Search

Oguk Joint Operating Agreement

Oguk Joint Operating Agreement

However, since the release of the guidance notes, some clarifications have been made in the Supreme Court of Belmont Park Investments PTY Limited against BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc [2011]. The Supreme Court clarified that the law has no contractual terms that are agreed between the parties who have a blatant attempt to deprive part of the property in the event of liquidation. [1] However, to the extent that an JOA could be characterized as a “complex transaction in good faith” in which provisions (as they generally do) operate in circumstances other than insolvency, there are arguments that, according to the Supreme Court`s decision, such delay provisions are not contrary to the anti-withdrawal rule. Most JOAs provide that when the Works Council is blocked when a work programme and budget are agreed upon and minimum work obligations must be met under the production-sharing contract, the operator must set the work schedule and budget to meet the minimum work obligation. In the absence of minimum work obligations, many JOAs only create a contractual impasse. The agreement expressly defines certain categories of losses that, for the purposes of the agreement, are considered to be included in the definition of “loss of consequence,” whether they are generally indirect or consecutive. These are: You can purchase the following standard agreements and accompanying documents individually by clicking on the following links: The key to the JOA is the condition for the parties to be able to finance the financial commitments under the license and the JOA in a timely manner through payments in response to cash calls or operator invoices. In the absence of initial and/or current solvency of a party, it is prudent (and predictable) that other parties need some form of guarantee for that party`s payment obligations. Given the common nature and several types of licensing obligations to the government, the entry of this party into the JOA should be conditional on the simultaneous granting of collateral support for its multiple liability for its obligations under the JOA and to the government. Statistics show that 37% of oil and gas companies have considered or are considering having an JOA. And while JOAs are an integral part of today`s oil and gas industry, it is estimated that 60% of them do not begin or fade within five years of their existence. There are many reasons for these failures, but the majority of agreements fail when a party tries to take control. This update focuses on the key differences in operator liability between two common enterprise agreements on model forms.

The first was spent by Oil and Gas UK (OGUK), a representative body of the UK offshore oil and gas industry, for offshore mining on the UK continental shelf. The second is the model of the International Joint Enterprise Agreement established by the Association of International Petroleum Seekers (AIPN), which is the most commonly used international agreement. This exclusion and compensation also apply in cases of negligence, failure or premeditation of the operator. The OGUK agreement defines “consecutive damages” such as: unlike the OGUK agreement, the optional provision of the AIPN agreement also contains an explicit provision that excludes the operator`s liability for environmental damage.


Comments are closed.
error: Copy Protected