Is it the Commissioner of Conservation that decides if a sworn detalied list of well costs submitted by an operator (in reply to a notice from the UMI owner) is detailed enough to comply with the statute, or is that decided in the courts? As to the amount of detail, at what point would the operator be deemed to have not furnished enough detail in their sworn response to the UMI owner?

For instance, if the operator shows in the sworn list "rental equipment . . . $882,205.34" without any other details as to that item on the list, is that sufficient as to that item to meet the requirements, or does the breakout by the operator need to be more specific? Can the operator make it more specific after the 30 days to comply is up, and that makes it then OK in the eyes of the court or Commissioner?

If its the commissioner who decides if a sworn detailed well cost list is detailed enough, at what point would the Commisssioner say that the operator did not comply with the statute (because of lack of specificity) and therefore cannot take any of the well costs because of lack of details? Anthother example would "Drilling Daywork . . . $715,203.32" be sufficient in the sworn detailed descriptive list.

I was under the impression that a detailed list needs to contain the receipts. Is that correct? Can the operator wait until the day of the well cost hearing to produce the receipts or otherwise let the UMI owner really know what the costs were for?