OneVision
Oil, gas & energy operators

Oil & Gas

You answer to partners and regulators at the same time, from the same ledger.

Joint-venture accounting, regulatory reporting, and asset lifecycle tracking for operators whose numbers are read by non-operating partners and agencies alike.

Draft for review — Draft sector positioning. Confirm the compliance frameworks named on this page are ones OneVision genuinely works to before this goes live.

You are probably here because

  • Joint-venture consolidation happens quarterly in spreadsheets and takes weeks
  • Joint-interest billing disputes come down to which system was right
  • Working-interest changes require a manual rebuild of the allocation model
  • Regulatory and partner reporting are assembled separately from the same data
  • Asset and AFE cost tracking lives outside the ledger

What makes this sector different

Energy operators carry a reporting burden most ERP configurations are not designed for: the same transactions have to be presentable to a joint-venture partner, an auditor, and a regulator, each of whom wants a different cut and none of whom accept "that is how the system does it".

We build the partner and regulatory views into the design rather than bolting them on. Joint-interest billing, working-interest splits, and asset lifecycle costs come out of the system in the shape the recipient expects.

Where we work inside it

  • Upstream services
  • Downstream services
  • Oil field services

What we actually do here

Joint-venture accounting

Working-interest splits, joint-interest billing, and partner reporting configured so a change in interest is a data change rather than a rebuild.

Consolidation & close in EPM

Multi-entity, multi-currency consolidation with the partner and management views maintained together, so the close produces both.

AFE & asset lifecycle

Authorization-for-expenditure tracking and asset lifecycle cost visible in the ledger, from capital through operations to abandonment.

Regulatory reporting

Reporting built from the same data as the financials, so a regulatory submission and a management report never disagree.

4+

Ledgers a mid-size operator typically consolidates

Per partner

Number of reporting views the same close has to produce

Decades

Asset lifespans the cost model has to survive

Standards & reporting

What you are measured against

We would rather name the frameworks up front than discover in week six that the configuration cannot satisfy one of them.

COPAS guidance

Joint-interest accounting and allocation practices aligned to the conventions your partners already audit against.

Full cost vs successful efforts

The accounting method your auditors expect, configured consistently rather than adjusted at period end.

Environmental & production reporting

Agency reporting sourced from the ledger and production data rather than from a parallel spreadsheet.

Draft for review — Every framework above needs confirming against what OneVision can genuinely speak to in a first call. Naming one you cannot is worse than omitting it.

Straight answers

Questions from this sector

Can EPM handle joint-venture consolidation properly, or do we need something bespoke?

It can, and bespoke is usually how organizations end up with a model only one person understands. The work is in designing the ownership and allocation dimensions correctly at the start.

How long does a joint-venture close take once it is working?

Days rather than weeks is the realistic target for a mid-size operator. The constraint is normally data arriving from partners, not the consolidation itself — which is why we design for late data instead of pretending it will not happen.

Our production data lives in a separate system. Does it need to move?

No. It needs to be integrated on a defined interface with a defined cadence. Moving it is a much larger project that rarely pays for itself.