Site Sharing Agreement

The PSSA attempts to resolve these issues, to “mix” certain interests of the parties and to regulate the easiest-to-understand activities within a single agreement. The PSSA contains elements of PJVA Construction, the Exchange and Operating Agreement (CO-O), CAPL Operating Procedure 2015 and pasc Accounting Guidelines. In terms of form, the PSSA follows the famous Head Document / Appendix Split. 2. Company A is the designated operator in several JOAs covering several parts of land on which the partners concerned have different interests for the interests of the work. Assuming that only one well is drilled in each section, each company reflects the shared interest in the Shared Pad site its proportionate interest in wells. Because of the different interests involved in a common pad site, the PSSA recognizes the differences between the well-connected activities carried out under the various land agreements and the localization activities governed exclusively by the PSSA. To meet this distinction, the site operator must act both as an “land operator” operating the well on behalf of the various well owners and as a site operator whose job it is to manage the common pad site. Due to the size of this operating order, the PSSA does not record independent operations on the shared pad site. 1.

Company A has a 100% section (section 1) and a section in which it holds a 75-25% interest in Company B (section 2). A and B could share a Pad site while B is not interested in Section X. Assuming a well is drilled in each section, A would have a mixed interest of 87.5% for the shared Pad site and B would have balance. The PSSA is based on a single operator model, which corresponds to the “Prime Contractor” model, which is often found in occupational health and safety legislation. In this approach, the Site Operator manages and controls all operations performed on the shared pad site and also manages the common account. However, in order to better protect the interests of the parties, the operator of the site remains subject to the supervision of the Works Council. Note, however, that while the PSSA considers that each party`s “mixed” participation in the Pad site stems from its work interest in proportional to the wells managed by the PSSA, the PSSA does not include or report the production of the parts from those wells. Each participant owns only substances that are attributable to their share of petroleum products produced from wells to which they have an operational interest. Not all business relationships are suitable for a site sharing pad contract.

In fact, the editorial board stated that the ASP would handle 80% of cases where parties wished to use a common pad website. The following two scenarios illustrate the relationships that are best suited to this type of agreement: recognizing the increasingly important role that environmental commitments play in oil and gas regulation[5], the PSSA is taking steps to ensure that the parties can meet their waiver and recovery (ARO) obligations. As a general rule, the parties are responsible for the ARO, which is linked to their own wells, and the ARO, which is linked to the Pad site, is a shared responsibility. [6] When a party wishes to withdraw from an agreement, it must first honour its unpaid environmental commitments and/or provide guarantees that are able to insure any follow-up costs (approximately 125% of the estimated quantum). [7] The PSSA is a complex document that addresses a number of complex issues and provides the parties with an adaptable model agreement to regulate land development in circumstances that are not within the traditional scope of an JOA or CO-O.

Posted in Uncategorized.