I see it quite a bit. The first half dozen or so times I checked each application against my play maps. The correlation was 100% for sections with faults.
I would find "OOC Rescinds 'One Operator per Unit Rule" a bit of a misnomer. (I even have a problem with their declaration of it).
To allow for CULs with dissimilar operators in adjacent units, OOC has to provide for a mechanism which fits the statute to allow for such situations to occur while addressing current unit rules, orders and regulations. The operation which you show here is merely a convention allowing for special purpose in this situation. Goodrich is not "taking over a well", "taking over another operator's operations" or "taking over a unit"; each continues to operate its respective single unit and any current or future single unit lateral development. This happens in other states with no issue; LA OOC is following a similar track as other states in addressing the "long lateral" issue.
The recognition of this scheme is consistent with and along the lines of "prevention of the drilling of unnecessary wells, prevention of waste, promote orderly development" principles of Regulatory. The non-operator of the CUL / operator of the component unit CHK has the right to object or oppose Goodrich and its proposed well, offer testimony, provide its own development plan, etc. It can enter a deal with Goodrich to the mutual benefit of both parties with or without the permission of OOC. What is immutable is that there must be one operator / responsible party per well.
I think the application is self explanatory. Two unit operators are allowed under approval of this applicaton. The operator of the unit well and any other H wells continues to operate and report production to the state, the operator seeking to drill the long lateral HC wells will operate and report those wells. Since all HA operators prefer to drill long laterals, this would appear to be the most simple and straight forward means of doing so.