Some Recurring Issues in Operating Agreements and What AAPL's Drafting Committee Might Do About Them
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The inherent inefficiency of reinventing the wheel for every drilling venture led to the development of the first American Association of Professional Landmen (AAPL) Form 610 Model Form Operating Agreement in 1956 (AAPL Form 610-1956). Revised forms followed in 1977, 1982, and 1989. The AAPL model forms have become the standard in the United States, and will be the focus of this chapter. The AAPL has begun the process of revising the AAPL Form 610-1989 Model Form Operating Agreement (AAPL Form 610-1989),19 and over the next couple of years everyone active in the industry likely will find themselves discussing what the drafting committee proposes or what the drafting committee ought to do. This chapter will consider some issues that commonly arise with operating agreements and suggest to the drafting committee some changes that they might consider. In particular, this chapter will focus on what we can learn from others, looking at some of the provisions in the Association of International Petroleum Negotiators (AIPN) 2012 Model International JOA (AIPN 2012 JOA), the Canadian Association of Petroleum Landmen (CAPL) 2007 Operating Procedure (CAPL 2007 Operating Procedure), the Australian Mining and Petroleum Law Association (AMPLA) Model Petroleum Joint Operating Agreement (AMPLA 2011 JOA), the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association (UKOOA) Model Form JOA (UKOOA 2009 JOA), and the model forms issued by the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation. This chapter will also examine the more recent AAPL drafting ventures for offshore operations, which the AAPL drafting committee might consider to address the recurring issues that will be discussed. Due to time and space limitations, the focus will be on issues related to operators — particularly operator liability and operator removal.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".