However, there are a number of defects in this system that reduce its value to contractors and, as presented, to the industry as a whole. First, the language used in such acts is chosen by the operator. As a general rule, it is not possible to amend this text for the simple and valid reason why it would create discrepancies in the obligations of the parties in a regime that relies heavily on reciprocity to function – numerous case reports have shown how unfair this reciprocity is in the guarantee of non-regulation and that sufficient consideration is seen in this way that it is not construed as an unreal promise. This could mean that you do not have definitions that are not of an industry. On the other hand, this could lead to a definition more focused on the risk profile of the operator than on that which would be sufficient for contractors. Second, and perhaps from a careful risk management perspective, do you know which other contractors are involved in such a program and if, therefore, you are fully protected when you arrive at a project workstation? Some operators offer a website where a list of signatories can be verified, but here is the friction; the operator, without exception, assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the list and why should it? It has no interest in knowing whether other contractors are protected or not; the operator itself is already protected, directly or indirectly, by its contracts with any company in its supply chain. Before arriving at the site, each contractor must request a list of the operator`s other contractors so that the list can be verified. But entrepreneurs come and go on projects, so how many times do you ask the operator to confirm and check the list? My own experience is that it is often difficult to get information about the operator`s other contractors, or in some other way, the details are not sufficiently provided to allow a proper verification of the list; In any event, contractors cannot afford to assign a labour-heavy exercise to the front of an imminent project launch. If deficiencies are found, additional agreements between these contractors are needed. It is therefore a « gift horse » where an operator`s initial « gift » to an operator quickly loses value, given the gaps that remain and the precious resources it requires.
Despite these changes, many UKCS companies continue to automatically neutralize reciprocal holding. As is the case with the intent of such clauses, certain claims that could have been recovered legally may be considered excluded by the parties and liability for such claims is redistributed under the trade agreement. Depending on the project, it can be difficult to apply reciprocal ownership rules to a collaborative enterprise. Cooperation must, by its very nature, bring together specific skills for certain work, so that risks and responsibility must be divided between this distribution. In some cases, this is due to the fact that a third party with the necessary skills, experience and track record is agreed to carry out such operations.