Dear Mr. Mills,
Just another take on motivation from the BP perspective.
They are trying to avoid a lawsuit from a sharp attorney. Some years ago, there was a Supreme Court case that challenged the interpretation of "release lands not in a producing unit..."
Most Unit Declarations will define the pooled area as the surface to -8450' subsea, or something like that.
So a lawsuit followed. Plaintiff contends that the pooled unit was defined and limited to a depth. Naturally, this was a south Texas case.
The SC judge told the lead attorney from San Antonio (an acquaintance of mine with whom I discussed the case in depth) said that the judge basically said when you pool the "land" it becomes pooled at all depths -- because, as she said, the Land is the Land is the Land.
NOW, perhaps with the caption of Horizontal, BP has heartburn that this clause could bite them.
To tell the truth, I would execute the Amendment on general principal.
Buddy Cotten