The parties can explicitly create a joint venture or create a joint venture. However, disputes arise in cases where the parties have not addressed the issue of their status in the joint venture. In such cases, the courts have traditionally found that parties entering into a contract that fulfills the elements of a joint venture have a fiduciary relationship. [19] If the operator is the agent on behalf of the non-operators or enters into a contract as a performance contractor, he is bound by fiduciary duties with respect to the contract or property in question; This is because the relationship between agents and beneficiaries, as well as agents and adjudicating entities, creates fiduciary duties. [13] Since a joint-operating agreement is a form of joint enterprise agreement, it is appropriate to discuss how the courts can consult with agents in a traditional joint venture agreement. In some cases, JOA may include an express obligation on the operator to act in the best interests of the joint venturers. In such cases, it may be possible to find a breach of this obligation and to include the liability of the operator in this obligation. In addition, it can be argued that the trader owes trust obligations to non-operators. Fiduciary obligations arise when the parties are in a partnership or agency relationship. If this is the case, the operator would be required to make all personal interests open and open and not to use his position to gain an advantage for himself. The finding that the operator acts as an agent would be important not only in terms of liability, but also in terms of corrective action. In particular, it would be possible to demand an invoice for the operator`s profits in violation of its obligations, and not just a remedy for the actual harm suffered by the other parties (what loss itself may in any case be subject to contractual restrictions, as noted above]. First, this document takes into account the importance, importance and creation of fiduciary duties in the act.

Then the American model agreements are analyzed. Since the standard agreements originate in the United States, it is then essential to consider how the U.S. courts have seen or interpreted the operator`s obligation in a common operating contract (i.e., the courts consider the operator to be an agent or not). A Joint Operating Agreement (JAA) creates contractual obligations for the implementation of joint ventures without their own legal personality. There is a difficult long-term relationship between the operator and the non-operator, which is not a partnership. Therefore, as the operator conducts joint transactions on behalf of the parties, non-operational participants by the JOA strive to protect their interests and have some degree of control over the performance of the joint operations operator. This article discusses the supervisory power of the operating committee (Opcom) and defines the contractual mechanism for controlling non-operators for the operator. Given that joint enterprise agreements are the backbone of the oil and gas industry, the importance of the operator`s fiduciary duties cannot be overstated. As a general rule, the operator is responsible for managing the finances of oilfield operations; [3] It is therefore important for non-operators to see that, in cases of mismanagement of the funds entrusted to the operator, fiduciary duties may be invoked against the operator in court.

One of Opcom`s most important tasks is the implementation of the work programme requested by government authorities. With regard to the operator`s day-to-day tasks, as well as exploration and development activities, Opcom`s coordination mechanism allows non-operators to control operator attacks.