Opinion ID: 2630621
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: pertinent joa provisions

Text: ¶ 9 The question before us is one of contract construction. The JOA at issue, an A.A.P.L. Form 610  Model Form Operating Agreement-1956, is a printed form which is altered by certain deletions and modifications of the parties. The term operator is not defined in the agreement. A document entitled Accounting Procedure Joint Operations, attached as an exhibit and made a part of the JOA, defines operator as the party designated to conduct the Joint Operations. ¶ 10 Two JOA provisions primarily reference the status of unit operator. The first, is paragraph 5, entitled Operator of Unit. [11] At the contract's inception it was agreed by the parties that Cheyenne would be designated operator of the unit area. Paragraph 5 provides Cheyenne Petroleum Company shall be the Operator of the Unit Area . . . The second provision whose content primarily addresses the unit operator is one which the contracting parties modified. All of paragraph 19, Resignation, Removal and Selection of New Operator, [12] replaced the printed form's paragraph of the same number. That paragraph deals with selection of a new operator. The modified language of this paragraph uses the term operator in singular form and describes selection of  a successor operator in the event of resignation or removal of the existing operator. [13] ¶ 11 All other references to operator in the JOA and its exhibits refer to that entity in singular form, often accompanied by singular-form grammatical articles. The JOA contains no specific language which either permits or limits the number of operators in the unit area.