ABERDEEN BUSINESS SCHOOL Postgraduate Coursework Assignment

MARK

Student ID No. Address

1116159 Via XXX Ottobre 19 Trieste 34122 Italy

Date Due

07 January 2013

COURSE LLM/MSC Oil and Gas Law SUBJECT Oil and Gas Law BSM083 FT PT1 X PT2 OL TUTOR Dr. Akinwale Awe

Mode of Attendance

If you are submitting more than 1 piece of coursework for this module, 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.

FOR UNIVERSITY USE ONLY COMMENTS (FOR TUTOR USE ONLY)

MARK

Assessor:

Date: Excelle nt

Poor Factual Content Analysis Structure and Presentation Clarity of Expression Research and Resources

Adequate

Good

Very Good

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 the boundary 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

The 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-drilling technology & 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 Analtica Energtica 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

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 States consent, the effect may be to sterilize a licensees economic interest and its host Governments 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 states 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 Governments 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 be interpreted as conferring upon the holders a right to drill within their licensed area and to extract any resulting petroleum. If this interpretation were upheld, the terms of the licenses would therefore result in a rule of capture as between holders 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.
4 5

E. Kuntz Law of Oil and Gas (Anderson Publishing Co., Ohio 2003) Edwards, 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/beea97f37544-42e1-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 6 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

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 therefore constitute 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
7

agreement

between

countries

that

authorizes

the

cooperative

Sharveen 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> accessed on 28/12/2012 8 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

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

Oil & 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-jointdevelopment-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 29/12/2012 11 Bjarni Mr Magnsson, Dispute Settlement and the Establishment of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles, 18 November 2011

Student ID No: 1116159

Page 6 of 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 exploitation of said zone to coastal states. The obligation of a coastal stale to refrain from appropriating its neighbors energy resources relates therefore to both the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone. 4.2 UNEP Principles for the Guidance of States in the Conservation and Harmonious Utilization of Natural Resources Shared 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 recommendations in the formulation of bilateral or multilateral conventions regarding 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 and not adversely affect development and the interests of all countries, in particular the developing countries.15 These principles are of recommendatory character and require States to cooperate 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
12

David 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 2008 13 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 concerning the 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 the territory 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 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 > accessed on 29/12/2012 15 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

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 Cases

5.1 Case 1 - United States and Mexico: Gulf of Mexico There are a number of international instruments which relate to the USMexico maritime boundary, including bilateral treaties from 1978 and 2000, as per the table below: Date 29 April 1958 4 May 1978 10 1982 9 June 2000 International instruments United Nations Convention on the Continental Shelf. Treaty on Delimitation of Maritime Boundaries between the United States and Mexico. December United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Treaty between the United States and Mexico on the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf in the Western Gulf 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 both parties, 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
16

Denis 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 17 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 on 20/12/2012

Student ID No: 1116159

Page 8 of 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 an agreement 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 in a previously disputed area of the Gulf of Mexico under a landmark deal between the two governments that reflects their eagerness to develop domestic oil and gas production. An area of the gulf along the maritime boundary between the two countries, long left unexplored because of legal uncertainty about rights over its resources, will be made available to US oil groups and Pemex, the Mexican state oil company. In an interview with the Financial Times, Jos Antonio Meade, Mexicos finance minister, said of the accord: It is going to give [legal] certainty to companies, to Pemex on this side, and to companies on the US side.

18

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

Student ID No: 1116159

Page 9 of 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 these resources 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 their development. 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 The encourages Treaty industry simplicity and the confidence already about existing intergovernmental cooperation.19 UK-Norway Agreements reinforced 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

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 will lift the moratorium on exploring the vast oil and gas deposits of 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

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 delimitation agreements 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 and Host 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
22

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 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> accessed on 20/12/2012

Student ID No: 1116159

Page 12 of 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 that attempts 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 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 Denis 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 Edwards, 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-be4d00e1e25f9d2a/Presentation/NewsAttachment/d7f12eff-3b5d-441f-96d67aa4bd2633fb/EAPD%20oil%20and%20gas%20deposits%20at %20international%20boundaries%20-%20march%202007%20-%20EAPD %20guidance%20note.pdf> accessed on 18/12/2012
24

Denis 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

FT.com Oil & Gas, US and Mexico in landmark oil deal, February 20, 2012 <http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0e0d550a-5bec-11e1-841c00144feabdc0.html#axzz2H4ZBr7ef> accessed on 21/12/2012 J.H. Estrada (President Analtica Energtica 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 Oil & Gas Journal, How to negotiate and structure a joint development agreement, 09 August 2003 <http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume101/issue-34/exploration-development/how-to-negotiate-and-structure-ajoint-development-agreement.html> accessed on 29/12/2012 Sharveen 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_page s/fellows_papers/persand_0506_mauritius.pdf> accessed on 28/12/2012 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> accessed on 20/12/2012 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 on 20/12/2012 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, Settlement Processes, and the Law of the Sea (Van Dyke Publications on Ocean Development, 2009) Other Sources Bjarni Mr Magnsson, Dispute Settlement and the Establishment of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles, 18 November 2011 UNCLOS, United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 <https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/UNCLO S-TOC.htm>accessed on 29/12/2012

Student ID No: 1116159

Page 14 of 15

David 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 2008 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 Nations Environment Programme, Decision 6/14 of May 1978). <http://www.unep.org/training/programmes/Instructor %20Version/Part_2/Activities/Interest_Groups/DecisionMaking/Supplemental/Enviro_Law_Guidelines_Principles_rev2.pdf> accessed on 29/12/2012 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. Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Website, Petroleum resources, <http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/ud/campaigns/delimitation/petr_resourc es.html?id=614009> accessed on 10/12/2012 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 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