43 C.F.R. § 3180.0-5

Definitions

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

The following terms, as used in this part or in any unit agreement approved under the regulations in this part, shall have the meanings here indicated unless otherwise defined in such unit agreement:

Federal lease. A lease issued under the Act of February 25, 1920, as amended (30 U.S.C. 181, et seq.); the Act of May 21, 1930 (30 U.S.C. 351-359); the Act of August 7, 1947 (30 U.S.C. 351, et seq.); or the Act of November 16, 1981 (Pub. L. 97-98, 95 Stat. 1070).

Participating area. That part of a unit area which is considered reasonably proven to be productive of unitized substances in paying quantities or which is necessary for unit operations and to which production is allocated in the manner prescribed in the unit agreement.

Unit area. The area described in an agreement as constituting the land logically subject to exploration and/or development under such agreement.

Unitized land. Those lands and formations within a unit area which are committed to an approved agreement or plan.

Unitized substances. Deposits of oil and gas contained in the unitized land which are recoverable in paying quantities by operation under and pursuant to an agreement.

Working interest. An interest held in unitized substances or in lands containing the same by virtue of a lease, operating agreement, fee title, or otherwise, under which, except as otherwise provided in the agreement, the owner of such interest is vested with the right to explore for, develop, and produce such substances. The rights delegated to the unit operator by the unit agreement are not regarded as a working interest.

[48 FR 26766, June 10, 1983. Redesignated and amended at 48 FR 36587, Aug. 12, 1983; 51 FR 34603, Sept. 30, 1986]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2004–2004 · leading case: Riviera Drilling & Expl. Co. v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 395 (Fed. Cl. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Riviera Drilling & Expl. Co. v. United States, 61 Fed. Cl. 395 (Fed. Cl. 2004). “’s Reply at 3 (quoting 43 C.F.R. § 3180.0-5 (2003)). The evidence that Riviera had working interests in the Ragged Mountain Unit does not necessarily mean that Riviera had a contract with the United States-such rights could be obtained from a third party such as the lessee of…”

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.