Allocation of rights over offshore oil and gas resources : a study of the legal systems in force in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is concerned with one aspect of government management regimes for offshore oil and gas - the allocation of rights over these resources. The method by which rights may be acquired, the scope of the rights, and the terms and conditions upon which they are obtained are matters of great significance in determining the overall effectiveness of a management regime. Four coastal nations have been chosen for study. They are the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada and Australia. The systems adopted by these countries for allocation of offshore oil and gas rights are similar in that they rely mainly upon private enterprise for the development of the resources, but otherwise there are considerable differences. In the first place, the thesis contains a brief statement of the nature and extent of the rights of coastal nations over offshore oil and gas resources at international law. This is to provide the basic framework within which the management regimes of the four countries must operate. Secondly, there is a detailed description of the allocation systems in each of the four countries, with special attention being given to the historical background of the laws which establish the systems, to the provisions of those laws, and to the practical operation of the systems. Finally, there is a comparative assessment of the systems in terms of specific objectives which should form the basis of a government management regime for offshore oil and gas.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".