#drillsite

[sevenrs]

if you're gonna talk about your ocs unprompt let me prompt you to talk about them

seriously i wanna read anything on ur ocs i am very interested

thank you for the interest! my guys mean a lot to me so it's very touching someone else would want to hear about them

i usually work on my ocs one at a time. and it is flight of the crows' turn

i dont have a proper reference outside of my iterator lineup so this is the best picture i have (that i did draw)

crows IS named after the jhariah song of the same name. im kind of obsessed with jhariah's music and i wanted an iterator inspired it. flight of the crows is also a kickass name. design is also inspired by the colors that he uses in his albums and i do have art of crows (and lost. but i will get to her later) using album palette

crows is one of the older iterators out of my guys (not one of the first few ever made but more like. 2nd-3rd gen iterator, maybe a bit higher depending on how many generations there really were)

crows' city was home to a large population of engineers, which helped improve and revise newer iterator designs. naturally, crows would lean about this as well, and became very invested in the subject

they were eventually skilled enough to alert their ancients to problems before the automated systems they made, or routine checks by the ancients. crows became pretty self-sustaining while they were around

but with them gone, they continued their learning by themselves, designing their own mechanical blueprints in simulations or using their puppets' hands to work with real materials. i imagine their can seems a little dangerous at times, with tools and spare metal and wires, but it is kept organized like pearls are (having control of gravity and all)

personality wise, crows is very reserved. quiet type, really doesn't speak unless prompted to by someone else. when prompted, has very detailed and seemingly well-thought out, calm responses. a great listener, but they tend to keep people at arms length

everyone except 2 people

before the ancients died, crows made contact with an iterator of a different local group (meatcatt's) lost in the dark.

lost's ancients discovered that she was build right on top of a huge pool of void fluid, and was being converted into more of a drillsite. lost was expected to come up with efficient solutions for how to do this, but she wasn't familiar with void drills.

and therefore asked for help in broadcasts. crows responded because they like building things and the two of them worked together on the projects, and also began to naturally know each other beyond the projects. and then were also gay

one day, lost requested assistance with enhancing herself. and crows, a mechanic, naturally agreed. they made and passed blueprints to lost in order to alter her puppet, and eventually their whole structure

however lost's ancients did not take kindly to this at all. and they decided to cull lost before she got very out of control. i imagine it is something crows feels a lot of guilt about, and it is very bottled up

their relationship with my other iterator, chains by summer, was a very close friendship. maybe almost dating but im going to say friends. i think crows often gave advice to summer when his ancients were overbearing or got into spats that they made him decide. i think the others in crows' local group would also come to them for advice, but summer made an attempt to get to know crows better as a person. i imagine he was very persistent on asking how they were feeling and what they were up to in their projects. and crows would share, also choosing to trust summer with a bit of their own feelings. mostly.

there was one project that they kept a secret from them-- and it honestly ended their friendship

with no more ancients, their structures were dying. it would eventually fall, killing some of the older model iterators and leaving the newer ones to rot in a fate worse than death. crows wanted to see if they could escape their rotting body, and live simply as the puppet. it was a very risky ordeal, and crows, knowing summer, knew that he wouldnt take kindly to an idea that had a very high chance of sudden death regardless

so as they were making preparations for their plan, they stopped talking to summer, saying that they were being distracted from their work, and the two of them should just stop.

and after cutting it off with summer, and the rest of their local group, they would lure creatures with dexterous hands (mainly scavengers and slugcats) to find them scrap metal pieces and wire so they could build their own, autonomous tools that they could write code to automatically preform actions (can't reach their umbilical with their hands!)

and eventually it would work. crows needed to learn how to walk and balance with gravity involved, but they could leave their can. as long as they were around centipedes or had electric spears to charge

crows would then go on a journey to free the iterators of their own local group, as well as the local group nearby where lost used to be

summer was the last iterator they freed because they felt awkward. which was really torturous for summer because suddenly all of his iterator pals stopped talking to him and that boy lives on social interaction day to day

[acebanca]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Acebanca (@acebanca)

If you're gonna hold the #wingman then you gotta do work. twitch.tv/acebanca Join me again tomorrow morning at 7am for more Apex moments! #ApexLegends #gaming #affiliate #gibraltar #dowork #closequarters #quickshot #drillsite #takedown #followme #subscribe #battleroyale #playapex #pipelinegg #teamb42 #twitch #playstation (at Coos Bay, Oregon) https://www.instagram.com/p/B5J1qImA69q/?igshid=12k08nch8cebg

[grimmseye]

Not to be too negative but aaaaaugh Bow’s friendship speech to entrapta frustrates me so much. And at least in world I can pretend it’s cause he doesn’t know entrapta well but the writers sure framed him as being correct,

“Did you think friendship is easy? It takes effort.” He says. To entrapta.

To entrapta who was Scorpia’s first real friend, who delayed their mission at the drillsite so Catra could have fun, who saved Catra’s life, who assured Hordak of his self worth and built him a suit of armor to improve his quality of life, who arrived to save Bow and Glimmer from the Horde, the mission that left her in the Fright Zone in the first place,

But she definitely doesn’t know that friendship isn’t easy, that it takes effort,

[skythenolife]

I just presed button at the new landing site(Where drillsite used to be) and then the server shut down for my friend and I-

[johntheaussie]

Willy-Willy, Whirlwind, Dust Devil, Mini Tornado... whatever you call them. #Whirlwind #WillyWilly #DustDevil #MiniTornado #Tornado #Outback #Queensland @Queensland #DrillSite #Exploration #Camp @australia #Australia #Tourism_Au #travelqld #OurQld #ThisIsQueensland (at Queensland)

[maximuswolf]

Members of Wet’suwet’en tribe occupy pipeline drillsite in Canada as protests reignite via /r/Anarchism

Members of Wet’suwet’en tribe occupy pipeline drillsite in Canada as protests reignite https://ift.tt/3nWc4Cw Submitted October 16, 2020 at 09:50AM by mooke_ via reddit https://ift.tt/3538KNr

[lawfultruth]

Louisiana Operator Can’t Deduct Post-Production Costs from Unleased Mineral Owners

Co-author Ethan Wood

In Johnson et al vs. Chesapeake et al, unit operator Chesapeake deducted post-production costs (gathering, compression, treatment, processing, transportation and dehydration) from non-operating, unleased mineral  owners’ share of production proceeds. The UMO’s (so-called by the court) sued. The federal district court concluded that La. R.S. 30:10(A)(3) governs the dispute, and post-production costs could not be recovered from the UMO’s share of production proceeds.

The UMOs said …

The case is to be decided by application of Louisiana statutory law. La. R. S. 30:10 (A)(2) provides, “In the event pooling is required, the costs of development and operation of the pooled unit chargeable to the owners therein shall be determined and recovered as provided herein”. “Owners” includes the UMO’s. La. R.S 30:10(A)(3) provides that where owners of unleased interests are included in a unit created by the commissioner of conservation, the unit operator shall pay “ … to such party or parties such tract’s pro rata share of the proceeds of the sale of production within 180 days.”

Chesapeake said …

Section 30:10 does not apply because the statute addresses development and operating costs and does not address costs beyond the point of production. Post-production costs can be assessed under the theories of unjust enrichment or, alternatively co-ownership, according to Louisiana Civil Code art 4. Any other result would lead to absurd consequences because the UMO plaintiffs would enjoy a “free ride” at the expense of the operator.

Then the UMO’s said …

Co-ownership and unjust enrichment cannot supersede the positive statutory law governing the UMOs’ payment rights. A specific statutory provision governs when an unleased owner is to be paid for production from a compulsory unit, and that is 30:10(A)(3). The UMOs asked the court to compare 10(A)(2) and 10(A)(3) and note the distinction between UMO’s and non-participating working interest owners. The UMO is entitled to be paid his tract’s pro rata share of production proceeds. No costs other than for drilling and operating are identified in the statute as recoverable.

… and the court ruled.

The legislature could have phrased 10(A)(3) to authorize deduction of post-production costs but it did not do so. The plain language of the statute does not include postproduction expenses as permissible deductions. The court, reading the statute as a whole, saw that UMO’s and nonparticipating working interest owners are treated differently is several respects. For example, a specific set of costs is addressed in 10(A)(2). 10(A)(3) applies only to UMO’s and there is no enumeration of costs there. Under Civil Code art. 4, when there is no rule for a particular situation that can be derived from legislation or custom the court is bound to proceed according to equity. But a claim for unjust enrichment cannot be employed to modify the positive law stated in 30:10(A)(3).

As a case of first impression with implications far beyond these parties, one would expect strong disagreement in the producer community. For example, the court reasoned that its construction of the statute, essentially granting the UMO’s a “no cost royalty clause “, as not unjust. Producers would respectfully disagree.

What would happen in Texas?

The result would likely not be the same. The general rule: A co-owner of a tract must account to its co-tenants for “the value of the minerals taken less the necessary and reasonable cost of producing and marketing the same.” And Chesapeake v. Hyder tells us that marketing costs are post-production. (“Value at the well is…net of reasonable marketing costs.”).

What about a unit? Texans, reluctant as they are to submit to any governing body, have no compulsory pooling regime akin to Louisiana’s. Generally, an unleased mineral owner in the drillsite tract within a pooled unit (itself a creature of contract) would be entitled to an accounting from his co-tenant. Not on the drillsite tract? Unless you ratify the unit, the operator has no duty to you. You want to force your way in under the Mineral Interest Pooling Act? Good luck.

A Louisiana case begs one to ask, What would Dewey Balfa do?

Louisiana Operator Can’t Deduct Post-Production Costs from Unleased Mineral Owners syndicated from https://ronenkurzfeldweb.wordpress.com/

[alexandersmcdaniels]

Louisiana Operator Can’t Deduct Post-Production Costs from Unleased Mineral Owners

Co-author Ethan Wood

In Johnson et al vs. Chesapeake et al, unit operator Chesapeake deducted post-production costs (gathering, compression, treatment, processing, transportation and dehydration) from non-operating, unleased mineral  owners’ share of production proceeds. The UMO’s (so-called by the court) sued. The federal district court concluded that La. R.S. 30:10(A)(3) governs the dispute, and post-production costs could not be recovered from the UMO’s share of production proceeds.

The UMOs said …

The case is to be decided by application of Louisiana statutory law. La. R. S. 30:10 (A)(2) provides, “In the event pooling is required, the costs of development and operation of the pooled unit chargeable to the owners therein shall be determined and recovered as provided herein”. “Owners” includes the UMO’s. La. R.S 30:10(A)(3) provides that where owners of unleased interests are included in a unit created by the commissioner of conservation, the unit operator shall pay “ … to such party or parties such tract’s pro rata share of the proceeds of the sale of production within 180 days.”

Chesapeake said …

Section 30:10 does not apply because the statute addresses development and operating costs and does not address costs beyond the point of production. Post-production costs can be assessed under the theories of unjust enrichment or, alternatively co-ownership, according to Louisiana Civil Code art 4. Any other result would lead to absurd consequences because the UMO plaintiffs would enjoy a “free ride” at the expense of the operator.

Then the UMO’s said …

Co-ownership and unjust enrichment cannot supersede the positive statutory law governing the UMOs’ payment rights. A specific statutory provision governs when an unleased owner is to be paid for production from a compulsory unit, and that is 30:10(A)(3). The UMOs asked the court to compare 10(A)(2) and 10(A)(3) and note the distinction between UMO’s and non-participating working interest owners. The UMO is entitled to be paid his tract’s pro rata share of production proceeds. No costs other than for drilling and operating are identified in the statute as recoverable.

… and the court ruled.

The legislature could have phrased 10(A)(3) to authorize deduction of post-production costs but it did not do so. The plain language of the statute does not include postproduction expenses as permissible deductions. The court, reading the statute as a whole, saw that UMO’s and nonparticipating working interest owners are treated differently is several respects. For example, a specific set of costs is addressed in 10(A)(2). 10(A)(3) applies only to UMO’s and there is no enumeration of costs there. Under Civil Code art. 4, when there is no rule for a particular situation that can be derived from legislation or custom the court is bound to proceed according to equity. But a claim for unjust enrichment cannot be employed to modify the positive law stated in 30:10(A)(3).

As a case of first impression with implications far beyond these parties, one would expect strong disagreement in the producer community. For example, the court reasoned that its construction of the statute, essentially granting the UMO’s a “no cost royalty clause “, as not unjust. Producers would respectfully disagree.

What would happen in Texas?

The result would likely not be the same. The general rule: A co-owner of a tract must account to its co-tenants for “the value of the minerals taken less the necessary and reasonable cost of producing and marketing the same.” And Chesapeake v. Hyder tells us that marketing costs are post-production. (“Value at the well is…net of reasonable marketing costs.”).

What about a unit? Texans, reluctant as they are to submit to any governing body, have no compulsory pooling regime akin to Louisiana’s. Generally, an unleased mineral owner in the drillsite tract within a pooled unit (itself a creature of contract) would be entitled to an accounting from his co-tenant. Not on the drillsite tract? Unless you ratify the unit, the operator has no duty to you. You want to force your way in under the Mineral Interest Pooling Act? Good luck.

A Louisiana case begs one to ask, What would Dewey Balfa do?

from Oil And Gas Updates https://www.energyandthelaw.com/2019/04/04/louisiana-operator-cant-deduct-post-production-costs-from-unleased-mineral-owners/

[maximuswolf]

Wet’suwet’en occupy pipeline drillsite in Canada as protests reignite via /r/socialism

Wet’suwet’en occupy pipeline drillsite in Canada as protests reignite https://ift.tt/3nWc4Cw Submitted October 16, 2020 at 07:20AM by raicopk via reddit https://ift.tt/34352E2