Commercial Contracts

Commercial contracts, and their key terms such as price, volume, quality and performance obligations, are a common source of disagreement between parties. When interpretations of the contract between parties differ, let us help you evaluate the fine print.

Let’s fill the gaps in that dotted line

Here are some of the technical details we can help you iron out:

  • Quality variations in crude oil supply and pipeline contracts
  • Product measurement discrepancies
  • Asset valuations
  • Supply or offtake commitments
  • Specifications and codes
  • Pricing
  • Force majeure
  • Operations and maintenance
  • Performance guarantees
  • Production sharing
  • Royalties

Case Studies

E&P field development projects are not always commercially viable – what happens when partners disagree?

April 19, 2023

After the consortium members of an Exploration & Production (E&P) field development project determined the project was commercially unviable, one partner filed a claim challenging the decision. We evaluated cost studies, development plans, and the decision-making process to assess the adequacy of exploration and appraisal work necessary to inform a risk-based decision on commercial viability. In addition, Baker & O’Brien prepared an expert report detailing the essential phases of E&P development projects and provided opinions on this project's technical and commercial aspects.

Construction Contract Termination Dispute – Assessment of Progress and Completion of Work

January 25, 2023

A storage terminal owner terminated its construction contract for a brownfield project with its contractor and filed claims for deficient and incomplete work. Baker & O’Brien was engaged to analyze the project’s completeness at the time of contract termination and determine the costs associated with completing the work. Our opinions, based on an industry-recognized methodology for milestone activity achievement, were presented in an expert report.

Static Electricity Sparks Dispute

April 1, 2013

This insurance dispute pertains to whether regulatory changes justify facility improvement costs that exceed replacement-in-kind. Following a fire initiated by static electricity, the owner and insurer disagreed as to whether a different and more costly design was required to ensure plant safety. The pre-arbitration mediation required expertise in applicable engineering codes, normal industry practice, and fire origin and cause expertise pertaining to hydrocarbons and static charge.