v. United States, 118 Fed. Cl. 597 (Fed. Cl. 2014). · cites it 5× “The required drilling plan must contain “a description of the drilling program, the surface and projected completion zone location, pertinent geological data, expected hazards, and proposed mitigation measures to address such hazards,” 43 C.F.R. § 3162.3 -l(e), and “must be in…”
Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 490 U.S. 163 (1989). “See 43 CFR §§ 3162.3 -l(a) and (b) (1987). To the extent that the majority relies on services provided to members of the Tribe or on off-reservation services provided to Cotton Petroleum, see ante, at 185, 189, those expenditures are not relevant under our precedents.”
Pennaco Energy, Inc. v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 377 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 2004). “” 43 C.F.R. § 3162.3 -l(c). II. BLM’s decision to auction leases At issue in this case is whether the BLM satisfied the NEPA prior to auctioning three oil and gas leases on February 1, 2000, for the development of tracts of land in the Powder River Basin in Wyoming.”
Nat. Resources Def. Council v. Kempthorne, 525 F. Supp. 2d 115 (D.D.C. 2007). · cites it 2× “” 43 C.F.R. § 3162.34 (d). For APD on federal lands, the authorized officer is required to post “information for public inspection at least 30 days before each action to approve the [APD].”
Wyoming Outdoor Council v. Bosworth, 284 F. Supp. 2d 81 (D.D.C. 2003). “43 C.F.R. § 3162.3 -l(d), (h). Before it may approve the APD, the BLM (or for forest lands, the Forest Service) first must approve the SUPO.”
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe v. Rodriguez, 660 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir. 2011). “, dissenting) (citing 43 C.F.R. § 3162.3 -I(a) and (b) (1987)).”
W. Org. of Resource Councils v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 591 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (D. Wyo. 2008). · cites it 2× “1 and 43 CFR Part 3162.3. An on-site inspection of the locations proposed for the well, access road, *1235 pipelines, and other areas of proposed surface use would be conducted before approval.”
Chihuahuan Grasslands All. v. Norton, 507 F. Supp. 2d 1216 (D.N.M. 2007). “In such circumstances, 43 C.F.R. § 3162.3 -l(h)(2) provides express authority to disapprove drilling applications which would violate NEPA if approved.”
Devon Energy Corp. v. United States, 45 Fed. Cl. 519 (Fed. Cl. 1999). “without first notifying the supervisor of his plan and intention and receiving written approval prior to commencing the contemplated work----”); accord 43 C.F.R. § 3162.3 -l(c) (1997). Plaintiff Devon Energy Corp.”
Del-Rio Drilling Programs, Inc. v. United States, 37 Fed. Cl. 157 (Fed. Cl. 1997). “43 C.F.R. § 3162.3 -l(e) (1996). 2 The BLM approved Del-Rio’s first such APD on December 20, 1979.”
Del Rio Drilling Programs, Inc. v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 186 (Fed. Cl. 1996). “43 C.F.R. § 3162.3 -l(c) (1995) requires the submission to BLM of an APD for each well.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.