This is why Duma could not legally cancel IOC's PA with his threat last June of a 180 day cancellation trigger, there was no legal grounds for that threat. Vinson eloquently told PNG they had no such right at that time and Vinson has been proven correct. IOC has been productive in the field, locating the largest fields in PNG which will enrich the nation, generous with State participation, considerate of the local landowners with humanitarian efforts and, as far as we know, been above board politically when dealing with PNG officials. The State has shown an interest in working with IOC, granting them license extensions when needed and helping with the PRL 15 SD efforts. IOC's stance has been that they are doing what is needed of them on the license front and they have never been fearful of a Gov't not working with them in a legal manner. After all, it benefits the State to bring the resources to market and sooner is better than later.
|
Legal Nature of the Papua New Guinea Petroleum Arrangement
|
||
|
05-13-2013, 04:41 AM
The nature, legal and spirit of the PNG petroleum laws are supportive of private developers. The developers rights are protected by law and by agreements with the State. The goal for the State is to entice private money to explore, locate and bring to market national hydrocarbon resources for the benefit of the nation. The O&G world has been investing and trying to invest in PNG and it's not because they fear being mistreated by a corrupt Gov't.
This is why Duma could not legally cancel IOC's PA with his threat last June of a 180 day cancellation trigger, there was no legal grounds for that threat. Vinson eloquently told PNG they had no such right at that time and Vinson has been proven correct. IOC has been productive in the field, locating the largest fields in PNG which will enrich the nation, generous with State participation, considerate of the local landowners with humanitarian efforts and, as far as we know, been above board politically when dealing with PNG officials. The State has shown an interest in working with IOC, granting them license extensions when needed and helping with the PRL 15 SD efforts. IOC's stance has been that they are doing what is needed of them on the license front and they have never been fearful of a Gov't not working with them in a legal manner. After all, it benefits the State to bring the resources to market and sooner is better than later.
05-13-2013, 10:42 PM
Let's be practical. If your were a Super Major would you have crossed the leases bridge with the PNG govt?? Or would you spend millions bidding on leases when you don't know who the owner will be????
Reality IOC has the NG, the leases and will sell them down or maybe even out. Next problem.
05-13-2013, 10:50 PM
How about those 3 IBers who have not been paid a penny yet. Wouldn't they have checked on the leases before trying to sell them ??? Do they want to get paid??? Would their firms have let them work on this deal if there was a chance they wouldn't get paid??? LOL if you believe that!! These IBers will do the sell down or sell out and get paid. Next!!
(05-12-2013, 11:31 PM)Tree Wrote:
The source of information discussed in the two threads http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb/showthread.php?tid=3589&page=4 comes from three places. 1.The IOC 2012 Annual Report, Annual Information Form, http://www.interoil.com/iocfiles/documen...20Form.pdf If this link does not work go to the IOC web site to find it. 2. INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA. Oil and Gas Act 1998
And
3. Melanesian Law Journal Legal Nature of the Papua New Guinea Petroleum Arrangement [2003] MLJ 6; [2003-04] 29 MLJ 117 (1 January 2003) http://www.paclii.org/cgi-bin/disp.pl/journals/MLJ/2003/6.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=application%20and%20for%20and%20pdl%20and%20png This article represents the opinion of the author but is not the same as the Oil and Gas Act 1998. Work discussed in this Article that was conducted prior to 1998 was done under the former law, Petroleum Act, which was repealed by this current Oil and Gas Act 1998. All of IOC’s work has been done since 1998 and is, therefore, covered by the current law. CORRECTION OF MY PREVIOUS POST I hate to keep beating this dead horse but, in the interest of accuracy, I must make a correction to what I said in this thread above where I was only looking at the Melanesian Law Journal article. I am correcting what I said regarding the extension of a PPL license where a discovery has been made. Section 30 of the Oil and Gas law says the following: “30. EXTENSION OF PETROLEUM PROSPECTING LICENCE IN RESPECT OF LOCATION. (1) Where– (a) petroleum is discovered in a petroleum prospecting licence area within the period of two years before the date of expiration of a petroleum prospecting licence that has been extended under Section 29; and (b) the Minister has made a declaration of a location under Section 34, or the licensee has nominated a block or blocks under that section for the purpose of a declaration of a location, the Minister may grant a further extension of the licence in respect of the block or blocks to which Paragraph (b) applies. (2) A further extension granted under Subsection (1)– (a) shall be for a period not exceeding three years; and (b) shall be subject to any conditions that the Minister, after considering a report of the Board, thinks fit and specifies in the licence. (3) Where, before the expiration of a petroleum prospecting licence that includes blocks that constitute a location, the licensee– (a) makes written application to the Minister for an extension or a further extension of the licence in respect of some or all of those blocks; and (b) satisfies the Minister that– (iii) the blocks contain all or part of a petroleum pool or are otherwise properly included in a location; and (iv) the construction, establishment and operation of facilities for the recovery of petroleum is not economically feasible, the Minister may grant an extension or a further extension of the petroleum prospecting licence in respect of those blocks. (4) An extension under Subsection (3) shall be for a period not exceeding one year.” This is the only place in the Oil and Gas Law where the “three year” extension is mentioned. A careful reading of this Section 30 shows that the three year extension only covers that area of the PPL that is within the blocks covered by the “location” which is declared for a discovery. It does not extend the entire PPL license area. So an oil company can retain the right to any discovery that is made within the PPL. If you get a PRL before the PPL expires you can extend the area of the PRL for an additional period of two five year terms in addition to the initial five year term. (not “a number of 5 year extension periods” as was stated in the Melanesian Law Journal) “43. TERM OF PETROLEUM RETENTION LICENCE. Subject to this Act and to any condition in the licence, a petroleum retention licence remains in force– (a) for a period of five years commencing on the day on which the licence takes effect; and (b) where the licence is extended under Section 45–for a further period of five years at each extension. 44. APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF PETROLEUM RETENTION LICENCE. (1) The holder of a petroleum retention licence may make application to the Minister for an extension of the licence. (2) An application under this section may be made twice only in respect of a licence.” This is also in agreement with what IOC said in the 2012 Annual Report (Annual Information Form). Page 27: “The initial period of a petroleum retention license is for five years and further extensions of two 5-year terms may be granted at the discretion of the State.” This does not agree with what is stated in the Melanesian Law Journal article. I guess I will have to agree with the Oil and Gas Act and the IOC Annual Report i.e. a PRL has an initial period of five years and may be granted two extensions of five years each. So, before the PPL’s expire in March 2014 we need to make as many discoveries as possible and get our “Locations” declared or apply for a PRL. We can retain all discoveries. This does not preclude the possibility that the State will issue new PPL’s for part or all of the same area to IOC based on the substantial amount of work IOC has done, but I believe this will be at the discretion of the State. We have to move all of these discoveries along to the PDL stage in order to be assured of the right to a long term license of 25 years with the possibility of a 20 year extension. OK, let the arrows fly. I will take cover and may remain in hiding until further notice. No, I am not short. I would just like for everyone’s understanding, including mine, to be accurate. If this is wrong in some way please correct it but if you do please provide the source of your information.
05-14-2013, 05:19 AM
So we need to get as many farm in agreements done as quickly as possible and drill drill drill. This certainly explains the PRE drilling plans I found on their website. Who else can IOC get a deal with.
05-14-2013, 05:46 AM
'jft310' pid='22302' datel Wrote:So we need to get as many farm in agreements done as quickly as possible and drill drill drill. This certainly explains the PRE drilling plans I found on their website. Who else can IOC get a deal with. jft- Maybe Total will "step up to the plate"....(or a "significant other" ) . Hopefully we should know something shortly ! ( notice I didn't use the bad word....."soon" ) . GLTY.
05-14-2013, 12:26 PM
'Tree' pid='22201' datel Wrote:
I fixed it. Actually, Duma fixed it. Next time maybe we can avoid the confrontational ugliness by a few if they have any humility. WE THINK/HOPE THEY AGREE that's the case.
Oh yeah, if they didn't tell us until today it makes it ok lash out at what some can't comprehend.
05-14-2013, 12:34 PM
'Tree' pid='22340' dateline='<a href="tel:1368498 Wrote: ************** What beneficial purpose does this post serve? You absolutely can't help yourself. I t's comical.
05-14-2013, 12:49 PM
The PA expiration is pure nonsense. Its been addressed. Think IOC mgt wasn't aware ????Think they didn't have a plan?? Think they would let this slip?? That's the comedy to think IOC would let this slip away without a plan and an execution.
The truth is we need a deal so we have something else to micro manage for IOC. This horse is dead the PA expiration hoop to hoop.
05-14-2013, 01:26 PM
There are some of us who were not entirely reassured by expiring licenses. Yes, it's clear that cooperation is now good, but once you are on territory where there might very well be a natural practice, but no real legal duty to extent licenses, I don't think it's pure nonsense to have at least a residue of concern here, like I did.
Or let me put it another way. If I was a betting man I would have put money on the extensions, but was I 100% convinced? Not quite. For instance, I feel quite a bit better after the news today out of the DPE, with which IOC seems to have had a somewhat difficult relation. Who doesn't, raise their hand. If you do, that means you weren't 100% convinced either. I was perhaps 90% convinced, but not 100%. | ||
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)



