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.
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
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.
0
operating scopes in one system
Sabana Alta · Río Claro · Vega Larga · flow station and dispatch
0
wells with their own baseline
production · cost per barrel · margin · last workover
0
chart of accounts: the one the books already use
the system codes against it by API; it does not replace it
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.
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.
› 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
- 01Management console
- 02Accounting copilot
- 03Bank reconciliation
- 04Close and reports
- 05Assets and wells
- 06Field
- 07Contracts
- 08Equipment
Boosty Standard for Operating with AISimulated AI · demo data
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
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
| Asset | Production | Cost/bbl | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sabana Alta | 980 bpd | $11.80 | one well flaggedoutside its baseline |
| Río Claro | 720 bpd | $12.60 | within its baseline |
| Vega Larga | 440 bpd | $13.90 | workover closed last month |
| Estación y despacho | 2,110 bpd dispatched | $1.10 | 30 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
- 1Indicators with a source: [CR-09], [MED-0710].
- 2Twelve closes and the month against the previous one in absolute values.
- 3What awaits a decision, with owner, amount and deadline.
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
Production
145 bpd
Cost per barrel
$18.70
Baseline
$12.10
Last workover
14 months ago
How the cost breaks downtodaybaseline
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
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.
No entry is booked without the controller approving it. Not even the high-confidence ones.
Pick an invoice
Proposed account
—
Cost center
Station and dispatch
Contract
no master agreement attached
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
- 1Confidence as a score against its threshold (0.85).
- 2The flow with the person: ingested, coded, review, approved.
- 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.
Signals specific to the industry
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
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
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.
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
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.
| 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.
Claude · Anthropic
EngineCodes 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.
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.
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.
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 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 · 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.
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.

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
CEO · Boosty Digital
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.