首页> 外文期刊>Resources policy >An institutional interpretation of unitization legislation: the case of Texas and Oklahoma
【24h】

An institutional interpretation of unitization legislation: the case of Texas and Oklahoma

机译:统一立法的制度解释:德克萨斯州和俄克拉荷马州的案例

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

During the production of an oil and gas reservoir the common pool problem asserts itself as multiple users have the right to withdraw hydrocarbons from the same source of supply. Unitization offers a private contractual solution to this problem. Texas and Oklahoma have both adopted legislation enabling the formation of unit operating agreements that allow for a private contractual solution to the common pool resource problem. Intriguingly Oklahoma has adopted the most liberal unitization statute of any major oil producing state and Texas the most restrictive. The difference between Texas and Oklahoma has traditionally been explained by assessing the relative influence of majors and independents in the two states at the time the legislation was adopted. However, this explanation while no doubt partially valid does not tell the complete story. An examination of land tenure patterns in the two states and an analysis of field characteristics from a random sample taken from each state indicates that the Oklahoma may have been facing a far greater problem in regard to the fracturing of the mineral estate and thus a more drastic solution was required.
机译:在油气储层的生产过程中,由于多个用户有权从同一供应源中抽取碳氢化合物,因此存在共同的油库问题。单位化为这个问题提供了私人合同解决方案。得克萨斯州和俄克拉荷马州都已通过立法,允许形成单位运营协议,从而允许以私人合同方式解决共同资源池问题。有趣的是,俄克拉荷马州采用了所有主要产油州中最自由的统一法规,而德克萨斯州则采用了最严格的法规。传统上,德克萨斯州和俄克拉荷马州之间的差异是通过评估立法通过时两个州的专业和独立人士的相对影响来解释的。但是,这种解释虽然无疑是部分有效的,但并不能说明全部内容。对这两个州的土地所有制格局进行检查并从每个州抽取的随机样本进行的田间特征分析表明,俄克拉荷马州可能面临着更大的矿产破裂问题,因此更为严峻解决方案是必需的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号