1. business and industrial
2. energy
3. oil

LEAP POINT OF VIEW: MASTER AGREEMENT
MANAGEMENT AND NEGOTIATION
BEST PRACTICES, LESSONS LEARNED, AND CHALLENGES IN
NEGOTIATING AND MANAGING MASTER AGREEMENTS
LEAP GENERAL MEETING – HOUSTON, TEXAS
SEPTEMBER, 2012
WHAT WE HOPE TO COVER TODAY
• “WHAT’S OUR ANGLE?” - BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE
• PANEL INTRODUCTION
• MARKET OVERVIEW: MASTER AGREEMENT
ADMINISTRATION PRACTICES
• BEST PRACTICES AS SEEN FROM THE
“OUTSIDE” OF SUCCESSFUL COMPANIES
• WHAT MORE CAN LEAP DO?
2
PANEL INTRODUCTION
Panel Facilitator: Kevin Jandora, LEAP project manager,
former head of Global Physical Oil Operations for Morgan
Stanley
Richard England – Contracts Team Lead, for Shell (STUSCO
Products)
Karen Mikkelborg – Senior North American Contract Negotiator
and Special Projects for Nexen
Vivian Ramos – Team Lead, Crude Contracts and Master
Agreements for Chevron
Marianne Ryan – Master Agreement Specialist for BP
3
WHAT’S OUR ANGLE?
• LEAP has supported the use of electronic
confirmation by creating standardized documents…
…but we often collectively and individually have
faced barriers to increased adoption of these
documents for our markets
4
WHAT’S OUR ANGLE? (continued)
• Previous LEAP meetings and advocacy efforts
have focused on the benefits of e-confirmation and
the use of bilaterally agreed master terms based on
industry-accepted templates.
– Simplify or eliminate individual transaction confirmations,
allowing staff to focus on disputes and mismatches of
commercial terms (as well as negotiate new agreements).
– Reduce or eliminate legal basis risk among transactions.
– May allow for netting of default risk across transactions.
– In some cases, allow for future changes to be agreed by
bilaterally-signed protocol letters
5
OK…SO WHAT’S OUR ANGLE?
• Barriers to adoption of industry-standard master
agreements and GTCs for the US physical oil
market are related to its “maturity”
– Oil trading matured earlier in the US/Europe, and
historically “Sellers’ terms govern”, with few reasons for
Sellers to deviate from that practice
– Companies have largely “figured this out” for derivatives,
natural gas & power trading as the documentation “grew
up” along with the market; Commonplace for parties in
those markets to refuse to trade without a master
– Some say “It’s always been done that way for oil…”
• Bilateral masters are relatively “new” for physical oil
but best practices have evolved; LEAP members
are willing to share those emerging practices
6
MARKET OVERVIEW: MASTER AGREEMENT
ADMIN PRACTICES VARY BY MARKET SEGMENT
7
ELECTRONIC MATCHING OF PHYSICAL
OIL TRADES IS HAPPENING TODAY
• 2009: ICE’s eConfirm and LEAP members worked to create initial
service to support Colonial pipeline
• 2011-2012: eConfirm scope expanded with LEAP members’ help
to include NGLs, crude, and certain “date-based” pipelines
– Effort has included non-LEAP members from Exxon, Marathon,
ConocoPhillips, and Valero, among others
– Current scope includes Colonial, Plantation, Explorer, TEPPCO, Magellan,
KinderMorgan, West Shore, Wolverine
– A subset of this group is committed to working together to define
requirements for matching of RINs trades
• As of September, 2012:
– 13 Counterparties using eConfirm for NGLs (6 Live, 7 Click & Confirm “C&C”)
– 16 Counterparties using eConfirm for Refined Products (8 Live, 8 C&C)
– 21 Counterparts using eConfirm for Crude Oil (11 Live, 10 C&C)
8
OBERVATION FROM THE ‘OUTSIDE’: BEST
PRACTICES HAVE EMERGED
• Companies who achieve scale with bilateral master
agreements and leveraging electronic confirmation
standards in the US Oil Market largely share some
practices in:
– Business Process
– Organizational Setup
– Technology
9
POSSIBLE APPROACH TO MASTER AGREEMENT
MANAGEMENT FOR OIL TRADING
Review
Standard
Templates
Cross
Functional
Discussions
Develop
Cover
Sheets
Select
Elections
Establish
Priorities
Deal
Frequency /
Risk
Negotiate
Send /
Exchange
Cover Sheets
Change Master
Agreement Position
Change Master
Agreement
Priorities
POSSIBLE APPROACH TO MASTER AGREEMENT
MANAGEMENT FOR OIL TRADING
Review
Standard
Templates
Cross
Functional
Discussions
• Gather industry templates in the form of
counterparty GTCs, templates from
industry groups like LEAP; If possible
participate in their formation via industry
Committees
• Form ‘virtual’ team made up of:
– Contract Admin
– Trading
– Legal
– Tax
– Operations/Scheduling
– Credit
– Settlements
• Discuss 1-2 templates for each market
as a basis
11
POSSIBLE APPROACH TO MASTER AGREEMENT
MANAGEMENT FOR OIL TRADING
Develop
Cover
Sheets
Select
Elections
• Flag internal points for preferred cover
sheet elections and amendments, where
necessary
• Segment discussions between
negotiable and “deal-killer” items,
depending on counterparty type and
other risk factors
• Create policies that “flag” individual
master agreements when negotiators
exceed agreed certain rules/boundaries
12
POSSIBLE APPROACH TO MASTER AGREEMENT
MANAGEMENT FOR OIL TRADING
Establish
Priorities
Deal
Frequency /
Risk
• Establish a permanent negotiating team,
whether it is “virtual” or actual. (See
organizational considerations below).
• Establish goals and implement a
transparent method to track and report
progress to goals for “Top Priority
Counterparties” lists.
• Segment market focus by business
volume and “pain points” (related to
product, region, delivery mode, customer
type, etc).
• Develop “Top Priority Counterparties” list
on each market with input related to
credit concerns, operational challenges,
trade volumes, market focus, etc.
13
POSSIBLE APPROACH TO MASTER AGREEMENT
MANAGEMENT FOR OIL TRADING
Negotiate
Send /
Exchange
Cover Sheets
• Establish a permanent negotiating team,
whether it is “virtual” or actual. (See
organizational considerations below).
• Reach out to Top Priority Counterparties,
keeping in mind that negotiations will likely have
a “hurry up and wait” element.
• Report potential “flagged” exceptions to policy
on a real-time basis.
• Open parallel negotiations with as many
counterparts as possible given team size; Team
should utilize previously established
amendments and negotiating guidelines.
• Execute a final review of ‘blacklined’ changes
prior to execution, and then ensure confirmation
practices are changed, including “turning on”
eConfirm.
14
POSSIBLE APPROACH TO MASTER AGREEMENT
MANAGEMENT FOR OIL TRADING
Change Master
Agreement Position
• Establish an ongoing dialogue with the
original cross-functional team via bimonthly, monthly, or quarterly meetings
and transparent status reporting.
• Ensure that any trends in negotiating
points, and lessons learned from
Operational or marketplace events are
fed back for discussion.
Change Master
Agreement Priorities
• Where necessary, as market practice
and regulatory or statutory changes
occur, update templates accordingly and
consider renegotiating existing masters.
• Reprioritize Master Agreement target list
as the business focus and market
changes
15
ORGANIZATIONAL BEST PRACTICES
• Separate but closely-collaborative “Negotiation
Team” and “Transactional Confirmation Team”
• Negotiation Team:
– Lends itself to regional, not global expertise
– Mix of junior operations skills and senior legal and
paralegal oversight
– Both a feeder from and to other departments like
Scheduling, Legal, Settlements, Projects, etc
– Lends itself to part-time and contractor resources, with
emerging trend of law firms providing secondment service
• How often are these resources “shared” across
derivative and physical functions? Across product
groups like Power, Natural Gas, Coal?
16
TECHNOLOGY BEST PRACTICES
• Systems for storing executed masters along with
certain key terms for quick reference and reporting.
– Consider scenarios where documents would need to be
pulled at short notice (e.g. Credit Crisis in 2008, credit
downgrade of your own company, Hurricane FM Terms).
• Systems for tracking the “lifecycle” of negotiations
from initial contact to executed agreement. This
could be the same system for storing executed
master agreements and their terms.
• Tie-in references of signed master agreements with
trading and confirmations systems.
17
WHAT CAN LEAP DO OTHER THAN
CREATING/MAINTAINING STANDARDS?
• Has performed a “Rolodex” function for parties
interested in contacting LEAP and non-LEAP
members for years
• Has performed an advocacy and education function
through industry functions such as the LEAP GMM,
Marcus Evans conferences and ISDA conferences.
• Stayed in touch with other industry organizations (e.g.
ISDA, NAESB, Energy Institute) on their docs.
• Has reached out to technology vendors to educate on
the latest available services in the market.
• Has assisted with requirements gathering related to
expansion of existing confirmation services.
18