Boosty
CAPABILITY · OIL OPERATORS

The AI codes, cross-checks and drafts. What commits money is signed by a person.

An operator is run on three questions: how much comes in, what each barrel costs and which asset is drifting away from its own history. The system answers them with what already exists — the chart of accounts in the books, the signed agreement with each supplier, field measurement — and leaves ready whatever has to be decided. Approving an entry, renewing a contract, shutting in or working over a well: a person signs that, and the signature stays with their name and the time.

See how it reasons
Against the chart of accounts you already haveBaseline per assetNo entry books itself
boosty · morning desk · Latitud Energía claude

Consolidated cash

$4.18M

4 scopes · USD

Cost per barrel

$12.40

average of the 3 fields

Production today

2,140 bpd

18 active wells

What the AI left readydemo data
›energia.prepararMesa()cross-checking against what already exists…
FAC-4412Química Industrial Sarmientocross-checking against what already exists…

chemical treatment · Río Claro field · $8,940

Thresholds and notice periods come from the operator’s policy and from the signed contract.

The AI codes against the chart of accounts, compares against the asset baseline and reads the signed contract.

An entry, a purchase, a contract, a well: a person decides. Always.

KPI 01

0

operating scopes in one system

Sabana Alta · Río Claro · Vega Larga · flow station and dispatch

KPI 02

0

wells with their own baseline

production · cost per barrel · margin · last workover

KPI 03

0

chart of accounts: the one the books already use

the system codes against it by API; it does not replace it

KPI 04

0

entries the AI books on its own

the controller signs the approval

UNDER THE HOOD

It does not guess the account, the cost or the clause. It compares them against what already exists.

Three things that happen in any given week at the operator. In all three the AI reads, cross-checks against a reference that is already written down — the supplier’s history, the well’s baseline, the signed contract — and leaves a proposal with its reason. In all three, the one who decides is a person with a name and a role.

Sample lead

Raw lead comes in

An invoice arrives from Ingeniería Arévalo for $14,300 described as “surface engineering service, Vega Larga station”. The supplier is not in the master file: this is the first invoice they have issued to the operator. The books use the same chart of accounts as always.

Claude reasons

Identification

legal name, tax ID and bank details checked against the supplier master: no match

History

with no previous invoices from this issuer there is no pattern to learn from: the copilot has nothing to support an account

Description

the text suggests two possible accounts — engineering service and station works — and the difference between them decides whether the spend is operating or capitalizable

Confidence

the proposal lands at 0.41, below the 0.85 threshold the operator set for coding without review

Routing

the invoice goes to “needs review” with the two candidate accounts, the reason for the doubt and a link to the original PDF

Score

0/100

Verdict from Claude

The copilot does not guess. The controller picks the account, writes down whether the spend is operating or capitalizable, and approves. From that decision on, the supplier sits in the master file with its pattern: the next invoice from Arévalo arrives already coded and with high confidence — and still waits for an approval.

WHAT THE AI DOES HERE

Five concrete functions inside the operator’s operation

None of them books, pays, renews or shuts in a well. They code against the chart of accounts that already exists, compare against the asset’s own baseline, project resupply from measured consumption, read the signed contract and draft the close citing where every paragraph came from. Whatever commits money is signed by a person.

energia.codificarFactura()

Every supplier invoice arrives with a proposed account and a confidence level

It reads the invoice — PDF, photo or portal file —, ties it to the supplier, the contract and the cost center, and proposes the accounting entry with the confidence level behind that proposal. If the supplier is new or the description matches no known pattern, the invoice goes to “needs review” instead of being forced into an account. Obsolete accounts in the chart are re-mapped to the current one and the change is noted.

energia.codificarFactura()

› input

Invoice from Química Industrial Sarmiento · $8,940 · chemical treatment · Río Claro field · active master agreement

› claude →

proposed account, with the supplier pattern that supports it

an explicit confidence level and the threshold it is compared against

cost center by field, battery or well, taken from the contract and the ticket

unknown supplier or new description: to review, with candidate accounts and the doubt written out

no entry is booked without the controller’s approval

LIVE SYSTEM · Latitud Energía

This is what it looks like inside an AI-operated system — and how it is governed.

Latitud Energía operates three fields and a dispatch station. Its management console shows every figure with its source: the AI codes, compares and proposes, and a person signs whatever commits money or touches a well.

System modules

  1. 01Management console
  2. 02Accounting copilot
  3. 03Bank reconciliation
  4. 04Close and reports
  5. 05Assets and wells
  6. 06Field
  7. 07Contracts
  8. 08Equipment

Boosty Standard for Operating with AISimulated AI · demo data

DEMO · MANAGEMENT CONSOLE

One screen, the scope you have to run

Running an operator means looking at four things at once: how much comes in, what each barrel costs, how much is being produced and which asset is drifting from its own history. The console shows them together and lets every figure be opened down to the movement behind it.

Scope

Switch scope

The draft close is written from this same snapshot and every paragraph says which table it came from.

The report is approved by a person

Operator (consolidated)demo data claude

Cash

$4.18M

4 accounts · USD

Operating result for the month

$1.26M

excludes unreconciled items

Working capital

$2.73M

receivable − payable, at cut-off

Cost per barrel

$12.40

average of the 3 fields

Production today

2,140 bpd

18 active wells

Performance by asset

AssetProductionCost/bblStatus
Sabana Alta980 bpd$11.80one well flaggedoutside its baseline
Río Claro720 bpd$12.60within its baseline
Vega Larga440 bpd$13.90workover closed last month
Estación y despacho2,110 bpd dispatched$1.1030 bpd to reconcileunexplained difference

IN THE SYSTEM · MANAGEMENT CONSOLE

Every figure on the console says where it comes from.

Cash, margin, cost per barrel and production, each one with the source behind it and its change in absolute value. The management note is written by the AI and cites the close, the well or the ticket each sentence comes from; the console has no numbers of its own.

Real screenshot of the system · demonstration data

  1. 1Indicators with a source: [CR-09], [MED-0710].
  2. 2Twelve closes and the month against the previous one in absolute values.
  3. 3What awaits a decision, with owner, amount and deadline.
DEMO · WELLS AND COST PER BARREL

A well is not compared with the field average. It is compared with itself.

Each well’s baseline is its own series since the last workover, with its normal band of variation. When cost drifts, the AI isolates the items that explain it, contrasts decline with peer wells and writes down what it found. Whatever has to be decided waits for a person.

Active wells

Pick a well

SA-12Sabana Altaupper formation · rod pumpdemo data

Production

145 bpd

Cost per barrel

$18.70

Baseline

$12.10

Last workover

14 months ago

How the cost breaks downtodaybaseline

Chemistry$6.20 · baseline $2.60
Energy$3.10 · baseline $3.00
Transport$6.40 · baseline $3.40
Maintenance$3.00 · baseline $3.10

Against peer wells

  • SA-08 and SA-17, same formation and same setup, show no such movement.
  • SA-12’s decline is indeed steeper than its peers’.
  • Two field tickets from the same period mention a dosing increase.

What the AI wrote

Chemistry and transport explain the gap; energy and maintenance are where they always are. Dosing rose after the crew report on the 12th and the gauging for that week is missing to close the explanation.

Here the AI stops at the written reading. Working the well over, ordering a gauging or changing the dosing is a person’s decision.

IN THE SYSTEM · ASSETS AND WELLS

A well is compared with its baseline and with its peers.

The AI flags the cost anomaly and a decline steeper than the neighbouring wells, and builds the scenarios for the marginal well. Shutting it in or intervening is decided by asset management, with a written reason.

  • Cost per barrel against its baseline
  • Decline as an index against peers
  • Nothing that touches a well goes beyond «proposes»

Real screenshot of the system · demonstration data

DEMO · ACCOUNTING COPILOT

It codes against the chart of accounts you already have. And it says how confident it is.

Every invoice arrives with the proposed account, the cost center taken from the contract and the ticket, and a number saying how well that proposal holds up. Above the threshold the invoice is ready to approve; below it, or if the supplier is not in the master file, it goes to review with candidate accounts and the reason for the doubt.

Invoice inboxdemo data
›energia.codificarFactura()coding…

No entry is booked without the controller approving it. Not even the high-confidence ones.

Pick an invoice

FAC-4418Ingeniería ArévaloNeeds review

Proposed account

—

Cost center

Station and dispatch

Contract

no master agreement attached

Confidence0.41
0.85

Operator thresholdThe threshold is set by the operator in its policy, not by the model.

What it cross-checked

  • Legal name, tax ID and bank details against the master file: no match.
  • With no previous invoices from this issuer there is no pattern to learn from.
  • The description supports two different accounting readings.

Candidate accounts

  • 5106-01 · Engineering services (operating expense)
  • 1204-03 · Station works (capitalizable)

The doubt, written out

The difference between the two accounts decides whether the spend is operating or capitalizable. That is not guessed from an invoice line: the controller defines it.

When the controller picks the account for a new supplier, that decision becomes a pattern: the next invoice arrives coded and still waits for approval.

IN THE SYSTEM · ACCOUNTING COPILOT

The AI codes the invoice. The controller approves the entry.

Every vendor invoice arrives with the account and cost centre the AI proposes and its confidence against the policy threshold. A vendor that is not in the master record is not approved until someone registers it.

Real screenshot of the system · demonstration data

  1. 1Confidence as a score against its threshold (0.85).
  2. 2The flow with the person: ingested, coded, review, approved.
  3. 3Traceability: source file, version, exceptions and entry.

SAME ENGINE, A DIFFERENT OPERATION

The asset changes. The circuit of the decision does not.

Coding, reconciling, comparing against a baseline, reading a contract and drafting a close exist in any hydrocarbons operation. What changes is what gets measured, which table it is compared against and who signs. The system is the same; the rules of each operation are not.

boosty · judgment-engine · 1 model · 4 industriesin production
›engine.read(Operator with mature fields) · Cost per barrel and marginal wells

Signals specific to the industry

Baseline per well since its last workover
Decline compared with peer wells
Shut-in scenario with what stops being incurred
score96/100
Where the margin is decided well by well, comparing against the asset’s own history is the whole operation.
same enginezero retraining per industry
DEMO · CONTRACTS AND SINGLE SUPPLIER

A contract that renews itself is a decision nobody made.

The renewal clause, the notice period and the rate adjustment mechanism live in a signed PDF nobody opens again. The system extracts them with the page they came from, counts the days left and puts the period’s real usage beside them. What comes next is decided by a person.

Active master agreements

Pick a contract

MSA-071Transportes Ledezmademo data

Scope

Crude transport · station to delivery point

Renewal

Automatic for 12 months unless notice is given

Notice period

60 days before expiry

Usage in the period

148 trips in the period, 3 destinations

Notice windownotice closes in 14 days

After that date the renewal triggers by contract: no conversation stops it any more.

Clauses worth reviewing

  • Indexed rate adjustment, with no written capp. 7 · §4.2 · source in the PDF
  • Route exclusivity while the contract is activep. 9 · §6.1 · source in the PDF
  • Early termination penaltyp. 12 · §9.4 · source in the PDF

AlternativesSingle supplier

  • It is the only supplier with an active contract for that route.
  • There is no reference rate in the system to compare against.
  • Three carriers in the master file serve equivalent routes with no master agreement.

Drafts prepared

  • Non-renewal letter, citing the clause and the deadline.
  • Request for quotes to three carriers, with the period’s real volume.
  • One-page summary for the table: usage, rate, alternatives and the clock.
Waiting on procurement and contractsRenew · Renegotiate · Go out for quotes

The AI sends nothing and signs nothing. It leaves the drafts written and the clock in plain sight.

THE SAME FACT · TWO COMPANIES

One purchase order, seen by the side that issues it and the side that mobilizes against it.

The balance is the same number for both. The operator sees the master agreement and how much it authorized; the contractor sees how much is left and when it runs out at today’s pace. Either system crosses over to the other.

OC-7781Latitud Energía · issues it

OC-7781Latitud Servicios Petroleros · mobilizes against it

Real screenshot of the system · demonstration data

DEMO · GOVERNANCE

What commits money or touches a well is signed by a person

At an operator, governance is not a document: it is four things you can see on the screen. Who signs each act, whether a figure can be opened down to the movement behind it, who sees which field, and what information leaves the database for the model.

Four pieces

Pick a piece

What the AI never does

  • Book an entry on its own.
  • Issue a purchase order or order a payment.
  • Renew, terminate or sign a contract.
  • Shut in, open or work over a well.
  • Publish the closing report without approval.
  • Change an asset baseline without leaving the reason.

Mandatory human decision

Every act that commits money or touches an asset has an owner with a name and a role. The AI goes as far as the written proposal and stops there; the system lets no flow move on without the signature.

›What the AI prepares·Who decides
Codes the invoice against the chart of accounts and shows its confidence level.Controller
Assembles the purchase request against the master agreement and its current rate.Procurement and contracts
Prepares the marginal well’s shut-in scenario with what it implies.Asset management
Flags the closing notice window and drafts the letter and the request for quotes.Procurement and contracts
Drafts the closing report with the source of every paragraph.Finance

The boundary

If a flow tries to book, pay, renew or shut in a well without a signature, it stops and the attempt lands in the audit log with its timestamp.

IN THE SYSTEM · THE EIGHT MODULES

The rest of the console, with the same rule.

Reconciliation with explicit thresholds, a close written from the snapshot, chemicals with a replenishment forecast and equipment against its baseline. In each one the AI prepares and a person signs.

Real screenshot of the system · demonstration data

WITH WHAT YOU ALREADY USE

It integrates with your accounting ERP. It does not replace it.

No operator starts from zero: there is accounting already running, a chart of accounts the controller defends and field measurement that already exists. The system leans on all of it: it takes from the ERP what the ERP does well, and puts on top what today lives in emails, spreadsheets and shared folders.

Anthropic

Claude · Anthropic

Engine

Codes the invoice against the chart of accounts, cross-checks cost against the baseline, projects resupply, reads the contract and drafts the close with its sources. It does not book, pay or shut in a well.

Ex

Existing accounting ERP

The chart of accounts, the ledger and the statements stay where they are. The system integrates by API: it reads the master files, proposes the entry and writes back what a person approved, with its reference.

Fi

Field measurement

Gauging, crew tickets, hour meters and production reports enter the same system. Whatever could not be measured is marked as unknown instead of being filled in with an average.

Su

Supplier portal

The supplier uploads their invoice and its support, checks the status of their payment and answers an observation. All of it keyed by the document number.

WhatsApp

WhatsApp Business

The crew sends the ticket photo from the field and gets confirmation that it landed. The conversation stays attached to the document, not in somebody’s phone.

Supabase

Supabase · Postgres

Data lives in your database, with per-field and per-role permissions at row level: the Sabana Alta superintendent does not see consolidated cash or Vega Larga’s cost.

WHAT GETS MEASURED

Indicators to measure, not promised results

A system nobody measures turns into an opinion. These are the indicators the operation leaves calculated, each with the table it comes from. Where they need to land at your operator is not promised here: it is defined in the assessment, against your own starting point.

Invoices routed to review

What it answers

How many fell below the threshold, and for what reason each one?

Where it comes from

the accounting copilot inbox, with the written reason

Suppliers with no pattern in the master file

What it answers

How many issuers still have no learned account, and how much do they bill?

Where it comes from

supplier master against invoice history

Unmatched movements at close

What it answers

What is still unreconciled, and how long has it been open?

Where it comes from

bank reconciliation, band by band

Purchases issued with no master agreement

What it answers

How many orders went out against a loose quote?

Where it comes from

purchase orders crossed with active agreements

None of these indicators ships with a factory target. The starting point is measured in the assessment and the target is set by the operator.

IN THE SYSTEM · ON A PHONE

The same inbox in the controller’s pocket.

The console adapts to a phone without losing the rule: the invoice below the threshold still waits for a person, and its traceability travels with it.

Real screenshot of the system · demonstration data

Frequently asked questions about systems for oil operators

No. The chart of accounts, the ledger and the financial statements stay where they are and the system integrates by API: it reads the account and supplier masters, proposes the coding and writes back the entry a person approved, with its reference. What the system adds is what does not live in the ERP today: the invoice that arrives by email and gets coded by hand, the reconciliation done in a spreadsheet, cost per barrel well by well, the contract nobody looks at until it renews itself. What gets integrated and what gets absorbed comes out of the assessment, and the plan is written before anything is touched.

No, and that is a rule written into the system, not good intentions. The AI compares the well’s cost per barrel against its own baseline, isolates the items that explain the gap, contrasts decline with peer wells and, if the margin falls into the marginal band, prepares the shut-in scenario with production forgone and cost no longer incurred. There it stops: the scenario waits. Shutting in, working over or leaving a well running is asset management’s call, and the decision is recorded with their name, the time and the reason.

Then the invoice is not coded: it goes to “needs review”. The accounting copilot codes from patterns — what that supplier billed before, against which contract, to which cost center — and with no history there is no pattern to support an account. The invoice arrives with candidate accounts, with the doubt written out and with a link to the original document, and the controller picks. From that decision on, the supplier sits in the master file with its pattern, so the next invoice arrives already coded with high confidence; what does not change is that it still needs an approval.

Yes. The field app works offline: the crew records the ticket, the dosing, equipment hours and photos on site, and everything stays on the device with the time and location it was captured at. When the device gets signal again it syncs, and the system resolves conflicts by showing both versions instead of overwriting one. The accounting coding of that ticket happens later, with the photo already uploaded, and it also waits for approval.

Permissions are per field and per role, at row level in the database. Finance sees the consolidated operator; a field superintendent sees their field and not group cash or the neighbouring field’s cost; the controller sees invoices and reconciliation across every scope but does not change an asset decision. The AI receives the fragment it needs for the task, not the whole database, and every access is recorded: who opened what and for what reason.

Data lives in your database, under your control, and the operator decides what is sent to the model and what is not. Most tasks need only a fragment — the text of an invoice, a well’s cost series, a clause of a contract — not the full history; what does get sent is written into the system’s AI usage policy, with its classification and its retention. Restricted information is marked as such and there are tasks that never leave the database. The details of deployment, region and the agreements with the model provider are defined in the assessment, against whatever each contract and each regulator requires.

It is defined in the assessment. The model has three parts: setup, a monthly fee and a variable cost per processed volume. The scope — how many fields come first, whether the ERP is integrated or absorbed, whether field operations come in with an offline app — comes from what we see in your operation. Book 30 minutes and we give you the range in writing.

Gabriel Montiel
Founder · Boosty Digital

A WORD FROM THE FOUNDER

“At an operator the argument is never whether the AI can do the bookkeeping. It is how long management takes to have the figure with its source in front of them, while something can still be done.”

When you sit down with the controller of an oil company, the bottleneck shows up fast: the invoice is in an email, the contract in a shared folder, the crew ticket on somebody’s phone, the well cost in a spreadsheet assembled once a month and the reconciliation in another. Nobody is doing their job badly: they are assembling by hand what should arrive already assembled.

That is exactly what a system with AI does well: read, code against the chart of accounts that already exists, cross-check a well’s cost against its own baseline, find the renewal clause before the deadline passes and draft the close saying where every paragraph came from. And there it stops. Approving an entry, signing a purchase order, renewing a contract or shutting in a well commits money and touches the asset: a person decides.

If you want to see your own circuit — from the invoice that arrives to the approved entry, and from the field ticket to the well’s cost per barrel — book 30 minutes with me. We take a real case of yours and walk it end to end.

Gabriel Montiel signature

Gabriel Montiel

CEO · Boosty Digital

Anthropic Partner·Google Partner·Industrial Engineer, UCAB·MBA

START

How many supplier invoices do you code by hand each month?

Book a 30-minute assessment. We walk the full circuit — invoice, coding, reconciliation, close, cost per well and contract — and tell you what we would build first.

✓
What we diagnose: how a well is measured today, how an invoice is coded and who approves the spend
✓
What we would build: the baseline per well and the file behind every cost, with its approval
✓
What we would measure: anomalies detected with their source and invoices reaching review, before and after

No spam. We reply within 24 business hours.