GOVERNANCE ADIVISORY & DISPUTE SUPPORT
Joint Venture Governance & Committee Advisory
❖
Joint venture audits are inherently retrospective. They review costs after work programmes have been executed, budgets and AFEs approved, allocations applied, and contractual frameworks such as JOAs, Accounting Procedures, and related agreements already in force. At that stage, financial positions are often embedded and recovery or correction may require escalation. Many structural issues, however, can be mitigated or avoided altogether through earlier governance intervention.
❖
We therefore advise non-operating partners at Operating Committee (OCM) and Finance Committee (FCM) level on forward-looking cost governance and structured risk mitigation within non-operated asset portfolios. Our support includes detailed review of proposed work programmes, budgets, and AFEs prior to expenditure approval, with specific focus on overhead methodologies, cost drivers, allocation logic, phasing assumptions, and consistency with the governing contractual and fiscal frameworks. This enables partners to identify structural allocation risks and cost exposure before commitments are made.
❖
Our advisory work extends to the drafting, negotiation, and revision of Accounting Procedures and relevant contractual provisions affecting Operator accounting practices and cost chargeability, as well as the review of side agreements and arrangements for shared services for the joint venture with the Operator influencing cost allocation. We support the definition of clear cost eligibility criteria, allocation methodologies, audit rights, approval thresholds, and documentation standards in order to reduce ambiguity and mitigate the risk of future interpretational disputes.
❖
Drawing on recurring observations from multi-asset joint venture audits across jurisdictions and operators, we provide structured recommendations to enhance transparency, strengthen governance safeguards, and reduce systemic weaknesses. The objective is to embed disciplined, sustainable cost governance frameworks that minimise dispute exposure and support long-term alignment between partners throughout the asset lifecycle.
Dispute Resolution & Escalation Support
❖
We provide structured dispute resolution support for non-operating partners in connection with joint venture audit findings and contested cost positions. Our services cover the full lifecycle of an audit dispute, from the preparation of technically substantiated audit positions to the detailed analysis of Operator responses, rebuttals, and supporting documentation. This includes the drafting of position papers, quantification of disputed amounts, and evaluation of contractual interpretations related to chargeability, allocation logic, and cost recovery mechanisms.
❖
A core element of our work is the reconstruction and analysis of original accounting entries at general ledger level and their transition into joint venture billings and cash call statements. We trace postings from source documentation through cost centres, allocation cycles, and billing extracts to identify timing differences, reclassifications, manual adjustments, and systematic allocation practices that may materially affect partner charges.
❖
We support clients during Joint Operating Committee discussions, senior management negotiations, expert determinations, and arbitration proceedings. We work hand in hand with Client’s external counsel and arbitration specialists, providing technical accounting clarification on operator practices, system environments, allocation routines, and industry-specific accounting conventions. Our involvement includes structured briefing materials, financial exposure modelling, and technical explanation of upstream accounting mechanics and regulatory frameworks to support legal strategy.
❖
Our approach is fact-based, analytically rigorous, and contract-driven. All positions are grounded in the applicable petroleum agreements (JOA, PSC, EPSA), Accounting Procedures, and verifiable documentary evidence, with the objective of achieving technically defensible, transparent, and fair dispute outcomes.