7/28/2019 Student ID No1116159 BSM 083

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/student-id-no1116159-bsm-083 1/15

ABERDEEN BUSINESS SCHOOL

PostgraduateCoursework Assignment

MARK

Student ID No. 1116159 Date Due 07 January 2013

Address Via XXX Ottobre 19

Trieste 34122Italy

COURSE LLM/MSC Oil and Gas Law

SUBJECT Oil and Gas Law BSM083 TUTOR Dr. Akinwale Awe

Mode of Attendance FT PT1 X PT2 OL

If you are submitting more than 1 piece of coursework for thismodule, please state here which part you are submitting:

I Confirm(a) That the work undertaken for this assignment is entirely my own and that I have not made use of any unauthorised assistance.(b) The Sources of all referenced material have been properly acknowledged.

Signed (Student ID Number typed or in ink): 1116159 Date: 06, Jan 2013

Word count excluding titles, numbering, headers and footnotes is 3,295 words.

7/28/2019 Student ID No1116159 BSM 083

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/student-id-no1116159-bsm-083 2/15

FOR UNIVERSITY USE ONLYCOMMENTS (FOR TUTOR USE ONLY)

MARK

Assessor: Date:

Poor Adequate Good Very GoodExcelle

nt

Factual Content

Analysis

Structure and Presentation

Clarity of Expression

Research and Resources

7/28/2019 Student ID No1116159 BSM 083

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/student-id-no1116159-bsm-083 3/15

1. Introduction

Transboundary issues have a history of being detrimental to the exploitation

of offshore oil and gas resources and have, in some instances, caused major

political issues, and even war, between neighboring countries.1 When

exploitable deposits of oil and gas straddle maritime boundaries or, when theboundary is uncertain or disputed it is usually necessary for the governments

involved to, either refer to existing international legislation to resolve the

issue or, set up treaties between them to define how the oil and gas

reservoirs shall be developed. In many cases, this resolution has turned out

to be a long and difficult process, in others, quick and effective solutions

have been found.2

Based on solutions reached in the past in several regions of the world, an

agreement to solve the issues of transboundary hydrocarbon reservoirs could

include:3 

• Establishing common deposits of oil and natural gas, not referring to a

particular geographical area but to a certain deposit, the extent of 

which would be determined by the States Parties through a mixed

Technical Commission, empowered to calculate the resources in situ

(Austria-Czechoslovakia 1960)

• The definition of a precise geographical areas in connection with the

resources (Norway-UK, 1976)

• The establishment of a joint development zone, divided by a

provisional line separating two subzones, one for each country (Federal

Republic of Germany-The Netherlands, 1962) or as many sub-zones as

needed (Japan-Korea, 1974)

• The establishment of a joint development area (Bahrain-Saudi Arabia,

1958) or a joint regime (Iran-Sharjah, 1971) or a Common Zone(Saudi Arabia-Sudan, 1974).

• The definition of a delimitation scheme setting up a protected zone

(Australia-Papua New Guinea, 1978) or a Cooperation Zone, defined by

1The borders Iraq & Kuwait inherited from the British after independence were not well-defined. One such contention was over the

 profitable Rumaila oilfields in 1990. Iraq accused Kuwait of stealing its oil at the Iraq side of the oil filed by using slant-drillingtechnology & demanded Kuwait stopped drilling and pay Iraq US$2.4 billion in compensation. This led to worsening of tension between both countries that increased the chances of war.2

One of the most cited examples of quick and effective solutions to transboundary reserves resolution is that adopted by the United

Kingdom and Norway, discussed later in this coursework.3

J.H. Estrada (President Analítica Energética S.C.), Trans-boundary Oil and Gas Fields between Mexico and the USA , Paper 

 presented at the 27th USAEE/IAEE North American Conference, September 2007< http://www.usaee.org/usaee2007/submissions/OnlineProceedings/Javier%20Estrada.pdf  > accessed on 02/01/2013

Student ID No: 1116159 Page 3 of 15

7/28/2019 Student ID No1116159 BSM 083

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/student-id-no1116159-bsm-083 4/15

geographical coordinates and divided into areas (Australia-Indonesia,

1989).

2. The ‘Rule of Capture’

Legislations and followers of the ‘rule of capture’ including the United States,4 

argue that when it is not practical for various reasons to obtain a neighboring

State’s consent, the effect may be to sterilize a licensee’s economic interest

and its host Government’s sovereign rights in the deposit. They also consider

such exploitation of deposits to be permitted by international law and argue

that the ‘rule of capture’ applies to it. Those against this rule, on the other

hand, argue that such one-sided exploitation of a transboundary reservoir

without consent would be illegal and would constitute interference with the

neighboring state’s sovereign rights in the subsoil of the sea-bed.5

Indeed, the existence of ‘rule of capture’ is very much debated in the

industry however, the basic proposition is that, whether you are a

Government or a Government’s license-holder, provided you stay on your

own side of the boundary line, you need not wait for the consent of the

neighboring State before exploring or exploiting the deposit from your own

side. In relation to offshore petroleum development and production, however,

this proposition may be influenced by the particular legal framework. As

Taylor and Tyne have suggested,

…..even if the law of capture did not apply as a matter of general law, it is possible that each license could beinterpreted as conferring upon the holders a right to drillwithin their licensed area and to extract any resultingpetroleum. If this interpretation were upheld, the terms of thelicenses would therefore result in a rule of capture as betweenholders of neighboring licenses. 6 

The general trend of opinion is that, in its most extreme form, the ‘rule of capture’ may be obsolete however there may still be some scope for this

argument in a more attenuated form under certain modern situations.

Uncertainty however remains regarding as to what that form ought to be and

how the resulting rules should work when dealing with practical international

commercial and political realities.

4E. Kuntz  Law of Oil and Gas (Anderson Publishing Co., Ohio 2003)

5Edwards, Angell, Palmer & Dodge, Oil and gas deposits at International boundaries, New ways for governments and oil and gas

companies to handle an increasingly urgent problem New Edition – 2007< http://www.edwardswildman.com/files/News/beea97f3-

7544-42e1-be4d-00e1e25f9d2a/Presentation/NewsAttachment/d7f12eff-3b5d-441f-96d6-7aa4bd2633fb/EAPD%20oil%20and%20gas%20deposits%20at%20international%20boundaries%20-%20march%202007%20-%20EAPD%20guidance%20note.pdf > accessed on18/12/20126

Taylor, M. and Tyne, S. Taylor and Winsor on Joint Operation Agreements 1 10 (2nd ed, 1992)

Student ID No: 1116159 Page 4 of 15

7/28/2019 Student ID No1116159 BSM 083

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/student-id-no1116159-bsm-083 5/15

When a straddling deposit (pressure connection across a boundary line)

which is a single geological unit is exploited, even if this is carried out

exclusively by activity on one side of a boundary, will necessarily be altering

the pressure in the part of the deposit that lies beyond the line, and will

ultimately be drawing oil or gas from beyond the line. This may thereforeconstitute interference with the sovereign rights of the neighboring State.

Host Governments issuing such licenses may be running the risk of incurring

international responsibility to the neighboring State under the relevant

principles of public international law.

3. Cooperation – An Obligation ?

The United Nations Law of the Sea Convention 1982 (UNCLOS) obliges States

which have not been able to agree boundaries of their continental shelves

and exclusive economic zones, to make efforts to enter into provisional

arrangements of a practical nature to develop the Petroleum deposit located

in the overlapping geographical area under dispute whilst not forgoing their

sovereignty or sovereign rights to the deposits in place in its territory or

continental shelf.7 Mutual restraint in the absence of a cooperative agreement

to explore and exploit hydrocarbon resources is strengthened further by

Articles 81, 78 and 56 of the 1982 UNCLOS.

Although the precise parameters under customary international law of this

obligation to cooperate are still evolving, the absolute ownership or

sovereignty over the shared resource granted under the traditional rule of 

capture has been unambiguously rejected as both wasteful and inequitable.8

Whereas under the ‘rule of capture’, each separate owner would attempt to

secure a ‘ fair share’ of the underground resource by drilling more and

pumping faster than his neighbor, cross-border unitization and joint

development agreements, became the most popular kind of cooperation

agreements in recent years. The main purpose of these agreements was to

preserve the unity of the deposit and to avoid competitive drilling and

production with consequent economic and physical waste.

Joint Development Agreement (JDA) for a Joint Development Zone (JDZ) is

 “an agreement between countries that authorizes the cooperative

7Sharveen Persand, A Practical Overview of Article 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 2005

<http://www.un.org/depts/los/nippon/unnff_programme_home/fellows_pages/fellows_papers/persand_0506_mauritius.pdf > accessedon 28/12/20128

Seoung Yong Hong, Jon M, Maritime Boundary Disputes, Settlement Processes, and the Law of the Sea (Van Dyke Publications on

Ocean Development, 2009)

Student ID No: 1116159 Page 5 of 15

7/28/2019 Student ID No1116159 BSM 083

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/student-id-no1116159-bsm-083 6/15

development of petroleum resources in a geographic area that has (or had)

disputed sovereignty”. The JDA establishes cooperative development of 

petroleum regime within an area calling a JDZ.9 The JDZ is generally a

temporary solution, without prejudice to subsequent delimitation, but it also

can be permanent one. An establishment of JDZ also may be a part of delimitation agreement, where the boundary has been defined.

4. Legislation

4.1 UNCLOS

The most comprehensive rules governing the law of the sea are those of the

1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).10 UNCLOS

provides that information on the limits of the continental shelf beyond 200

nm from the baselines shall be submitted by the coastal state to a scientific

and technical Commission, named the ‘Commission on the Limits of the

Continental Shelf’. UNCLOS is effectively the categorization of customary

international law of the sea, because of the large number of states

which are party to it, as well as the number of judicial decisions that

accept its binding authority on the international community. The

Commission is responsible for making recommendations to coastal states on

matters related to the establishment of the outer limits of their continental

shelf beyond 200 nm. If the limits of the shelf, established by a coastal State,

are on the basis of the recommendations they are final and binding.11

One of the most important features of this instrument is the set of rules

governing the continental shelf, in part because its delimitation has been the

subject of great debate by international courts. UNCLOS sets out the

principles applicable to the continental shelf, its definition and delimitation

criteria, the rights of coastal states, the juridical conditions of waters and

aerial space, as well as other states' rights and freedoms. In accordance with

UNCLOS, natural resources either found in the continental shelf or in the

exclusive economic zone are fundamentally and expressly characterized as

9Oil & Gas Journal, How to negotiate and structure a joint development agreement, 09 August 2003

<http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-101/issue-34/exploration-development/how-to-negotiate-and-structure-a-joint-development-agreement.html> accessed on 29/12/2012

10 UNCLOS, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982<https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/UNCLOS-TOC.htm>accessed on 29/12/201211

Bjarni Már Magnússon, Dispute Settlement and the Establishment of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles, 18

 November 2011

Student ID No: 1116159 Page 6 of 15

7/28/2019 Student ID No1116159 BSM 083

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/student-id-no1116159-bsm-083 7/15

sovereign, exclusive, and belonging to the state in which they are physically

located.12

The position on sovereignty,13 exclusivity and inherency relates just as clearly

to the exclusive economic zone as it does to the continental shelf, as UNCLOS

grants sovereign and other rights regarding the exploration and exploitationof said zone to coastal states. The obligation of a coastal stale to refrain from

appropriating its neighbor’s energy resources relates therefore to both the

continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone.

4.2 UNEP Principles for the Guidance of States in theConservation and Harmonious Utilization of Natural ResourcesShared by Two or More States.14 

A Working Group of legal experts was established under the auspices of UNEP

and developed the Principles on Shared Natural Resources which were drawn

up for the guidance of States with respect to conservation and harmonious

utilization of natural resources shared by two or more States. These

principles were presented to the UNEP Governing Council for consideration

and approval and were adopted and transmitted to the General Assembly, in

its Resolution 34/186 requesting the States:

….to use the principles as guidelines and recommendationsin the formulation of bilateral or multilateral conventionsregarding natural resources shared by two or more States,on the basis of the principle of good faith and in the spirit of good neighborliness and in such a way as to enhance andnot adversely affect development and the interests of allcountries, in particular the developing countries.15

These principles are of recommendatory character and require States to co-

operate with a view of controlling, preventing, reducing, or eliminating

adverse environmental effects that may result from the utilization of 

resources shared by two or more States consistently with the concept of 

12David Enriquez, Goodrich, Riquelme y Asociados, Newsletter Instituto Tecnologico Autonomo, Mexico Transboundary oil and gas

reservoirs and the Law of the Sea: the US-Mexico case, June 200813

North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v Netherlands) ICJ Rep. 1969. Aegean Sea Continental Shelf 

(Greece v Turkey) ICJ Rep, 1978. - The term 'sovereignty' has been analysed by the international Court of Justice in a case concerningthe North Sea continental shelf. In its ruling of 1969, the court established that 'coastal stales exercise rights on their continental shelf, being a consequence of the sovereignty exercise in its territory and in view that the shelf is regarded as a natural prolongation of theterritory itself. The same court subsequently reaffirmed this ruling in the case concerning the Aegean Sea continental shelf.14

Draft Principles of Conduct in the Field of the Environment for the Guidance of States in the Conservation and Harmonious

Utilization of Natural Resources Shared by Two or More States (adopted by the Governing Council of the United NationsEnvironment Programme, Decision 6/14 of May 1978). <http://www.unep.org/training/programmes/Instructor 

%20Version/Part_2/Activities/Interest_Groups/Decision-Making/Supplemental/Enviro_Law_Guidelines_Principles_rev2.pdf  >accessed on 29/12/201215

UN GA Resolution 34/186. Co-operation in the field of the environment concerning natural resources shared by two or more

States. 107th plenary meeting, 18 December 1979

Student ID No: 1116159 Page 7 of 15

7/28/2019 Student ID No1116159 BSM 083

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/student-id-no1116159-bsm-083 8/15

equitable utilization of shared natural resources. Such co-operation is to take

place on an equal footing, taking into account the sovereignty, rights, and

interests of the States concerned.16

5. Neighboring State Cases5.1 Case 1 - United States and Mexico: Gulf of Mexico

There are a number of international instruments which relate to the US-

Mexico maritime boundary, including bilateral treaties from 1978 and 2000,

as per the table below:

Date International instruments

29 April 1958 United Nations Convention on the Continental Shelf.4 May 1978 Treaty on Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries

between the United States and Mexico.

10 December1982

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

9 June 2000 Treaty between the United States and Mexico on theDelimitation of the Continental Shelf in the WesternGulf of Mexico beyond 200 Nautical Miles

Considering UNCLOS in its dual character, both as international treaty and

codification of customary international law, it becomes relevant when

considering the relation between Mexico and the US. The legal authority is

based upon express obligations within international treaties, ratified by bothparties, as well as by general practices, accepted as law and recognised by

the international community, evidencing customary international law.17

By 2010, the exploration and production of offshore petroleum resources in

the Gulf of Mexico (GoM) had developed to a point where Mexico and the

USA had to solve the issues related to reservoirs, already discovered and

straddling their boundaries. Mexico and the USA had in 2000 signed a

territorial and marine delimitation Treaty applicable to an area known as the

 ‘Western Gap’ which had very good prospects for hydrocarbon reserves. The

 ‘Western Gap’ was considered part of the continental shelf of the GoM and

due to its location, two international laws applied:

• The 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, to which

both the United States and Mexico are parties. Article 1 provides

that the continental shelf of a coastal state extends beyond the

16Denis V. Rodin, Offshore transboundary petroleum deposits: Cooperation as a Customary Obligation, Fall 2011

<http://munin.uit.no/bitstream/handle/10037/3894/thesis.pdf?sequence=2http://munin.uit.no/bitstream/handle/10037/3894/thesis.pdf?

sequence=2> accessed on 20/12/201217

US Department of State Website, Agreement between the United States of America and the United Mexican States Concerning

Transboundary Hydrocarbon Reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico <http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/2012/185259.htm> accessed on20/12/2012 

Student ID No: 1116159 Page 8 of 15

7/28/2019 Student ID No1116159 BSM 083

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/student-id-no1116159-bsm-083 9/15

depth of two hundred meters where the depth of the superjacent

waters admits the exploitation of the natural resources of the

shelf.

• The 1982 UNO Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),

adopted by the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, to which Mexico is a party. The USA, however, refused to

sign UNCLOS. Thus, while rejecting the Convention due to its

stance on seabed mining, expressly recognized that the balance

of interests achieved in the remaining parts of the Convention

was in the interests of them and the international community as a

whole. Therefore, the USA accepts that UNCLOS reflects

customary international law in this respect and has acknowledged

that UNCLOS provides a more scientifically based definition of a

continental shelf.

The Treaty stated that due to the possible existence of oil or natural gas

fields that could extend through the established limits in the continental

shelf, during a 10 years period after the Treaty took effect, the Parts will not

authorize nor will allow the drilling or the exploration of oil and natural gas in

the continental shelf. Both countries had strong interests to resolve and

exploit these fields through cooperation, and in fact they did reach anagreement during February 2012 as reported by international media,

including the Financial Times:18

US and Mexican oil companies are to be given rights to drill ina previously disputed area of the Gulf of Mexico under alandmark deal between the two governments that reflectstheir eagerness to develop domestic oil and gas production.An area of the gulf along the maritime boundary between thetwo countries, long left unexplored because of legaluncertainty about rights over its resources, will be made

available to US oil groups and Pemex, the Mexican state oilcompany. In an interview with the Financial Times, JoséAntonio Meade, Mexico’s finance minister, said of the accord: “It is going to give [legal] certainty to companies, to Pemexon this side, and to companies on the US side.” 

18FT.com Oil & Gas, US and Mexico in landmark oil deal, February 20, 2012

<http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0e0d550a-5bec-11e1-841c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2H4ZBr7ef > accessed on 21/12/2012

Student ID No: 1116159 Page 9 of 15

7/28/2019 Student ID No1116159 BSM 083

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/student-id-no1116159-bsm-083 10/15

5.2 Case 2 - The United Kingdom and Norway:

North Sea Continental Shelf 

Early in the 1960s the UK-Norway Treaty provided the first specific provision

for action to be taken in the event of the discovery of a cross border

petroleum deposit and the challenge was how to effectively exploit theseresources given the complex and often conflicting issues that surrounded

cross border petroleum deposits. Cross border development and the

preservation of unity of deposits therefore took shape in bilateral agreements

that were initiated mainly by the UK and Norway. The applicable international

law on apportionment during those early years made no requirement for

unitization. The UK and Norway however entered into the first provision of 

cross border unitization, consisting of the landmark Delimitation Treaty of 

1965 and the trademark of incorporating a mineral deposit clause was borne.

The agreement contained a commitment of cooperative development of 

petroleum deposits that straddle the boundary between the two

countries with the delimitation agreement remaining the controlling factor

for purposes of apportionment.

Fundamental principles of international law, specifically preservation of 

territorial sovereignty and integrity, as well as the Doctrine of Continental

Shelf embodied these agreements and provided the initial basis for theirdevelopment. Their cooperative approach and many aspects of their treaties

have developed into customary international law and serve as blueprints for

unitization agreements both regionally and elsewhere.

The Framework Agreement of the UK and Norway in 2005 is an

intergovernmental Treaty which has taken a very pragmatic approach that

avoids the need, as evidence in their previous agreements, to negotiate a

separate Treaty for each cross-border reservoir. As a result the Framework

Agreement encourages industry simplicity and confidence about

intergovernmental cooperation.19

The UK-Norway Treaty Agreements reinforced the already existing

international law of the Maritime boundary delimitation principle, which

throughout remained the deciding principle in the North Sea agreements.

Cross border unitization agreements became cooperative practices designed

19 Avril Lee Wong, The north sea experience- an analysis of cross border unitisation- and move towards establishing an international

legal framework, 20 April 2010 < http://www.dundee.ac.uk/cepmlp/gateway/?news=30827> accessed on 05/01/2013

Student ID No: 1116159 Page 10 of 15

7/28/2019 Student ID No1116159 BSM 083

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/student-id-no1116159-bsm-083 11/15

to preserve the unity of the deposit while respecting the inherent sovereign

rights of the interested countries.20 

5.3 Case 3 - Norway and Russia: Barents Sea & Arctic Ocean

From the 1980s onward, Norway and Russia agreed not to engage in

exploration for or exploitation of petroleum resources in disputed regions in

the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean. There was therefore little knowledge

about possible oil and gas deposits in these particular areas.

In June 2011, Norway ratified the agreement on the Arctic, signed earlier

with Russia, defining the border between the two countries in the region,

thus lifting the moratorium on prospecting the gas and oil deposits on the

Arctic continental shelf. Despite the lack of knowledge about the resource

base in the area, the treaty contains detailed provisions on the exploitation of 

any oil and gas deposits that extend across the delimitation line. These

include provisions on the parties’ obligation to enter into cooperation on the

exploitation of any such transboundary deposits that are discovered. These

detailed provisions are intended to ensure that the deposits are exploited in a

cost-effective and rational manner, and that the resources are shared in

accordance with the apportionment agreed between the parties.21

The talks on the delineation of the Barents Sea took 40 years to complete

and the disputed region was shared almost equally, with both Moscow and

Oslo making concessions. Most importantly, the neighbors now have clear-cut

borders of exclusive economic zones and continental shelf. According to Vasili

Gusuly ak of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the deposits in the Arctic will

make countries feel energy secure:

On coming into force, the Russian-Norwegian agreement willlift the moratorium on exploring the vast oil and gas depositsof the Arctic, a hugely important development now since the

old deposits are seriously depleted and drying up.

The provisions on the exploitation of any transboundary petroleum deposits

contained in the treaty on maritime delimitation in the Barents Sea and the

Arctic Ocean are modeled on established practice under international law.

Neither of the parties can start exploitation of a transboundary deposit

without first reaching agreement with the other party. Even if they agree to

20 J.Lang Weaver, A.F.Asmus, T.W.Walde, S Madmud et al, International Unitisation of Oil and Gas Fields: the Legal Framework of International Law, National Law and Private Contracts, April 2007, OGEL,Vol 5.21

World Oil News Centre, Norway and Russia Officially Split Barents Sea, October 2011

<http://www.worldoil.com/Norway_and_Russia_officially_split_Barents_Sea.html > accessed on 29/12/2012

Student ID No: 1116159 Page 11 of 15

7/28/2019 Student ID No1116159 BSM 083

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/student-id-no1116159-bsm-083 12/15

exploit the field as a unit, an approach known as unitisation, the parties

continue to have jurisdiction on their respective sides of the delimitation line. 22

The Treaty plays important role for development of different industry sectors

in the Barents Sea and the Arctic Ocean regions, and oil and natural gas

exploration and exploitation. It is not a novel to include in delimitationagreements provisions regulating oil and gas deposits which can appear in a

border region and become a stumbling block for neighboring States. A

distinctive feature of this treaty is that, apart from the standard articles

regulating transboundary deposits, it also contains an entire annex describing

in detail procedures for establishing a cooperative regime and opens new

perspectives for the petroleum sector and for Norwegian-Russian cooperation

in this sector.

6. Cessation & Decommissioning

The main legal issues that need to be addressed during decommissioning

projects are, removal of petroleum facilities, disposal of petroleum facilities,

obligation to pay for removal and disposal and any residual liability.23 The

international law on the decommissioning of offshore petroleum facilities is

still evolving in various jurisdictions and the legal framework is complex and

includes International Conventions, Regional Conventions, National Law andHost Government Contract.

There are three major international conventions and one set of non-binding

guidelines that apply to the removal and disposal of offshore installations,

these are the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, the 1972

London Dumping Convention, the 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention

(UNCLOS) and the IMO Guidelines. Their applicability depends upon whether

the jurisdiction/s where the platform is located has ratified the relevant

convention.

7. Concluding Observations

We have seen that there are quite a number of widely recognized

international legal instruments, treaties, industry practices and guidance

principles which regulate how neighboring states may be able to develop

22Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Website, Petroleum resources,

<http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/ud/campaigns/delimitation/petr_resources.html?id=614009> accessed on 10/12/2012 23

Tim Martin, Decommissioning of International Petroleum Facilities Evolving Standards & Key Issues

(undated paper) <http://www.timmartin.ca/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/Decommissioning_of_Int_Petroleum_Facilities.pdf > accessedon 20/12/2012

Student ID No: 1116159 Page 12 of 15

7/28/2019 Student ID No1116159 BSM 083

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/student-id-no1116159-bsm-083 13/15

transboundary offshore oil and gas resources throughout the oil and gas

cycle.

The most comprehensive rules governing the law of the sea remain those of 

the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; however, from

the review of all the above referenced sources, it seems apparent thatattempts to adopt comprehensive legal instruments regulating transboundary

hydrocarbons have not been entirely successful.

The main obstacle to develop binding rules regulating management of 

transboundary wealth is the reluctance of several states to compromise on

the fact that they rely on the absolutely recognized sovereignty over that

part of resources which is located within their own territory.24 The most

reasonable and widely accepted solution of the transboundary oil & gas

resources problem remains cooperation between neighboring states, which

raises the question as to whether the obligation to cooperate is in fact

already an international customary rule.

Bibliography

Internet Sources

Avril Lee Wong, The north sea experience- an analysis of cross borderunitisation- and move towards establishing an international legal framework,20 April 2010 < http://www.dundee.ac.uk/cepmlp/gateway/?news=30827>accessed on 05/01/2013

Denis V. Rodin, Offshore transboundary petroleum deposits: Cooperation asa Customary Obligation, Fall 2011<http://munin.uit.no/bitstream/handle/10037/3894/thesis.pdf?sequence=2http://munin.uit.no/bitstream/handle/10037/3894/thesis.pdf?sequence=2> accessed on 20/12/2012

Edwards, Angell, Palmer & Dodge, Oil and gas deposits at Internationalboundaries, New ways for governments and oil and gas companies to handlean increasingly urgent problem New Edition – 2007<http://www.edwardswildman.com/files/News/beea97f3-7544-42e1-be4d-00e1e25f9d2a/Presentation/NewsAttachment/d7f12eff-3b5d-441f-96d6-7aa4bd2633fb/EAPD%20oil%20and%20gas%20deposits%20at%20international%20boundaries%20-%20march%202007%20-%20EAPD%20guidance%20note.pdf> accessed on 18/12/2012

24Denis V. Rodin, Offshore transboundary petroleum deposits: Cooperation as a Customary Obligation, Fall 2011

<http://munin.uit.no/bitstream/handle/10037/3894/thesis.pdf?sequence=2http://munin.uit.no/bitstream/handle/10037/3894/thesis.pdf?sequence=2> accessed on 20/12/2012

Student ID No: 1116159 Page 13 of 15

7/28/2019 Student ID No1116159 BSM 083

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/student-id-no1116159-bsm-083 14/15

FT.com Oil & Gas, US and Mexico in landmark oil deal, February 20, 2012<http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0e0d550a-5bec-11e1-841c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2H4ZBr7ef> accessed on 21/12/2012

J.H. Estrada (President Analítica Energética S.C.), Trans-boundary Oil and

Gas Fields between Mexico and the USA, Paper presented at the 27thUSAEE/IAEE North American Conference, September 2007<http://www.usaee.org/usaee2007/submissions/OnlineProceedings/Javier%20Estrada.pdf > accessed on 02/01/2013

Oil & Gas Journal, How to negotiate and structure a joint developmentagreement, 09 August 2003 <http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-101/issue-34/exploration-development/how-to-negotiate-and-structure-a- joint-development-agreement.html> accessed on 29/12/2012

Sharveen Persand, A Practical Overview of Article 76 of the United NationsConvention on the Law of the Sea, 2005<http://www.un.org/depts/los/nippon/unnff_programme_home/fellows_pages/fellows_papers/persand_0506_mauritius.pdf> accessed on 28/12/2012

Tim Martin, Decommissioning of International Petroleum Facilities EvolvingStandards & Key Issues (undated paper)<http://www.timmartin.ca/fileadmin/user_upload/pdfs/Decommissioning_of_Int_Petroleum_Facilities.pdf> accessed on 20/12/2012

US Department of State Website, Agreement between the United States of America and the United Mexican States Concerning TransboundaryHydrocarbon Reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico<http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/2012/185259.htm> accessed on20/12/2012

Books

E. Kuntz Law of Oil and Gas (Anderson Publishing Co., Ohio 2003)

M. Taylor, S. Tyne, Taylor and Winsor on Joint Operation Agreements 1 10(2nd ed, 1992)

Seoung Yong Hong, M. Jon , Maritime Boundary Disputes, SettlementProcesses, and the Law of the Sea (Van Dyke Publications on OceanDevelopment, 2009)

Other Sources

Bjarni Már Magnússon, Dispute Settlement and the Establishment of theContinental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles, 18 November 2011UNCLOS, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December1982

<https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/UNCLOS-TOC.htm>accessed on 29/12/2012

Student ID No: 1116159 Page 14 of 15

7/28/2019 Student ID No1116159 BSM 083

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/student-id-no1116159-bsm-083 15/15

David Enriquez, Goodrich, Riquelme y Asociados, Newsletter InstitutoTecnologico Autonomo, Mexico Transboundary oil and gas reservoirs and theLaw of the Sea: the US-Mexico case, June 2008

Draft Principles of Conduct in the Field of the Environment for the Guidanceof States in the Conservation and Harmonious Utilization of Natural

Resources Shared by Two or More States (adopted by the Governing Councilof the United Nations Environment Programme, Decision 6/14 of May 1978).<http://www.unep.org/training/programmes/Instructor%20Version/Part_2/Activities/Interest_Groups/Decision-Making/Supplemental/Enviro_Law_Guidelines_Principles_rev2.pdf> accessedon 29/12/2012

J.Lang Weaver, A.F.Asmus, T.W.Walde, S Madmud et al, InternationalUnitisation of Oil and Gas Fields: the Legal Framework of International Law,National Law and Private Contracts, April 2007, OGEL,Vol 5.

Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Website, Petroleum resources,<http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/ud/campaigns/delimitation/petr_resources.html?id=614009> accessed on 10/12/2012

UN GA Resolution 34/186. Co-operation in the field of the environmentconcerning natural resources shared by two or more States. 107th plenarymeeting, 18 December 1979

World Oil News Centre, Norway and Russia Officially Split Barents Sea,October 2011<http://www.worldoil.com/Norway_and_Russia_officially_split_Barents_Sea.html > accessed on 29/12/2012 

Student ID No: 1116159 Page 15 of 15