Due Diligence Process
How We Vet Every
Oil & Gas Deal
The petroleum market is full of fraudulent SCOs, phantom cargoes, and shell entities. Our 6-domain framework cuts through the noise so you never lose money to a deal that was never real.
From the Founder
Why Due Diligence Is Non-Negotiable
Jamal — Founder, BarrelBridge
The Framework
Six Domains. One Standard.
Every deal submitted to BarrelBridge is assessed across six independent domains. A weakness in any single domain triggers a deeper investigation or automatic rejection.
We verify state incorporation, registered agent status, physical address, years in operation, and cross-reference public records against the company's claims. Ghost companies fail here.
SGS reports, LOIs, FCOs, and BCLs are cross-checked for format consistency, issuing entity legitimacy, and known fraud templates. We have libraries of known fraudulent document types.
We research decision-makers via LinkedIn, public records, news archives, and court databases. Anonymous or unverifiable principals are an automatic red flag.
Pricing, volume, and timeline are benchmarked against live market data. Deals priced more than 5% below spot, or promising unrealistic volumes, fail the economics test.
Does the seller actually have access to the commodity? We verify storage capacity, pipeline or terminal relationships, and production/logistics track record.
Any request for upfront fees before cargo verification, escrow requirements favoring the seller, or vague "compliance fees" triggers immediate disqualification.
What We Screen Out
Common Red Flags We Catch
These patterns appear repeatedly in fraudulent petroleum deals. Our analysts are trained to spot them before a single dollar changes hands.
How We Score
The BarrelBridge Score
Each domain is scored 1-10. Deals must clear 70 overall and score above 6 in every domain to proceed.
Any domain score below 6 triggers an automatic hold regardless of the overall score. A deal with one critical weakness is a failed deal.
Live Case — August 2026
When a Counterparty Refuses to Verify
A real case from our August 2026 pipeline. Names and identifying details have been changed. The red flags are unchanged.
The Deal
- Commodity: EN590 Diesel
- Volume: 2,000,000 L/month (stated)
- Origin: EU refinery (unverified)
- Role: Counterparty presented as seller-side intermediary
- Stage: Initial DD — never advanced
Flags Raised
- ✗ No LOI issued despite multiple requests
- ✗ Company registration unverifiable
- ✗ Bank comfort letter declined — "mandate protocol"
- ✗ Refinery confirmation refused
- ✗ No verifiable product documentation
- ✗ Principal identity unconfirmed
- ✗ Mandate defense script used to deflect all DD
The Tactic: Mandate Defense Script
When BarrelBridge requested standard verification — LOI, bank comfort letter, refinery confirmation — the counterparty responded with a scripted defense: "Our mandate prohibits sharing bank details with third parties before a signed LOI." This framing inverts the order of trust: it demands commitment from the buyer before providing any evidence of legitimacy. In real petroleum transactions, preliminary verification precedes the LOI — not the other way around. The script is designed to make the buyer feel that asking for verification is the unusual behavior.
Outcome: DD Closed — Incomplete
All 7 due diligence flags remained unresolved. BarrelBridge terminated the engagement before any capital was committed or LOI signed. The counterparty was added to our internal watch list. No BarrelBridge client was exposed.
What Good Looks Like
A Legitimate Deal Passes Every Check
Free Resource
Download the Full Framework
The BarrelBridge Due Diligence Framework is an 8-page guide covering every domain, red flag, scoring method, and real case examples. Free to download.