When oil leaves a lease, two records get created that are supposed to describe the same barrels: the run ticket the operator captures at the point of custody transfer, and the settlement statement the purchaser sends back saying what it will pay for. Run ticket to invoice reconciliation is the discipline of laying those two records side by side and confirming they agree. It sounds mechanical, but it is the front line of revenue assurance, because the purchaser's statement is where an operator's money is decided, and a quiet discrepancy between the ticket and the invoice is money left on the table month after month if no one is checking.
Run ticket to invoice reconciliation in one line: Run ticket to invoice reconciliation is the revenue-assurance process of matching each run ticket, and the LACT proving behind it, against the purchaser's settlement or invoice statement to confirm the operator is being paid for the volume and quality actually delivered. It surfaces discrepancies in measured volume, temperature and gravity corrections, and BS and W deductions that would otherwise silently reduce payment. Done continuously against tank and meter data, it catches underpayments that paper-only reconciliation routinely misses.
The run ticket is the operator's record of a custody transfer. For a tank sale it captures the opening and closing gauge, the temperature, the observed gravity, and the basic sediment and water content, from which the net barrels delivered are computed. For a LACT unit, the automated custody transfer meter records the volume and the meter proving that establishes its accuracy, along with the same quality parameters. Either way the run ticket is the operator's claim about how many net, quality-corrected barrels changed hands and left the lease.
The purchaser's settlement statement is the other party's version of the same transaction, and it is what actually drives payment. It states the volume the purchaser accepted, the corrections it applied for temperature and gravity, the deductions it took for sediment and water, and ultimately the barrels it will pay for and the price. In an honest, well-run relationship these two records describe the same barrels and should reconcile line for line. Reconciliation is the act of confirming that they do, and of investigating every place they do not, because each unexplained difference is either an error to correct or a discrepancy that is costing one side money.
The specific fields that must tie are worth naming because they are where discrepancies hide. The gross and net volumes should agree once the same corrections are applied. The temperature used for volume correction should match, since a difference of a few degrees shifts the corrected volume. The gravity should agree, because gravity affects both volume correction and, on many contracts, the price. And the sediment and water deduction should match, because an overstated BS and W cut reduces the paid barrels. A reconciliation that checks only the final barrel count and ignores the corrections behind it can miss a systematic underpayment buried in the quality adjustments.
Volume discrepancies have many roots, and most are not fraud but drift and error. A tank gauge read a little differently by two people, a temperature taken at the wrong moment, a meter whose proving has slipped since its last calibration, or a manual transcription that transposes a digit all produce a volume on the ticket that does not quite match reality. When the purchaser measures independently or applies its own corrections, the two records diverge, and without reconciliation the operator simply accepts whatever the purchaser paid. Over a year and many loads, even small per-ticket differences add up to real revenue.
Gravity and quality discrepancies are subtler and often more consequential. Observed gravity feeds the temperature-to-standard volume correction and, on gravity-adjusted contracts, the price per barrel, so a small disagreement in gravity moves both the corrected volume and the dollars. A BS and W deduction is another common friction point: the purchaser may report a higher sediment and water content than the operator measured, which shaves paid barrels off every load. Because these adjustments are applied consistently, a systematic bias in gravity or BS and W is not random noise that averages out; it is a steady leak that pulls in one direction on every settlement until someone reconciles and challenges it.
The reason these leaks persist is that paper reconciliation is hard, slow, and often skipped. Matching a stack of handwritten run tickets against a monthly settlement statement, line by line, checking each correction, is tedious enough that many operators only spot-check or verify the total barrels rather than the underlying adjustments. A discrepancy in the corrections can therefore hide behind a total that looks close enough, and the operator never learns it is being systematically shorted on gravity or over-deducted on sediment and water. The discrepancies that matter most are exactly the ones a cursory paper check is least likely to catch.
The reconciliation gets far stronger when the run ticket is not the only record of what left the tank. When tank levels and LACT meter volumes are measured continuously and historized in a SCADA platform such as Merobix, the operator has an independent, timestamped account of the drawdown that each sale represents. A run ticket claiming a certain net volume can be checked against the actual drop in tank level that the historian recorded at the same time, and a LACT ticket can be checked against the meter's own logged throughput. That independent baseline is what turns reconciliation from a comparison of two paper claims into a comparison anchored in continuous measurement.
Digitizing the ticket itself is the other half. When run tickets are captured electronically rather than on paper, they can be matched automatically against both the continuous tank and meter data and the incoming purchaser settlement statement, with the corrections broken out field by field. The system flags a load where the ticketed volume disagrees with the trended tank drawdown, or where the purchaser's gravity or BS and W differs from what the operator measured, instead of relying on a person to catch it by eye. The tedious line-by-line matching that paper reconciliation makes impractical becomes a routine automated check, so every ticket gets fully reconciled rather than spot-checked.
The payoff is caught underpayments that would otherwise go unnoticed. When continuous tank and meter data back the operator's volumes and digitized tickets are matched against settlements field by field, a systematic gravity understatement, an over-aggressive sediment and water deduction, or a meter that has drifted since proving all surface as recurring, quantifiable discrepancies rather than as vague suspicions. The operator can then take a documented case to the purchaser with the trend data behind it, correct the settlement, and recover the revenue. Revenue assurance done this way is not an occasional audit but a standing check on every barrel sold, which is what makes it effective at protecting the money the LOS ultimately reports.
A run ticket is the operator's record of a custody transfer, capturing the gauged or metered volume plus temperature, gravity, and sediment and water at the moment oil leaves the lease. A purchaser settlement statement is the buyer's record of the same transaction, stating the volume and corrections it applied and the barrels it will pay for. Reconciliation confirms these two records agree, because the settlement is what actually drives payment and any silent difference costs the operator money.
Usually from drift and error rather than fraud: a tank gauge read slightly differently, a temperature taken at the wrong moment, a LACT meter whose proving has slipped, a transcription mistake, or a difference in the gravity and sediment-and-water corrections each party applies. Because the corrections are applied consistently, a bias in gravity or a heavy sediment deduction does not average out; it pulls in one direction on every settlement, which is why reconciliation matters.
Continuous, historized tank levels and LACT meter volumes give the operator an independent, timestamped account of the drawdown behind each sale. A run ticket's claimed volume can be checked against the actual tank-level drop recorded at the same time, and a metered load against the meter's logged throughput. That independent baseline turns reconciliation from a comparison of two paper claims into one anchored in measurement, so systematic discrepancies surface as quantifiable, documented cases rather than suspicions.
Merobix reads your field devices into a cloud SCADA - the real thing behind these terms, live in days from any browser.