(10 years ago *gasp*, I wrote this essay –
which may or may not be terrible – on JOAs back in Aberdeen. Back then, I was
chomping at the bits to be done with my Masters and working in the oil field.
Alas… anyway, I was trawling through essays written back then, way back then
and I came across this one. I chuckled to myself as I read through it, and then
I decided to put it up and see what the public might make of it. Without
tweaking a word or editing – so forgive all typos and structural problems – here’s
my short essay on JOAs)

Oil exploration, no matter how rewarding it
is on the chance of said exploration being successful, is fraught with
extremely high risks, costs and liabilities. In order for oil companies,
especially international oil companies to go about exploring, developing and
producing hydrocarbon reserves, it is crucial and more advantageous for said
companies to pool their resources together thereby minimizing the risks, high
costs and liabilities that go hand in hand with petroleum exploration as well
as realizing maximum rewards. This is especially crucial due to the fact that
these companies will be based in different countries all over the world thus
increasing said risks and liabilities.

There are different ways via which oil
companies could form a joint venture through which this could be achieved and
the most common of these ventures is the Joint Operating Agreement.[1] This
agreement is viewed as being very beneficial to international oil companies due
to various reasons and the aim of this essay is to describe the key features of
this arrangement as well as highlight its advantages as opposed to other
agreements or types of joint ventures. This will be achieved by stating what a
Joint Operating Agreement is and then describing its key traits and benefits
ergo, explaining why international oil companies prefer to enter into such

A Joint Operating Agreement[2] is
a contractual agreement between two or more parties establishing and setting
out the terms of a joint venture between them under which petroleum
exploration, development and production operations will be conducted.[3] It
is the common means by which businesses come together as a joint venture in
their search for and production of oil and gas both within the United Kingdom
Continental Shelf and internationally. This agreement is regarded as very
important and necessary especially with reference to international oil
companies as the oil and gas industry is a high-risk, high-cost enterprise with
a heavy frontloading of costs.[4]
The JOA is known for its remarkable
features which distinguishes it from other forms of joint ventures. Firstly,
the JOA is not a legal entity. This agreement is purely contractual without the
involvement of any legal entity[5] as
the parties to the contract decide among themselves the manner in which their
joint objectives will be achieved.[6] As
stated by J. Ellison and E. Kling[7], ‘there
exists neither a single body of the United Kingdom law nor a distinct legal
entity dedicated to the formation and operation of joint ventures, neither is
there a dedicated body of law.’ This therefore means that the parties engaged
in this agreement can, in their discretion, agree on how issues like funding,
management etc. can be tackled, amongst other things.

Secondly, the co-venturers have no
authority to bind one another[8] i.e.
an operator or manager is interposed between the parties of the agreement and
the operation itself hence leaving them with no authority to bind one another
as agents.[9] Also,
the co-venturers attempt to create several liabilities.[10] This
is in the sense that there is a lack of mutual liability between the parties as
each co-venturer will be liable for his own acts and omissions in the course of
the arrangement.

Again, co-venturers take the fruits of the
venture separately and in kind[11] i.e.
each party has the right to take its share of petroleum in kind and dispense of
it separately in its own business. This is regarded as a very important feature
as it distinguishes the JOA from other forms of joint venture particularly
legal and/or corporate partnership. This shall be tackled further-on in the

These are but a few of the key features
which the JOA possesses, and this includes that of co-venturers having the
power to hold their assets in common. Regardless of how beneficial they may
seem, one cannot help but wonder why international oil companies choose to
enter into these agreements as opposed to the other ways via which a joint
venture could be established. This is due to the fact that these other
arrangements also achieve the same purpose of uniting different parties from
all over the world in their common goal of making profit yet reducing risks and
costs. An example of these forms of joint venture is the joint venture company.
This is an arrangement set up for the purpose of said joint venture as well as
acting as the company’s shareholder. It is regarded as the most popular legal
structure for joint ventures and is viewed as a separate legal personality from
the shareholders. This inevitably exposes the company to the financial and
commercial risks involved in the joint venture thereby protecting them from
losses, were the joint venture to fail[12].

Another form of a joint venture is the
partnership joint venture. Under the Partnership Act 1980[13], a
partnership is defined as ‘the relation which subsists between persons carrying
on a business in common with a view of profit.’ According to Kling and Ellison,
the establishment of a partnership gives rise to a vehicle that can be used for
the creation and operation of a jointly owned business.[14] In
this instance, theoretically[15],
a partnership offers the parties an independent identity i.e. the firm operates
under a name that is different from its partners and ‘may open a separate bank
account, may sue or be sued in its own name and may not appear to be affected
by the comings and goings of partners’[16]. This
form of joint venture is described by some[17] as
‘the most suitable form to use in instances where the parties wish to establish
a collaborative structure without the administrative formalities and the
accounting transparency of a corporate vehicle.’

As indicated above, there are different
ways via which international oil companies can go about the oil exploration,
development and producing business, however these companies have a preference
for joint operating agreements regardless of how suitable the other agreements
may seem. This is as a result of a large number of reasons. Firstly, unlike
other types of joint ventures, the JOA structure offers total tax transparency[18]. This
is due to the fact that there is an absence of a joint entity thus the parties
to the contract are able to deal with the tax on their own profit in accordance
with their own circumstances, as well as plan his/her own tax affairs
individually without interference from another party. According to Styles[19], ‘the
unincorporated joint venture has been favoured by the oil industry over other
possible models such as legal partnership or incorporation because of the tax
advantages it provides…which is possible under the JOA’. This is in sharp
contrast with the partnership venture.

Further, international oil companies,
particularly those holding smaller interests will benefit more from a JOA as
this arrangement possesses the unique ‘pass mark trait’. The pass mark is the
‘percentage interest share of votes which must be obtained before the Operating
Committee may make a binding decision[20].’ The
importance of this trait lies in the fact that parties with large interests
inadvertently hold the dominant position if a low pass mark is given and this
leads to those possessing lesser interests to lose out on the making of
important decisions during negotiation. Thus, the pass mark is hardly ever less
than 50 percent as it will inevitably lead to a large interest holder being
dominant. 70 percent is suggested as a common level[21],
although the outcome of agreeing on the exact pass mark depends on the degree
of trust the parties have in each other as well as their contractual strengths[22]. This
lays in sharp contrast to the corporate partnership whereby unanimity is of the
essence in all major decisions. There can be no negotiations between parties as
to a majority of votes. Rather, there has to be a unanimous agreement and this
could lead to time-wasting in decision making as parties might reach a
stalemate if a unanimous vote is not achieved as quickly and efficiently as
possible. As for the joint venture companies, especially under the United Kingdom
legislation, ‘the holder of a 75 percent interest can ensure the passing of a
special resolution…and anyone holding more than 50 percent will be able to
pass ordinary resolutions.’[23] This
suggests that a large interest holder could invariably possess the power to
make ordinary or even ‘special’ resolutions regardless of whether other parties
agree with his decision or not.

Again, the JOA has the advantage of its
formation being relatively easy as well as its mode of operation being informal[24]. With
regards to the former, there is a lack of an independent vehicle or body of law
prescribing formalities that need to be observed thus these arrangements can be
set in place economically and without any unnecessary fuss. This is in contrast
to the formation of a joint venture company as its formation is dictated by the
Companies Act 1985 thus rendering it more complex, time consuming and lastly,
costly. Regarding the latter, the mode of operation in a contractual joint
venture is relatively flexible as there is no joint venture vehicle in which
the parties have an equity interest unlike the joint venture companies and
partnership which are legal entities thus the dictates of the aforementioned
Act require a ‘more formal administrative framework especially in respect of
board meetings, general meetings or directors’ duties.’[25]
Another reason international oil companies
choose to enter into a JOA is due to the distinctive clauses the arrangement is
party to i.e. the sole risk and non-consent clause. With reference to the
former, if one fails to obtain the pass-mark, one could still go ahead with his
decision. As incompatible as this may seem to the idea of a joint venture, it
can be seen as a form of giving every member a chance regardless of whether a
pass mark is obtained or not. This is also evident in the latter (non-consent),
whereby the members who do not intend to participate in a decision agreed upon
by the majority does not do so. This gives everyone a chance to engage in their
own dealings and an opportunity buy themselves back into the engagements they
opted out of regardless of how large the premium could be.

With regards to ways in which joint
ventures could be terminated, JOAs are easier to terminate as they are
prescribed solely by contract and typically address a specific business project
hence they can end the arrangement if decided upon together or once the project
is over. This is unlike other forms of joint ventures like a partnership whereby
statutory rules have to observed before termination can take place e.g. the
Insolvency Act 1986 regarding liquidation and the Partnership Act 1980 on
issues of dissolution[26].

The biggest bone of contention lies within
the thin line between a partnership joint venture and the JOA. Members of the
JOA are adamant about their agreement not being mistaken for a partnership.
This is due to a number of reasons: tax benefits shall be lost if the agreement
is mistaken for a partnership, and minimisation of liability amongst the
parties to a JOA unlike those in a partnership. Again, under the JOA, each
party has the right to take and dispose of separately its share of the
petroleum gained. This clearly emphasises that the common enterprise of the
joint venture is limited to the exploration and production of the oil and gas
which the parties hold in common[27]. This
is different from a partnership whereby there is joint disposal of the product
for mutual profit. This is also similar to profit-making by the parties in a
partnership. As stated in the aforementioned Act[28], a
partnership constitutes of the sharing of profit by its parties and the mode of
taking separate profits in the JOA might be regarded as not being so
indistinguishable from the way profit is shared in a partnership. Although it
has been expressly stated that ‘it is not the purpose or intention of this
Agreement to create, nor shall the same be construed as creating,
any…partnership’,[29] the
courts are of the opinion that regardless of the express denial of any
formation of a partnership by the JOA, ‘if a partnership exists…no concealment
of name, nor verbal equivalent for the ordinary phrases of profit or loss…will
prevent the substance from and reality of the transaction being adjudged to be
a partnership.’[30] This
has led to the argument by G Lewis[31] that
a JOA ‘does not involve the sharing of gross returns,’ however ‘each
participant is entitled to and bound to take in kind its share of the crude or
the gas which is produced’ as well as being able to ‘sell its share for its own
account’. Hence, ‘these arrangements do not amount to a sharing of profits
which the Partnership Act definition requires and in effect the participants
share the expenses of the production, but sell the products separately.’
From all that has been stated above, one
sees that a JOA is extremely vital to ‘such powerful players as international
oil companies’ regardless of the slight confusion that could arise due to
arguments as to whether it is viewed as a partnership or not. The courts are
even deemed to be fairly reluctant to argue against what has been expressly
stated in a contract except if blatantly disregarded. Although other joint
ventures are important in their own ways, the JOA trumps them all as it covers
virtually all bases that international oil companies might view tentatively.
Therefore, it is not surprising in the least for one to be of the opinion that international
oil companies choose to enter into these arrangements.
[1] Also
known as a Contractual Joint Venture
[2] Hereby
referred to as a JOA
[3] T
Winsor and S Tyne, Taylor and Winsor on Joint Operating Agreements (1992), p
[4] Styles
[5] Stephen
Sayer ‘Negotiating and Structuring International Joint Venture Agreements’ Vol
5 of the Dundee University CPML web journal:
[6] J
Ellison and E Kling, Joint Ventures in Europe (1997) p 315
[7] supra
[8] G M
D Bean, ‘Fiduciary Obligations and Joint Ventures: the collaborative fiduciary
relationship,’ (1995) p 8
[9] J D
Merrals, “Mining & Petroleum Joint Ventures in Australia: Some basic
concepts,” (1998) p 909
[10] Ibid
G M D Bean
[11] Ibid
J D Merrals
[12] Ibid
Stephen Sayer ‘Negotiating and Structuring International Joint Venture
[13] Section
[14] Ibid Ellison
& Kling pg 329
[15] theoretical
because in practice the law does not regard its members as being independent in
English law and even if it was recognised the members themselves are still
party to unlimited liability.
[16] Ibid
Ellison & Kling
[17] Ibid
Stephen Sayer ‘Negotiating and Structuring International Joint Venture
[18] Ibid
Ellison and Kling p 317
[19] Styles
[20] Styles
[21] supra
[22] supra
[23] Dundee
[24] Ibid
Ellison and Kling pp 315-16
[25] supra
[26] Ellison and Kling p 317
[27] Stephen Sayer ‘Negotiating and Structuring
International Joint Venture Agreements’
[28] Partnership Act 1980 Section 1
[29] UKOOA 20th Round Draft Joint JOA, cl
[30] Adam v Newbigging (1888) 13 App Cas 308 at
[31] G Lewis, Comment: the Joint Operating
Agreement: Partnership or Not? (1986) 4 JENRL 80-84

Onyeka Obidi
Legal Counsel & Writer
Ed’s Note – This article was first published here
Photo Credit –
1. www.oilandgaslawdigest.com
2.  www.vancourier.com