In general I think the JV's the smaller ASX companies have with larger US ones is strategic and risk sharing, it also provides exposure to other capital markets which is an alternative source of finance. The smaller companies are more nimble and able to allocate resources to projects in early stages of exploration and development whereas the bigger ones go for the big stuff. In that respect imo it is in the interest of the JV partners to consider the smaller partners needs also and the JV agreement would likely have clear guidelines to protect all participants.
Where the above may be seen could be in the G&A costs which likely includes some of the labour and admin costs for some of the indirect costs. I find the G&A is difficult to compare between companies as the level of cost will depend on the working interest of projects and which projects it applies to. The JV would define who does what and in that respect all partners would have input into the development.
In January there was talk of O'seas companies storing oil in tankers whereas the US companies in production can just leave the oil in the ground, they need only produce enough to meet their fixed costs, meet finance covenants and generate some extra cash for modified drilling/development. This can be tailored/amended and I think the current drilling plan allows SSN to get some extra Autonomy and diversification.
The explorers without production are different and whilst OP doesn't effect their income it has effected their SP and ability to raise capital or finance. In this respect I think the companies generating cash have the lowest finance costs and best placed to tough it out until things improve.
Not sure if this is correct but it makes sense to me.
Cheers
SSN Price at posting:
0.5¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
