In both cases, the parties to the approval bear the full cost and the risk of carrying out such scheduled operations in the proportions they have chosen. If such an operation results in a dry hole, the consenting parties are required to close and abandon the well and restore the surface to their own costs, risks and costs (the 1989 form distinguishes for additional costs). When consenting parties engage in the operation of a well, each non-consensual party is considered to be temporarily transferred to the consenting parties and the consenting parties are owners and have the right to obtain, in proportion to their respective interests, “all the interests of that non-consensual party, ™ interest in the well and the share of the production in the enageung to which the non-consequential party did not participate.” I find the Lexology News Feed very relevant and articles of excellent quality. I often store copies of articles for future references or for use in the cases I work on. I share the information of these articles with my colleagues. The 1982 form and the 1989 form generally form the basis of modern common enterprise agreements. There are significant differences between the versions and many enterprise agreements contain provisions added by the parties that modify or supplement the printed terms of the form. It is therefore important to carefully read each enterprise agreement in order to assess the rights and obligations of all parties. Over the past 25 years, legal commentators have advocated further changes to the 1989 form, in addition to the revisions required for horizontal drilling.  See z.B., See Andrew B. Derman, The New and Improved 1989 Joint Operating Agreement: A Working Manual, ABA Natural Resources, Energy and Environmental Law Sec.
Monograph No. 15 (1991); Robert C. Bledsoe, The Operating Agreement: Matters Not Covered or Inquat Covered, 47 Rocky Mt. Min. L. Inst. 15-1 (2001); Mark A. Matthews – Christopher S. Kulander, additional provisions for the formation of joint operating agreements, State Bar of Tex. Oil Gas – Min L.
Sec. Rep. 33, No. 2, at 39 (Dec. 2008); Michel E. Curry, The Operating Agreement – After the Honeymoon, 31 State Bar of Tex. Oil Gas – Min. L. Inst. (2005); curry, supra; Lamont C.
Larsen, 36. Many of these recommended amendments were a reaction to conflicting, surprising or controversial interpretations of model forms by the courts.  Reeves, supra Note 23. Other commentators have focused on the changes needed to make the form more in line with the general expectations of the industry.  Robert C. Bledsoe, Ten Unworkable Aspects of the Model Form Operating Agreement and Suggestions, 18th Annual Advanced Oil, Gas and Mineral Law Course Ch. 16, September 2000, Houston, Texas. In addition, in recent decades, lawyers and compatriots have adapted the model forms for each deal to better respond to the unique circumstances of the transaction and better meet the expectations of the parties.  See Michel E. Curry, The Perfect Operating Agreement: Considerations in Drafting Changes to the Model Form JOA, 26 State Bar of Tex. Oil Gas – Min. L.
Inst. 17-1 (2008); See also Thomas A. Daily, note 28 above (with the indication that a form is just a form. A size will never suit everyone. The forms have been adapted to be adjusted. »). Since the 1989 form has been in use for approximately 25 years at the time of this document, most practitioners are in the habit of adding various additional provisions to the Section XVI form.