ORIGINAL PAPER
The impact of sole-risk and non-consent clauses on Joint Operating Agreements in petroleum fields. A critical analysis
1
Law Department, University of Tabuk, Saudi Arabia
Submission date: 2022-12-25
Final revision date: 2023-03-22
Acceptance date: 2023-03-30
Publication date: 2023-06-19
Polityka Energetyczna – Energy Policy Journal 2023;26(2):141-160
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Joint Operating Agreements (JOAs) play a pivotal role in facilitating the exploration and development of oil fields across various jurisdictions by allowing multiple parties to collaborate and share resources. However, differing perspectives and priorities among JOA participants can lead to disputes and operational inefficiencies. To ensure smooth operations and prevent potential conflicts, it is crucial that JOAs are precisely drafted and clearly define the scope and limits of joint activities. This paper examines the practical implications of sole-risk and non-consent clauses in JOAs, which aim to regulate unilateral actions by individual parties and maintain the collaborative spirit of the agreement. Sole-risk and non-consent clauses can effectively prevent disputes by specifying the boundaries of joint operations and individual party responsibilities. They ensure that parties do not extend the scope of the JOA to activities that are meant to be conducted independently, thereby preserving the agreement’s original intent. Nevertheless, these clauses must be narrowly defined in order to avoid inadvertently restricting the flexibility and collaboration that are the hallmarks of JOAs. This study analyzes various cases in which sole-risk and non-consent clauses have been implemented and evaluates their effectiveness in preventing disputes and promoting efficient joint operations. The findings reveal that when carefully drafted and unambiguously defined, these clauses can be advantageous in maintaining harmony and cooperation among JOA parties. It is evident that striking a balance between protecting individual interests and fostering collaborative endeavors in oil-field exploration and development is essential for the successful implementation of sole risk and no consent clauses within JOAs.
METADATA IN OTHER LANGUAGES:
Polish
Wpływ klauzul wyłącznego ryzyka i klauzuli braku zgody na wspólne umowy eksploatacyjne na polach naftowych. Analiza krytyczna
wspólne umowy operacyjne (JOA), klauzule wyłącznego ryzyka, klauzule braku zgody, eksploracja pól naftowych
Wspólne umowy operacyjne (JOA) odgrywają kluczową rolę w ułatwianiu poszukiwań i rozwoju pól naftowych w różnych jurysdykcjach, umożliwiając wielu stronom współpracę i dzielenie się zasobami. Jednak różne perspektywy i priorytety wśród uczestników JOA mogą prowadzić do sporów i nieefektywności operacyjnej. Aby zapewnić płynność działania i zapobiegać potencjalnym konfliktom, ważne jest, aby JOA były precyzyjnie opracowane i jasno określały zakres i granice wspólnych działań. W niniejszym artykule przeanalizowano praktyczne implikacje klauzul wyłącznego ryzyka i klauzuli braku zgody w umowach JOA, które mają na celu uregulowanie jednostronnych działań poszczególnych stron i utrzymanie ducha współpracy w umowie. Klauzule o wyłącznym ryzyku i klauzule o braku zgody mogą skutecznie zapobiegać sporom poprzez określenie granic wspólnych działań i odpowiedzialności poszczególnych stron. Zapewniają, że strony nie rozszerzają zakresu JOA na działania, które mają być prowadzone niezależnie, zachowując w ten sposób pierwotną intencję umowy. Niemniej jednak klauzule te muszą być ściśle zdefiniowane, aby uniknąć nieumyślnego ograniczenia elastyczności i współpracy, które są cechami charakterystycznymi JOA. Niniejsze badanie analizuje różne przypadki, w których wdrożono klauzule wyłącznego ryzyka i klauzule braku zgody, oraz ocenia ich skuteczność w zapobieganiu sporom i promowaniu skutecznych wspólnych operacji. Wyniki pokazują, że starannie opracowane i jednoznacznie zdefiniowane klauzule te mogą być korzystne dla utrzymania harmonii i współpracy między stronami JOA. Oczywiste jest, że znalezienie równowagi między ochroną indywidualnych interesów a wspieraniem wspólnych przedsięwzięć w zakresie eksploracji i rozwoju złóż ropy naftowej jest niezbędne do pomyślnego wdrożenia klauzul wyłącznego ryzyka i klauzuli braku zgody w ramach JOA.
REFERENCES (32)
1.
AIPN JOA 2012. Model International Joint Operating Agreement. Houston TX: Association of International Petroleum Negotiators. [Online] https://aipn.org/publications/...) [Accessed: 2023-03-21].
2.
Alramahi, M. 2013. Oil and gas law in the UK. Haywards Heath: Bloomsbury Professional.
3.
AMPLA n.d. Model Petroleum Joint Operating Agreement. [Online] https://www.ampla.org/modeldoc... [Accessed: 2023-03-21].
4.
Association of International Petroleum Negotiators 2012. Model International Joint Operating Agreement 2012. [Online] https://aipn.org/publications/...) [Accessed: 2023-03-21].
5.
Caddie, A. 2004. Sole Risk Provisions in Petroleum Exploration Joint Ventures. Petroleum Conference Proceedings 7–10 March 2004, New Zealand.
6.
Cameron, P. 2012. Liability for catastrophic risk in the oil and gas industry. International Energy Law Review 6, pp. 207–219..
7.
CAPL 2016. Joint Operating Agreement. Calgary AB: Canadian Association of Petroleum Landmen. [Online] https://caplacanada.org/wp-con... [Accessed: 2023-03-21].
8.
Daintith, T. and Willoughby, G. 1984. Manual of United Kingdom oil and gas law. Bristol: Jordans.
9.
Gordon et al. 2007 – Gordon, G., Paterson, J. and Usenmez, E. 2007. Oil and gas law – current practice and emerging trends. [In:] Gordon G., Paterson J. and Usenmez E. eds., Oil and gas law – current practice and emerging trends, Dundee University Press Ltd., Dundee UK, pp. 1–28.
10.
Gordon et al. 2011 – Gordon, G., Paterson, J. and Üşenmez, E. 2011. Oil and gas law: Current practice and emerging trends (2nd ed.). Dundee, Scotland: Dundee University Press.
11.
Greymouth Petroleum Acquisition Company Ltd and Southern Petroleum (Ohanga) Ltd v. Ngatoro Energy Ltd (Decision of the High Court of New Zealand, Wellington Registry, CO162/02, 30 May 2003).
12.
Hall, K.B. 2019. An International Comparison of the Operatorship Provisions Contained in Model Form Oil & Gas Joint Operating Agreements. LSU J. Energy L. & Resources 7(1), 79.
14.
Jensen, B. and Failat, Y. 2013. Oil and Gas Joint Operating Agreements: Default Provisions, A Dilemma by Default. Oil, Gas & Energy Law Intelligence, August.
15.
Marshall, J.B. 2016. Joint operating agreements in oil and gas industry: The consequence of sole risk and non consent clauses to joint operation. Journal of Asian Business Strategy 6(10), pp. 214–220.
17.
McArthur, B. 2003. Goldie Oil Row: Dynamics of a Sole Risk Operation. AURELawJl 105; 22(4) Australian Resources and Energy Law Journal 485.
18.
Mitchell, R. 2009. Retention of title clauses and s.25 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, Const. L.J., 25(7), pp. 498–503.
19.
Moroney, D. 1986. Sole Risk in Mining and Petroleum Ventures: An International Perspective. AMPLA Yearbook at 172–173.
20.
Nicholls, R. 1981. “Some Practical Problems of Joint Venture Agreements – Independent Operations (Including Some Tax Aspects)”. 3 AMPLJ 41 at 44.
21.
OGUK JOA 2023. Oil and Gas UK, OGUK Model Joint Operating Agreement 2018 (4th edn, Oil and Gas UK 2018). [Online] https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/... [Accessed: 2023-06-16].
22.
Oil and Gas UK 2012. Standard Form Joint Operating Agreement. [Online] https://oilandgasuk.co.uk/prod... [Accessed: 2023-02-12].
23.
Penman, C. 1993. Sole Risk Operations In Petroleum Joint Ventures. AMPLA Bulletin 12(2), pp. 100–109.
24.
Pereira, E.G. 2011. Oil and gas joint operating agreements: controlling the risk to the non-operator (Doctoral dissertation, University of Aberdeen).
26.
Roberts, P. 2012. Joint operating agreements: A practical guide (2nd ed.). London: Globe Law And Business.
27.
Ryan, J. 1983. Sole Risk and Non-Consent for Oil and Gas Exploration. AMPLA Yearbook 272 at 274.
28.
Saville, K. 1986. Comments on Sole Risk in Mining and Petroleum Ventures: An International Perspective. AMPLA Yearbook 164.
29.
Taverne, B. 1994. An introduction to the regulation of the petroleum industry: laws, contracts and conventions. p. 362, fn. 3.
30.
Taylor, M. and Tyne, S. 1992. Taylor and Winsor on joint operating agreements. Edinburgh: W. Green.
31.
The American Association of Petroleum Landmen 1989. Form 610 – Model Form Operating Agreement (1989). [Online] https://www.landman.org/resour... [Accessed: 2023-03-21].
32.
Waite, J. 1986. Sole Risk in Mining and Petroleum Ventures: The Australian Position. AMPLA Yearbook 185 at 217.
| eISSN: | 2720-569X |
| ISSN: | 1429-6675 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
