Minerals Report - International Seabed Authority
Minerals Report - International Seabed Authority Minerals Report - International Seabed Authority
to the data when an area is relinquished, Dr. Nyland responded that data on that area immediately becomes public. Another participant observed that the role of STATOIL seems to have changed. This participant asked Dr. Nyland to provide some information on the drivers behind that change. Dr. Nyland said that STATOIL and NPD were both created in 1972. She said in the case of STATOIL, the objective of the Kingdom of Norway was to have a state-owned oil company to participate in petroleum activities. In the case of NPD, Dr. Nyland said that the Kingdom decided to create a regulatory body that was not involved in petroleum development activities. She also said that they were designed in such a way that the relationship between them was as with other oil companies on the Norwegian shelf. She said that from its formation, and to assist it to grow, STATOIL was given a fifty per cent share in all blocks. Additionally under Norway’s petroleum legislation, oil companies were required to train STATOIL staff. Dr. Nyland said that during this period, STATOIL also handled the state’s direct financial interest in other petroleum activities, including the economic and financial sides of SDFI. Under the circumstances, Dr. Nyland said that the costs of STATOIL were carried, because the license paid for its interest. Dr. Nyland also said that over the years, STATOIL grew and as it became more competitive, the legislation created for it started to cause problems. She said that in 1985, the issue of what constituted the state’s direct share and STATOIL’s share in a license became very confusing. The state therefore decided to separate the shares by fixing its direct interest and making STATOIL’s share more transparent. The same participant recalled that Dr. Nyland had said that for data sharing, trust between the regulator and the companies was an absolute necessity. This participant asked Dr. Nyland how Norway had been able to achieve this. In response, Dr. Nyland said that the Norwegian authorities had worked very closely with the companies. She said that from the beginning for example, the framework conditions and regulations were sent to industry members for their evaluation. On the part of the industry, Dr. Nyland said that it established a coordinating body to deal with the authorities. Dr Nyland said that during the concession round, the Norwegian authorities concentrated on the use of the data, and convincing those concerned that their data were not being shared with other companies but were only for the use of INTERNATIONAL SEABED AUTHORITY 816
the authorities. She said that presently, the industry is eager to provide data as well as to discuss their interpretation and evaluation of their data. She commented that the large, technical staff members of NPD helps in this process because it is as qualified as their counterparts in industry are. One participant suggested that the model utilized by NPD would be useful not only for the International Seabed Authority but also for other nations trying to develop such an industry. Dr. Nyland pointed out that a number of countries have expressed interest in Norway’s approach. She said that interest has been shown in the data management side as well as in the licensing policy. She said that NPD has collaborations with the United States Bureau of Mines, Australia, India, Namibia, Tanzania, Mozambique, South Africa, Angola, Mexico, Brazil and Venezuela. Dr. Nyland was asked if NPD had an administrative role in environmental management. Dr. Nyland said that NPD coordinates the inputs of the national pollution agency as well as those of the Department of Environment. She said that in this regard NPD is to try to ensure that the environment is fully protected during offshore petroleum development. She said that for example if flaring is to occur, or substances discharged into the sea, it is reported to NPD, which in turn directs the request to the concerned environmental agency. INTERNATIONAL SEABED AUTHORITY 817
- Page 774 and 775: The stated purpose of the Minerals
- Page 776 and 777: programme and specified minimum exp
- Page 778 and 779: them to give proper attention to ea
- Page 780 and 781: evaluation purposes in monitoring t
- Page 782 and 783: as far as the development of minera
- Page 784 and 785: Ms. Zaamwani said that the main leg
- Page 786 and 787: Ms. Zaamwani told participants that
- Page 788 and 789: the Ministry could benefit, as is c
- Page 790 and 791: understaffing do not currently util
- Page 792 and 793: One participant recalled that Ms. Z
- Page 794 and 795: vessels there are sophisticated sec
- Page 796 and 797: Ms. Zaamwani was asked about regula
- Page 798 and 799: 70° 60° NORTH SEA -30° -20° -10
- Page 800 and 801: of 9.6 billion Sm 3 oil equivalents
- Page 802 and 803: Nor does it give rights or priority
- Page 804 and 805: 1 4. Data Management All data relat
- Page 806 and 807: possibility to evaluate the results
- Page 808 and 809: planning of future activities. The
- Page 810 and 811: SUMMARY OF THE PRESENTATION ON THE
- Page 812 and 813: in the Barents Sea there is still a
- Page 814 and 815: period that can last up to ten year
- Page 816 and 817: conditions in these areas, as well
- Page 818 and 819: designated by the Ministry. She sai
- Page 820 and 821: quantity of data involved in the in
- Page 822 and 823: operation (PDO) is normally prepare
- Page 826 and 827: CHAPTER 20 STATUS REPORT ON THE DAT
- Page 828 and 829: All the above-mentioned minerals oc
- Page 830 and 831: e water depths between 400 and 1,00
- Page 832 and 833: As far as the Government is concern
- Page 834 and 835: • Ordinance number 195, of Decemb
- Page 836 and 837: This tax must be paid up to January
- Page 838 and 839: the one whose burning is authorised
- Page 840 and 841: ANP may send a representative to fo
- Page 842 and 843: esources other than oil or natural
- Page 844 and 845: to the safety of persons and animal
- Page 846 and 847: found offshore Brazil. With regard
- Page 848 and 849: een discovered in the basin, includ
- Page 850 and 851: enhance oil recovery. He said that
- Page 852 and 853: g. Ordinance number 10 that regulat
- Page 854 and 855: He said that the environment has to
- Page 856 and 857: ids. These comprised five Brazilian
- Page 858 and 859: After oil exploration gained moment
- Page 860 and 861: Those who are entitled to the land
- Page 862 and 863: and replaced by the President, and
- Page 864 and 865: (ii) Assure the safety of navigatio
- Page 866 and 867: explorations may continue concurren
- Page 868 and 869: Appoint an authorized representativ
- Page 870 and 871: The contractor will recover all ope
- Page 872 and 873: of US dollar... (negotiable) within
to the data when an area is relinquished, Dr. Nyland responded that data on<br />
that area immediately becomes public.<br />
Another participant observed that the role of STATOIL seems to have<br />
changed. This participant asked Dr. Nyland to provide some information on<br />
the drivers behind that change. Dr. Nyland said that STATOIL and NPD<br />
were both created in 1972. She said in the case of STATOIL, the objective of<br />
the Kingdom of Norway was to have a state-owned oil company to participate<br />
in petroleum activities. In the case of NPD, Dr. Nyland said that the Kingdom<br />
decided to create a regulatory body that was not involved in petroleum<br />
development activities. She also said that they were designed in such a way<br />
that the relationship between them was as with other oil companies on the<br />
Norwegian shelf. She said that from its formation, and to assist it to grow,<br />
STATOIL was given a fifty per cent share in all blocks. Additionally under<br />
Norway’s petroleum legislation, oil companies were required to train<br />
STATOIL staff. Dr. Nyland said that during this period, STATOIL also<br />
handled the state’s direct financial interest in other petroleum activities,<br />
including the economic and financial sides of SDFI. Under the circumstances,<br />
Dr. Nyland said that the costs of STATOIL were carried, because the license<br />
paid for its interest. Dr. Nyland also said that over the years, STATOIL grew<br />
and as it became more competitive, the legislation created for it started to<br />
cause problems. She said that in 1985, the issue of what constituted the state’s<br />
direct share and STATOIL’s share in a license became very confusing. The<br />
state therefore decided to separate the shares by fixing its direct interest and<br />
making STATOIL’s share more transparent.<br />
The same participant recalled that Dr. Nyland had said that for data<br />
sharing, trust between the regulator and the companies was an absolute<br />
necessity. This participant asked Dr. Nyland how Norway had been able to<br />
achieve this. In response, Dr. Nyland said that the Norwegian authorities had<br />
worked very closely with the companies. She said that from the beginning for<br />
example, the framework conditions and regulations were sent to industry<br />
members for their evaluation. On the part of the industry, Dr. Nyland said<br />
that it established a coordinating body to deal with the authorities. Dr<br />
Nyland said that during the concession round, the Norwegian authorities<br />
concentrated on the use of the data, and convincing those concerned that their<br />
data were not being shared with other companies but were only for the use of<br />
INTERNATIONAL SEABED AUTHORITY 816
Change language