Get documents about "For this month's Message from the President, visit the
Document Sample
ADVISOR
2007 AIPN SPONSORS
November 2007 | No. 281
ASSOCIATION
OF
INTERNATIONAL
PETROLEUM
NEGOTIATORS
Patron Level
For this month’s “Message from the
President,” visit the AIPN Website at:
http://www.aipn.org/news/presidentsmessage.asp
IN THIS ISSUE
Page
AIPN Calendar of Events 2
Member Spotlight:
BENEFACTOR LEVEL Skip Maryan ı 3
Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld LLP
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation Announcements:
Baker Botts LLP Board of Directors Nominations 4
BP Exploration Operating Company Ltd. AIPN Membership dues reminder 5
Chevron Request for O&G adventure stories 6
Fulbright & Jaworski LLP
Herbert Smith LLP Making Use of AIPN’s Services 6
Hess
Dewey & LeBoeuf Upcoming Events:
Macleod Dixon LLP AIPN Middle East Chapter Conference in Dubai on December 6, 2007 7
Moyes & Co US Chapter holiday party in Houston, TX, USA on December 13, 2007 8
Nexen Inc. US Chapter luncheon in Houston, TX, USA on January 16, 2008 9
Thompson & Knight LLP Upcoming Regional Chapter Meetings 10
SPONSOR LEVEL
Apache Corporation Recent Events:
Barnes & Cascio LLP International Conference in Marrakech 11
Bruzzon & Asociados
Challenger Minerals Inc. Latin America Regional Chapter event in Chile 13
Ecopetrol SA
EOG Resources Articles:
Hunt Oil Company “Kazakhstan Further Stiffens its Mineral Development Regime ...” 14
Jones Day “Bolivia’s New Contract Terms: Operating under the Nationalization Regime” 18
King & Spalding LLP
Kufpec
Maersk Olie Og Gas AS World Bid Rounds - November 2007 23
Petrotrin New AIPN Members - October 24
Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc. In Every Issue 29
Scotia Waterous
Talisman
Vanco Energy Company
White & Case LLP If you are interested in Corporate
Wood Mackenzie Ltd.
CORPORATE DONORS Sponsorship, please contact
Allison & Shoemaker, LLP
Grundy & Associates aipn@aipn.org
AIPN 2007 Calendar of Events
November 29 Latin America Regional Chapter Conference
Topic: “Challenges and Opportunities in the Development of Coal Bed Methane
(CBM) Projects: A Comparative Perspective”
Venue: Metrotel Royal Park Hotel, Bogotá, Colombia
December 6 Middle East Regional Chapter Conference
Topic: “Commercial/legal/political/practical issues facing energy
companies in Iraq & the Kurdistan region of Iraq”
Venue: Emirates Golf Club, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
December 13 2007 US Regional Chapter Holiday Party
Venue: Houston Country Club, Houston, TX, USA
AIPN 2008 Calendar of Events
January 16 US Regional Chapter Monthly Luncheon
Topic: The National Petroleum Council's new report entitled:
“Facing the Hard Truths about Energy”
Venue: Houston Country Club, Houston, TX, USA
April 23-25 AIPN Spring Conference and Annual Meeting
Venue: Hyatt Regency Lost Pines Resort & Spa, Austin (Bastrop), Texas, USA
(Mark your calendar!)
2
Member Spotlight
N.E. “Skip” Maryan, Thompson & Knight
THE ADVISOR’s Member Spotlight is a new feature which will focus on individual members who make
extraordinary contributions to the AIPN. The selected member for this issue is Skip Maryan.
Skip’s position at Thompson & Knight is Of Counsel. He works out of the Houston office, but is rarely there.
He does international upstream energy work - both law and negotiations - all over the world. His back-
ground includes: 5 years in private practice in South Texas, 25 years with Mobil Oil Corporation with stops
in: Denver, New York, Jakarta, Dallas, Fairfax, Virginia, and Houston. At the AIPN, he is a Director and Co-
Chair of Goals Committee 10. In past years, he has held positions as VP of Education and VP of Confer-
ences. He has been a member of AIPN since 1988.
Salman Banaei, a member of the AIPN Communication Committee, recently talked to Skip about life, the
AIPN, and the law and business of international petroleum deal-making.
Q&A:
1. As a distinguished international oil and gas lawyer and member of the AIPN, what skills do you think are vital to thrive in this
practice?
Honesty and personal integrity are the most important attributes which are used every day in this practice. These are manifestations of
character which cannot be taught. Using them, almost anything is possible to achieve. Without them, an accident is waiting to happen. Next,
I think a person needs to be flexible, adaptable, not bothered by change. In this regard, it is desirable to have an innate curiosity about the
world and various cultures. I’m asked by a lot by young people, “…how do I break into the international oil and gas business?” Lots of people
enjoy international travel and vacationing in foreign locations, but working outside of one’s home country is very different. (It ain’t like Club
Med!) Some people feel very uncomfortable away from their home country and outside of their own culture. I guess the trait I’m struggling to
describe is a sense of comfort no matter what the environment. Finally, in the beginning, it helps to be a quick learner. Later, if a person stays
in the business long enough, being smart and quick to learn can morph into wisdom.
2. Tell us about a project or two that you’ve worked on that provides a sense of the kind of work you do (or would like to do
more often).
I started in the business in a law firm in South Texas. For five years, I was handcuffed (figuratively) to landmen in the domestic oil and gas
business from every company operating south of Houston. I learned so much that it is impossible to describe. When I switched to the
international business in 1982, I had a perfect professional background to begin learning how to do business outside the USA. The first billion
dollar project I ever worked to completion (Mobil purchase of an interest in Tengiz) was memorable for many reasons, none of which can be
described here. Also, working for Mobil Oil to be the first US company to reenter Vietnam in 1994, when Bill Clinton lifted the embargo, was both
memorable and emotional for me because I had flown in the Vietnam war 25 years earlier as a Navy Pilot.
3. How has participating in the AIPN helped your practice?
It allows me to network with people all over the world. It provides me with the opportunity to teach, which I enjoy very much. I also get to mix
with the new, young people coming into the business, which in turn keeps me thinking young and forced to deal with new “hot” issues.
4. Rumor has it that you also have time for golf – how is that possible?
I don’t really play very well. I’m a hacker. I’ll wait until retirement to pick up the sticks seriously. Now I golf vicariously through my son Andrew,
who is on the NCAA Division I men’s golf team at George Mason University. I like to watch. I also read a lot; mostly non-fiction. Right now, I’m
in the middle of the giant one-volume biography of Churchill by Martin Gilbert. I like music. My wife bought me an iPod so that I can listen
anywhere. I also still hang around airplanes a bit.
5. What should people know about you that might not be obvious?
I played ice hockey up through college before helmets were mandatory, and can show scars in my scalp to prove it. I am addicted to ice cream
and Buffalo Bills football.
6. In the course of your career international deals, I'm sure that you've come across many adventures. Please tell us about the
most notable one.
On January 1, 1994, I was at a Mobil reception for the Cotton Bowl football game. I was advised to pack a bag because our lead negotiator in
Vietnam had fallen ill and was in the hospital. I flew over to Singapore to take his place and wound up staying in the Far East for 97 days. During
that negotiation in Hanoi, I met a lawyer for PetroVietnam who was in an anti-aircraft missile battalion during the war when I was flying there. He
was positioned in the “panhandle,” a place just north of the DMZ which I have seen many times from the air when flying out of the Marine Air
Stations at Danang and Chu Lai. After the war, he went to law school in Australia and I went to law school in the USA. Then in 1994, we meet
on opposite sides of the negotiating table. We became friends. It’s a strange and small world sometimes. When Clinton lifted the embargo
during the Tet holidays that year, Mobil was able to initial a Production Sharing Contract. At a dinner to celebrate the event, my friend made a
short speech, part of which was, “…during the war I tried to shoot down Mr. Skip with my missiles, now he has returned to Vietnam to shoot me
down with his pen.” I have never treasured an evaluation of my performance more than that one. I hosted him in Dallas later.
7. If you were not an international petroleum negotiator, what would you be?
3
A cellist for a symphony orchestra. It is the only instrument in classical music which can be hugged, while at the same time be played.
For comments, questions, suggestions, or to suggest a member to spotlight, contact Brad Ottosen at Brad@aipn.org.
Now Taking Nominations!
2008-2009 AIPN Board of Directors Candidates
Dear AIPN Members,
This is your opportunity to take part in the selection process for next year’s AIPN Board. We would like to hear
from you!
In the next several months, the Nominating and Elections Committee will be putting together a slate of proposed
candidates for next year’s AIPN Board of Directors (2008-2009). The criteria used in considering the Board
candidates are:
• Active member of the AIPN;
• Shown commitment to furthering the objectives of the AIPN by their work in the industry;
• Ability to devote the time and effort to actively participate on the Board and on AIPN committees; and
• Ability to effectively and properly represent the interests of AIPN members
The committee will work to promote diversity by nominating qualified candidates who represent membership
demographics in such factors as the following:
• Profession
• Region
• Company size & nationality
• Host Government
We request recommendations for Board candidates based on the above criteria, and we are particularly interested in
hearing about members who have done an exceptional job on one of the AIPN committees or events. In putting
forth any recommendation, please provide a brief background of the proposed candidate and the reasons why he or
she should be considered.
Please forward any recommendation to the Chair of the Nominating Committee (Rick Goenner at
rick.goenner@shell.com) by Friday, December 14, 2007. The Committee will treat your recommendation on a
confidential basis. Please note that the Committee may not necessarily accept all recommendations, especially if it
receives more recommendations than Director positions available. By the end of February, 2008 there should be a
full slate of candidates. The ballot will be distributed shortly thereafter to the entire membership for the election.
Kind Regards,
Rick Goenner, Chair
Tim West
Pat Allison 4
AIPN Nominating & Elections Committee
Dues Reminder
2008 AIPN Membership dues are now being accepted. Make your
membership payment by December 31, 2007.
AIPN Active Membership: $100
AIPN Student Membership: $10
Add $15 for payment by wire transfer for both categories.
ATTENTION STUDENT MEMBERS!
When renewing your 'Student' membership, note that you must supply us with an
Enrollment letter from your College or University (enrollment starting January 2008).
Student Members who graduated in 2007 - and provide proof of graduation- are now
eligible for a 5-year grace period, in which you will continue to enjoy the “student status.”
Click on your preferred Method of payment:
PAYMENT BY CREDIT CARD:
https://www.aipn.org/members/dues/
PAYMENT BY CHECK:
http://www.aipn.org/documents/Attachments/2008%20AIPN%20Membership%20Dues%20Payment%20by%20Check.pdf
PAYMENT BY WIRE TRANSFER:
http://www.aipn.org/documents/Attachments/2008%20AIPN%20Membership%20Dues%20Wire%20Transfer%20Dues%20Payment%20Form.pdf
For banking details for wire payments, send an E-mail to teana@aipn.org.
Dues are to be paid no later than December 31, 2007.
A $25 late payment fee will be applied to all dues
received after January 31, 2008.
Dues Questions? Contact the AIPN office at: +1 281 558 7715 ext. 100 or
membership@aipn.org.
Thank you. 5
Request for oil and gas adventure stories
We have all had experiences in the oil business that we enjoy sharing with our colleagues. Perhaps
you would like to share yours with a wider audience. If so, send your story to Gordon Barrows
at gbarrows@barrowscompany.net or Norman Nadorff at nadorfnj@bp.com. The preferred
story length is a maximum of 1000 words. You are invited to send in any short tales or anecdotes,
such as the above, that you may want to share.
The AIPN may select some stories and short ‘snippets’ for publication in the AIPN Advisor. Stories
will be published anonymously if the author prefers. If industry interest warrants, Barrows
Company may eventually publish a compilation of such stories (perhaps expanded versions).
Feel free to submit ideas for stories as well, for purposes of gauging interest in, and the feasibility
of this project.
Making Use of AIPN’s Services:
Posting Resumes:
Did you know that the AIPN has a job and resume bank on its Website as a service to its
members?
As a member, you can add your resume and search through job postings at no charge. In
order to maintain an accurate and updated resume bank, the AIPN asks that all resume
bank users post completed resumes and be sure to update them yearly. Otherwise, they
get deleted automatically.
By posting your resume on the AIPN website, you have the option to:
a) Allow all AIPN Members to view your resume or
b) Limit access to your resume only to employers who have posted a job on the site.
Visit the following link to get started:
http://www.aipn.org/jobs/
Posting Jobs:
Also, as an employer, you can post job announcements for our 2,200+ members to see.
The cost of each job posting is $150.
You will be notified by email when the job posting is about to expire. You can choose to
extend the posting length or let the job expire. Once a job expires, it is deleted from our
system.
Visit the following link to get started: 6
http://www.aipn.org/jobs/
AIPN Middle East Chapter Conference
“Commercial/legal/political/practical Issues Facing Energy
Companies in Iraq and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq”
The Middle East Chapter of the Association of International Petroleum Negotiators is planning an
afternoon conference on commercial/legal/political/practical issues facing energy companies in Iraq
and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. We have a distinguished panel who will address different aspects
of this topic and discuss the experiences of their companies in Iraq. These presentations are topical
and should trigger an interesting discussion.
If you are interested in participating in this event, then please RSVP by E-mail to
aipnme@bakerbotts.com.
Date:
Thursday, 6 December 2007
15:00 registration
15:30 presentations
18:00 networking (cash bar)
Panel:
Nick Hills, Two Rivers Consultants,
Patrick Cunningham, Talisman Energy Inc,
Les Blair, Addax Petroleum International Limited, and
Thomas Watt, Crescent Petroleum Company
Venue:
Emirates Golf Club
(5th interchange Sheikh Zayed Road)
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Cost:
Members: 70 AED
Non-Members: 100 AED
Sponsored by:
We hope to meet you at this event,
Sean Korney
Regional Director, Middle East 7
on behalf of the AIPN Middle East Organizing Committee
US Chapter Holiday Party
The AIPN US Regional Chapter
invites you to the 2007 Holiday Party!
Date:
Thursday, December 13, 2007, 6:30pm - 9:30pm
Plenty of Hors d'Oeuvres, Drinks and a lavish Buffet will be served
in the beautifully decorated Ballroom.
Please join us for a great evening of networking and Holiday
Cheer.
Prices:
$35 Member
$40 Non-member
$20 Student
Houston Country Club
One Potomac Drive
Houston, TX 77057
Click here to register: 8
http://www.aipn.org/conferences/conferences_details.asp?id=237
US Chapter Monthly Luncheon
Date:
January 16, 2008
from 11:30am-1:30pm
Topic:
The National Petroleum Council's new report
entitled “Facing the Hard Truths about Energy”
Speaker:
Andrew Slaughter, Senior Energy and Economics Advisor -
EP Americas Shell Exploration & Production Company
Prices:
$38 Member
$43 Non-member
$20 Student
Houston Country Club
One Potomac Drive
Houston, TX 77057
Click here to register:
http://www.aipn.org/conferences/conferences_details.asp?id=265
9
REGIONAL CHAPTER DIRECTORS CONTACT DETAILS
Asia, Australia, Pacific (AAP) Latin America (LARC)
Hans Hirschmanner Elisabeth Eljuri
Salamander Energy Singapore Pte Ltd Macleod Dixon SC
Telephone: +65-6536-5290 Telephone: +58-212-276-0000
hans.hirschmanner@salamander-energy.com.sg elisabeth.eljuri@macleoddixon.com
Canada
Bruce Brummitt
StatoilHydro Canada Exploration & Production Inc.
T: +1-403-268-7468 Middle East (ME)
brbr@statoilhydro.com Sean Korney
Baker Botts LLP
Telephone: +971-4-506-5110
CIS sean.korney@bakerbotts.com
Jennifer Josefson
White & Case
T: +7-495-787-3015
jjosefson@whitecase.com
USA
Europe, Africa (EA) Thad Grundy
Cecile Wake Grundy & Associates
Herbert Smith LLP Telephone: +1-713-333-1267
Telephone: +44-20-7466-2380 tg@petrolaw.com
cecile.wake@herbertsmith.com
Upcoming Regional Chapter Meetings
Middle East Chapter Conference US Chapter Holiday Party
December 6, 2007 December 13, 2007
“Commercial/legal/political/practical issues facing Houston Country Club
energy companies in Iraq & the Kurdistan region of Iraq” Houston, Texas USA
Emirates Golf Club
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
US Chapter Monthly Luncheon
January 16, 2008
The National Petroleum Council's new report
entitled “Facing the Hard Truths about Energy”
Houston Country Club 10
Houston, Texas USA
International Conference in Morocco
The 2007 AIPN International Conference was held in Marrakech,
Morocco from October 21-24. For those who were unable to attend,
here is a bit of what you missed in the evenings.
11
International Conference in Morocco - Speakers
The audience is listening. Amina Benkhadra, Haddou Jabour, Keynote Speaker, Pierre Allix,
Minister of Energy, ONYHM Amy Jaffe, TOTAL E&P
Mining, Water and Rice University
Environment, Morocco
Fernando Cunha, John Downer, Russell Bellis, Enrico Ganter,
Imane Mansourine, Aidan Murphy, Sasol Chevron
Petrobras Penspen ExxonMobil
ONYHM Shell
International Ltd.
Kevin Price, Anwar Ravat,
David Davies, Steven Miles, Cyril Vock, Tim Martin,
Methanex The World Bank
Marathon Oil ONYHM Denton Wilde Nexen Inc.
Corporation
Company Sapte LLP
Alexandra Wrage,
Mustafa Erkan, John Bowman, Matthew Weiniger, Peter Cameron,
Trace International
Student, University King & Spalding Herbert Smith University of
of Texas Dundee
Conference Co-chairs:
12
Sean Korney, Stephane Brabant, Wafae Benhammou, Jean-Marc Benes, Shelley Wheeler,
Baker Botts LLP Herbert Smith ONYHM TOTAL E&P Shell
AIPN’s First Event in Chile
By: Elisabeth Eljuri*
“LNG and Other Matters,” the kick-off event of AIPN in Santiago, Chile was a great success with more
than 100 attendees. It was also very timely. With the severe decline of Argentine gas imports since
2004 and the necessity to secure gas supplies in the country, the first regassification project (the
Quintero Bay Project) is working full speed ahead after approving FID in May of this year. The fast
track portion of the project is expected to be ready as early as the first quarter of 2009. The
financing is expected to be completed by the first quarter of 2008. In addition, the Ministry of Mines
completed another round of bids for special operation contracts (CEOPs) for ten oil blocks, and the
announcement of the winners was made two days after the AIPN event was held.
The Santiago event was opened by: the Chilean Minister of Mines, Karen Poniachik; Elisabeth Eljuri,
AIPN’s Regional Director and partner of Macleod Dixon; and conference chair, Patricia Nuñez, partner
of Nuñez, Muñoz y Cia. Ltda. The morning included a panel on the worldwide industry of oil and gas,
presented by ENAP’s General Manager of E&P, Nelson Muñoz, and Pat Breen of Gas Strategies. Then
there was a panel on energy integration, during which Ramiro Guevara (Guevara y Gutierrez, Bolivia),
Jorge Rodriguez (Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Chile) and Omar Beretta (Beretta Godoy, Argentina)
explained the challenges for integration in the Region. The morning concluded with a panel which
addressed the industry of LNG and key project agreements, both worldwide (Elisabeth Eljuri, Macleod
Dixon) and in Chile (Francisco Gazmurri, Metrogas).
Other presentations included an overview of AIPN, a panel on project financing, a panel on the
current oil regime in Chile, and one last panel on surface rights disputes. The event was put
together by a steering committee of 15 members, chaired by Patricia Nuñez, and will very likely
ensure the growth of AIPN in this new venue for our organization.
* Elisabeth Eljuri is a partner of Macleod Dixon, based in Caracas, and is the Head of the Latin
American Oil and Gas Practice of the Firm. She can be reached at elisabeth.eljuri@macleoddixon.com.
From left are: Jeroimo Carcelen, Advisor to the Minister of
Mines; Patricia Nuñez, Conference Chair; and Elisabeth Eljuri,
AIPN Regional Director.
Conference Steering Committee members from left: Eugenio Besa, Sergio
Romero, Elisabeth Eljuri, Jeronimo Carcelen, Jimena Bronfman and Jose 13
Antonio Urrutia.
********************************************
Kazakhstan Further Stiffens its Mineral Development Regime –
New Controls for Strategic Fields and Pipelines
By: Jonathan Hines, (Partner, Moscow); Aset Shyngyssov (Counsel, Almaty); and Klara
Nurgazieva (Senior Associate, Almaty)
Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP
Kazakhstan has set down a bold new marker in its bid for greater control over – and profit share in – the country’s evolving
hydrocarbon project development boom. This comes by enactment in late October of a brief set of amendments to
Kazakhstan’s Subsoil Law – under which the Government now appears to have the power unilaterally to force re-negotiation/
agreement on new terms to a PSA or other subsoil use contract for any designated “strategic field,” if the Government
believes the contractor has done something that has substantial negative effect on the Kazakh side’s interests under the
contract – on pain of contract termination/repudiation for the contractor’s failure to comply.1 These amendments are
expressly stated to apply retroactively, to pre-existing contracts as well as future ones. (And note the potential application
to "strategic" hard minerals fields also – mining also being governed by the Subsoil Law.) See Section 1 below.
This laser-like legal initiative is generally considered as being aimed for now primarily – Damocles-sword style – at the
North Caspian (Kashagan) PSA consortium – whose reported development delays and cost overruns have been trumpeted
by the Kazakh Government as claimed ground for fundamental re-adjustment of the contract terms (perhaps including
profit and/or equity shares) or more, and have become a highest-level and well-publicized political cause célèbre.
The situation is reminiscent of that of three years ago when the Government, by enacting a Subsoil Law amendment that
gave a pre-emptive purchase right to the State, pressed the North Caspian consortium (and specifically, the then-selling
shareholder BG) to sell a stake to the national oil company KazMunayGas (“KMG”) rather than per the contract-based
pre-emptive right to the remaining shareholders or to other third parties. As in that 2004 case, the consortium members
(and similarly situated participants in other pre-existing projects) could well have grounds supporting arbitration under
their contract – and Kazakh law-based stabilization protections as well as treaty-based expropriation claims – should the
Government seek to utilize its newly-legislated sword and the investors choose to resist.2
This newest development follows a lesser-noticed but also important packet of amendments (to Kazakhstan’s Civil Code
and National Security Law) enacted this past August 3 – see Section 2 – which empowers the Government to designate
any oil or gas trunk pipeline (among other types of infrastructure facilities) as a “strategic object” and thus trigger basic
restrictions on investors’ transfers of interests in same that are akin to the restrictions applicable to upstream field
interests under existing law. One must further keep an eye on the drafts of a Transport Code and a Trunk Pipeline Law –
either/both of which, if/when enacted, would dramatically affect the legal “lay of the land” in this realm.
There were also certain other notable "technical" amendments (including some important environmental-related ones)
introduced into the Subsoil Law and the Petroleum Law earlier in 2007. (See Section 3 below.)
Overall, Kazakhstan’s dramatic moves to better control what it views as strategic hydrocarbon-related assets in which
foreign companies do or may have a stake can be compared with Russia’s long-pending intention to legislate certain
controls on foreigners’ investments in mineral fields of “federal significance” and in other “strategic industries.” Two
important differences: Kazakhstan has swiftly enacted its measures while Russia still dawdles; and Kazakhstan’s approach
is – at least at the formal level – more heavy-handed than is Russia’s pending tack of restricting foreigners to not more
than 50% stake (to be exceedable by consent outside of the strategic mineral fields realm). Kazakhstan evidently prefers
to have the blunt legislative “terminator” instrument readily at hand, while Russia seems more content to rely on other
pressure levers. This difference perhaps is explicable in part by Russia having a handful of quite experienced, strong and
rich national-champion energy companies to help do its asset-consolidation bidding on more "market-like" terms. For
example, Gazprom’s recent pressured entry into Shell’s Sakhalin 2 and BP’s Kovykta projects. (It is also telling in this
regard that foreign companies currently are estimated to control nearly 75% of Kazakhstan’s hydrocarbon reserves (oil
and gas both); the figures for Russia are, of course, vastly lower.)
14
At the same time, responsible officials are being quoted as assuring along the lines of “Kazakhstan isn’t Venezuela or
Bolivia, and we’re not seeking open confrontation” with petroleum investors (KMG News, November 3, 2007). And
Kazakhstan Further Stiffens its Mineral Development Regime –
New Controls for Strategic Fields and Pipelines (Continued)
local experts are surmising that the new strategic field termination/repudiation weapon is so powerful that it is unlikely
ever actually to be triggered – rather just to be used as effective pressure tool. “There won’t be any blood,” as one
commentator has put it.
We proceed to summarize these important Kazakhstan legal developments in turn.4
1. The Newest Subsoil Law Amendments – Renegotiate or Bust?
This just-enacted measure is quite a formidable supplement to the Government’s existing arsenal of Subsoil Law-based
unilateral termination weapons for potential use against upstream project investors. These already included the usual
provisions (at SL arts. 45 and 45-2) allowing state-initiated termination in cases including declaration that the contract is
void/invalid for one of various stated reasons – including refusal, failure “in sufficient time”, or impossibility to cure
violations of the contract that had triggered prior suspension of contract rights; substantial non-fulfillment/violation of
the contract or work program (in some such cases perhaps without opportunity to cure); violation of the State’s SL art. 71
pre-emptive purchase right – and perhaps even simply for being a “bad-faith contractor” in MEMR’s view (see PL art. 7-
1 third-to-last paragraph). True, these weapons have not been employed frequently to date – particularly against any
foreign investors.
a. The Basic Elements. The newest act (by way of additions to SL art. 45-2) and its apparent effects may be
summarized as follows:
• The general rule is stated (by new SL art. 45-2.1): “In the event that actions of the subsoil user in carrying out
subsoil use operations with respect to subsoil plots (deposits) having strategic significance lead to substantial
change to the economic interests of the Republic of Kazakhstan, creating a threat to national security, the
competent body [i.e., MEMR – as contract signatory party for the Government] shall be entitled to demand
amendment, and/or additions to the terms of the contracts, with the aim of restoration of the economic
interests of the Republic of Kazakhstan.” (Emphasis added.)
• This jolting provision (briefly analyzed below) is accompanied by the following new vice-style “procedural”
rules in art. 45-2(1) – permitting MEMR to initiate unilateral termination in the event that:
- within two months from receipt of an MEMR notice of the need to amend/ supplement the contract terms to
restore Kazakhstan’s economic interests, the contractor has not given written agreement to (or has refused to
hold) such negotiations;
- within four months from receipt of the contractor’s agreement to such negotiations, the contractor and MEMR
have not reached agreement on appropriate amendment/supplement to the contract for restoration of Kazakhstan’s
economic interests, or
- within six months from the date of reaching agreed decision for restoration of Kazakhstan’s economic interests,
the parties have not executed the corresponding amendments and/or supplements to the contract terms.
(In other words, a contractor appears to have a maximum one-year period under this provision – from the date of
MEMR’s first notice of required amendment – to sign such amendment agreement with MEMR or face possible
contract termination proceedings. But note also the alternative new repudiation provision – discussed below.)
• Reinforcing this weapon package is no-less-important new SL art. 45-3 by which the Government may alternatively
instruct MEMR just to unilaterally repudiate (“withdraw from performance of”) the subsoil use contract – on
two-months’ notice – in the event of actions by a strategic-field contractor deemed to cause the requisite substantial
effect on Kazakhstan’s economic interests and consequent threat to national security (as introduced above). 15
Kazakhstan Further Stiffens its Mineral Development Regime –
New Controls for Strategic Fields and Pipelines (Continued)
• As coup de grâce, article 2 of this Amending Law expressly provides that it “extends as well to previously
executed contracts for production or combined exploration and production.”
• There is no express provision for compensation of any kind in the event of such termination by the State. (This
is one of the many criticisms leveled at the Amending Law in an opposing letter sent to President Nazarbayev by
the Kazakhstan Petroleum Association and the other leading foreign investor groups in October, unsuccessfully
urging him to veto the bill.)
• There are also some associated “housekeeping” injections into SL arts. 7 and 8: giving the Government the
power/responsibility to enact a list of such fields having strategic significance (no such list yet exists as of this
writing – and an MEMR official has informally advised us that none is expected until perhaps early next year),
and giving MEMR the power/responsibility to carry out unilateral repudiation of subsoil use contracts (along
with performance and termination of such contracts) in accordance with law.
b. Certain Aspects Highlighted. At this early point, just following enactment, there can be no real confidence on
how the new measure will be interpreted and applied – rather only some educated cautions, surmise and
questions as follows:
• The initial troubling point: There seems a prospect of the State’s trying to apply the new SL art. 45-3 provision –
against its likely spirit but arguably consistent with its literal wording – to allow the Government/MEMR
unilaterally to repudiate a contract, on a claim based on the new article 45-2 substantial change / national security
threat ground, without even bothering to go through the art. 45.2 year-long negotiation/agreement period (let
alone the required judicial termination proceedings for “normal” termination).
- The official Explanatory Note accompanying this SL Amending Law in Parliament indeed clarifies that article
45-3.1 was crafted specifically to skirt around the general RK Civil Code requirement (for contracts) of applying
to court for a ruling before art. 45-2 termination may be invoked: “[Art. 45-3.1] will achieve a result analogous
to that invoked with art. 45-2 …, without requiring that [MEMR] apply to a court or arbitral tribunal.”
- The relevant Civil Code provisions appear to support the Government’s general approach on repudiation: CC art.
401 provides that unilaterally-initiated termination of a contract normally (for material breach or on other
grounds under law or contract) requires application to and decision by a court. But CC art. 404 (and authoritative
commentary thereto) then make clear that unilateral repudiation – as a special case triggering termination – may
occur without court decision in the specified cases (some specified at art. 404.2 not here relevant, and in cases
provided “by other legislative acts”). The new SL art. 45-3 provision would appear to be such an other targeted
act. 5
- It seems most logical/likely that this art. 45-3.1 repudiation provision was conceived to apply only upon running
of the newly-established sequential art. 45-2.2 procedural deadlines – and not simply at the total whim of the
Government without even any prior attempt at negotiation/agreement, and there was apparently some (unsuccessful)
effort to have the language refined accordingly before enactment. One hopes that at least this small clarifying
adjustment still may be accomplished in time.
• The core concern is that Kazakhstan here essentially has enacted for itself a special one-sided “frustration of
contract” mechanism – for possible application (or at least threat of same) any time an investor/contractor acts
(or refrains from acting) in a way that it believes is consistent with a fair interpretation of the contract but the
Government chooses to insist otherwise.
- In other words, there is nothing in the provision to assure it can/will be used only in the event of clear violation 16
of the contract (or law) that triggers the specified substantial change / national security consequences. And it
would appear that the Government already had sufficient levers – in law and in each individual contract – to press
Kazakhstan Further Stiffens its Mineral Development Regime –
New Controls for Strategic Fields and Pipelines (Continued)
for and achieve termination in the event of such real violations and failure to cure. 6 (Several Kazakh Government
officials quoted in the local press in support of their new SL Amending Law have sidestepped or ignored this
basic point.)
- Interestingly (indeed, ironically) in this connection, Kazakhstan’s Civil Code does not even contain a general
provision (as does Russia’s Code) permitting either party to a contract to apply to court for revision or termination
in the event of proven “fundamental change of circumstances.” We understand that Kazakhstan’s Code draftsmen
rejected that provision as being vulnerable to abuse.
• The SL Amending Law gives no criteria (in terms of confirmed reserves, stage of development, geographic
location or otherwise) to guide the Government’s designation of fields as “having strategic significance”– and,
as noted above, the Government has not yet issued any such list of fields. Common sense dictates (and statements
by officials to date tend to confirm) that at least the North Caspian PSA fields as well as some leading already-
producing hydrocarbon project fields such as those connected to Tengizchevroil (and perhaps also those held by
the other few leading venture and local producers) would be on it – as well as some key gold, uranium and some
other hard minerals fields.
• The express extension of application of these new rules to pre-existing contracts could well run counter to
express stabilization-protection provisions of such contracts and Kazakh law. In the event that the new law is
triggered against an existing-contract foreign investor, there could also quite likely be strong ground for an
expropriation-based claim under one or more bilateral investment treaties or the Energy Charter Treaty. (The
absence of any provision for compensation in the new act would not meaningfully hinder such a claim on other
available, well-recognized bases.)
• It is also worth stressing here again that in the specified circumstances MEMR is given the right (in other words,
the discretion) to terminate/repudiate. This is not automatic (self-executing), even at the end of the specified
procedural-negotiation road. This being so, where the Government side does exercise the discretion to terminate
repudiate in the context of pre-existing or future contracts that contain a typical clause calling on the Government
side to exercise its powers as possible so as to shield the investor from adverse effects of evolving laws, the
investor would have yet another contract-based ground for challenge.
• Finally, note the link between this new SL Amending Law package with provisions of Kazakhstan's National
Security Law as it has been molded/targeted in recent years to date: NSL art. 5(10) includes as a specified type
of "threat to national security" – "the causing of harm to the economic security of the state, including the use of
strategic resources." See also NSL art. 18.3 re the national security significance of performance of strategic
resource contracts and the Government's control over same. (This is in addition to the NSL tie-in with the new
trunk-pipeline-as-strategic-object restrictions, addressed just below.)
********************************************
This article can be downloaded in its entirety by
clicking on this link or by copying it into your browser:
http://www.aipn.org/documents/attachments/Kazakh_Developments_11282007162414.pdf
(Footnotes are available in the full document.) 17
Bolivia’s New Contract Terms: Operating
under the Nationalization Regime
By María Victoria Vargas
On the 27th and 28th of October 2006, all oil companies operating in Bolivia, including
Total, BG, BP and Repsol, signed a total of forty-four (44) Contratos de Operación
(“Operations Contracts”) abiding by the terms of the nationalization program dictated
by President Evo Morales. The Operations Contracts came into effect in May 2, 2007 and
today the signatories are going through a cumbersome adaptation process, learning to
operate under the new terms and to interact with the re-nationalized Yacimientos Petrolíferos
Fiscales Bolivianos (“YPFB”). The main characteristics and terms of the new Operations
Contracts are discussed and analyzed herein.
Background: Undoing the Capitalization
In 1994, under the first government of President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, YPFB was
privatized pursuant to the “Capitalization Law” 1 and in 1996, a hydrocarbons law 2 (the
“1996 Hydrocarbons Law”) was enacted allowing private companies to enter into so
called “Risk Sharing Contracts” for the exploration and production of hydrocarbons. However,
effectively the regime was that of a tax/royalty structure where Contractor bore exploration
risks and costs, with no actual cost sharing by the Government, and was entitled to own
and freely dispose of all hydrocarbon production upon commercial discovery, subject only
to paying royalties and taxes.
Under the 1996 Hydrocarbons Law, major international oil companies such as Total,
BG, BP and Repsol entered the country and investment in hydrocarbons surged. However,
growing discontent of the indigenous people feeling disfranchised by successive governments
led to popular unrest and in July 18, 2004 a referendum was held where the majority of
Bolivian nationals voted in favor of recovering for the State full ownership over the
hydrocarbon resources. In 2005, Congress approved a new hydrocarbons law 3 (the
“2005 Hydrocarbons Law”) which repealed the 1996 Hydrocarbons Law, reclaimed
ownership of all hydrocarbons at the well head for the Bolivian State, and set a 180 days
deadline for the mandatory conversion of the Risk Sharing Contracts into the new forms of
petroleum contracts allowed by the 2005 Hydrocarbons Law. Such new types of petroleum
contracts are: (i) production sharing contracts, (ii) Operating Contracts, and (iii) association
contracts, and under all three the reserves and production belong to the State and contractor
has the obligation to deliver to YPFB the full amount of hydrocarbons produced.
However, it was only when the indigenous leader Evo Morales took office as President
of Bolivia that the mandate of the 2005 Hydrocarbons Law became a reality. Having
promised its constituency that the hydrocarbon wealth of the country would effectively go
back to the people, on May 1st, 2006 Morales issued the Supreme Decree No. 28701
nationalizing the hydrocarbon resources of the country (the “Nationalization Decree”).
The Nationalization Decree also mandated that all companies producing oil and gas in
Bolivia had to deliver their entire production exclusively to YPFB, and set a 180 day deadline 18
for companies to convert their operations to the new contracts in compliance with the 2005
Hydrocarbons Law or else YPFB would take over the operation of their fields.
Bolivia’s New Contract Terms: Operating under
the Nationalization Regime (continued)
Upon issuance of the Nationalization Decree, the government developed the model form
of the Operations Contract 4 and the negotiation process began in the midst of legal uncertainty
and heightened tension over the actual prospects of investment recovery and of a profitable
continuity of hydrocarbon operations in the country. After months of negotiations, on the
27th and 28th of October, 2006, YPFB and all the oil companies operating in Bolivia signed
a total of 44 Operations Contracts. Subsequently, as required by the 2005 Hydrocarbons
Law, each of the 44 Operations Contracts was individually approved the Bolivian Congress
in November 2006, but transcription errors in the laws prevented them from taking effect
and required that the bills be resubmitted for approval. The errors were rectified and on
April 23, 2007 the Bolivian Congress approved all 44 laws which were then signed into effect
by President Evo Morales.
The Operations Contract: Characteristics and Main Terms
The Operations Contract is a sort of service contract between YPFB and one or more oil
companies (the “Contractor”) whereby Contractor undertakes to conduct petroleum
operations in the particular contract area at its sole risk and expense, assuming all costs and
providing all required personnel, technology, facilities, materials and capital, in exchange
for a compensation consisting of the reimbursement of certain recoverable costs and a
profit. YPFB does not assume any risk or liability for the petroleum operations or its results,
and Contractor does not acquire any ownership rights over the reserves or the hydrocarbons
produced.
The main commercial and fiscal terms of the Operations Contract 5 are the following:
Contract Term. The 2005 Hydrocarbons Law allows up to 40 year term contracts;
however, the Operations Contract limits the term to 32 years and does not contemplate any
extensions, not even as a result of Force Majeure.
Exploration Period and Work Obligations. The Exploration Period is divided into
phases and their duration is in each case established in an Annex to the Operations Contract.
During the Exploration Period Contractor has to carry out a minimum exploration work
which is measured in Unidades de Trabajo de Exploración (“UTE”, Units of Exploration
Work). The particular UTEs and their monetary equivalent for each phase of the Exploration
Period are set forth in an Annex to the relevant Operations Contract. UTEs performed in a
given phase in excess of the minimum can be carried over to the following phase. If
Contractor fails to meet the minimum work for reasons not attributable to YPFB or Force
Majeure, Contractor has to pay YPFB the monetary equivalent of the unfulfilled UTEs.
Declaration of Commerciality. In the event of a Commercial Discovery, Contractor
has to submit a Declaration of Commerciality to YPFB, which has 30 days from the date of
receipt of the corresponding evaluation report, to approve or reject the commerciality of
the discovery.
Exploitation Period. Upon approval of the declaration of commerciality of a discovery,
Contractor has to prepare the Development Plan and submit it to YPFB for approval, as well
as the relevant Work Program and Budget for each year. If Contractor fails to begin
19
performance of an approved Work Program and Budget within 30 days from its approval,
YPFB has the right to terminate the Contract with respect to the relevant field.
Bolivia’s New Contract Terms: Operating under
the Nationalization Regime (continued)
Ownership and Control of Hydrocarbon Production. YPFB has at all times ownership
of the production and full control over its commercialization. Contractor is, however, entitled
to use the hydrocarbons produced for its own Petroleum Operations free of charge up to the
percentages set by the Ministry of Hydrocarbons and Energy (the “Ministry”). The
hydrocarbons produced, minus the hydrocarbons used in Petroleum Operations (the “Net
Hydrocarbons”), must be delivered by Contractor to YPFB at the relevant Fiscalization
Point where they are measured and certified. YPFB has to notify the Contractor of the
destination that YPFB intends for the production and under which commercialization and
transportation contracts YPFB will be placing the production. YPFB and Contractor must
enter into an Agreement for Delivery of Hydrocarbons, where the terms and conditions for
delivery of the production from the field shall be set forth in accordance with the terms of
the relevant commercialization contracts. The price for the valuation of the hydrocarbons
produced shall be determined in such Agreement on the basis of the terms of the relevant
commercialization contracts. If new production requires the opening of new markets or
new transportation capacity, Contractor is required to support and provide technical assistance
to YPFB in the negotiation of the commercialization and/or transportation contracts.
Payment of Royalties, Taxes and Charges. The amounts received by YPFB from the
commercialization of the Net Hydrocarbons must be first applied to pay royalties (the
Departmental Royalty, the National Compensatory Royalty and the Participation of the
General Treasury of the Nation), and to pay the Direct Tax on Hydrocarbons.
(i) Royalties. According to the 2005 Hydrocarbons Law, the Departmental Royalty is
payable in favor of the relevant department where the production originates from and is
equal to 11% of the hydrocarbons produced therein; the National Compensatory Royalty is
payable to the departments of Beni and Pando and it is equal to 1% of the national production;
and the Participation to the General Treasury of the Nation is equal to 6% of the national
production and is payable to the National Treasury. 6
(ii) Direct Tax on Hydrocarbons (“DTH”). This tax was created by the 2005 Hydrocarbons
Law and its rate is 32% of the total production of hydrocarbons. The law further adds that
the summation of the total 18% royalties plus the 32% DTH shall in no case be lower than
50% of the total value of the production of hydrocarbons. 7
YPFB is responsible for paying all royalties and the DTH and must deliver each month to
the Contractor the documents evidencing such payments. In addition, YPFB has to pay the
so called “Patentes” which are a surface fee payable based on the number of hectares
comprising each contract area. The Patentes are payable annually in advance, and Contractor
must reimburse to YPFB the total amounts paid within 30 days from receipt of the documents
evidencing the payment. 8
Compensation for Contractor (Retribución del Titular). Contractor receives a
compensation (“Contractor’s Compensation”) from YPFB once commercial production
has begun in any of the fields in the Contract Area. Contractor’s Compensation is the only
payment made by YPFB to the Contractor for the Petroleum Operations carried out under 20
the Operations Contract, and consists of recoverable costs and a profit.
Bolivia’s New Contract Terms: Operating under
the Nationalization Regime (continued)
(i) Recoverable Costs. Recoverable costs are all the costs, investments, expenses and
obligations of the Petroleum Operations, including those related to exploration operations,
evaluation operations, development operations, exploitation operations and abandonment.
Such costs incurred by Contractor are subject to approval and audit by YPFB according to
the Accounting Procedures attached as an Annex to the Operations Contract. YPFB pays
Contractor up to a maximum of 100% of the approved Recoverable Costs.
(ii) Contractor’s Profit. The profits resulting from the gross income produced from the
sale of Net Hydrocarbons (“GI”), minus (a) the royalties, participations, and DTH (“T”), and
(b) the costs recovered by Contractor in such month (“CR”) are shared between YPFB and
Contractor pursuant to formulas included in an Annex to the Operations Contract. According
to such formulas the profits to be distributed (“PD”) are equal to GI - T - CR. PD is then
allocated between YPFB and Contractor; YPFB’s share (“PDY”) is determined based on
percentages (“qb”) set forth in tables attached in an Annex to the contract which vary
depending on the production volumes and PDY is equal to PD times the applicable percentage
(PDY= PD*qb). Lastly, Contractor’s Profit is determined by multiplying PD times the remaining
percentage ((1- qb) * PD). Contractor’s Profit is paid on a monthly basis in US Dollars to
a bank account indicated by Contractor.
Guaranties. Contractor has to deliver to YPFB a Performance Guaranty and a Bank
Guaranty. The Performance Guaranty must be delivered within 20 days from the date of
approval of the Operations Contract by Congress. Such Performance Guaranty must be
issued by the parent company of each of the companies comprising Contractor, and its form
is included as an Annex to the Operations Contract. The Bank Guaranty has to be an
irrevocable and unconditional stand-by letter of credit issued in favor of YPFB by a foreign
bank with a credit rating of at least A- by Standard & Poors or Fitch, A3 according to Moody’s
or an equivalent credit rating by any other international credit rating agency. The Bank
Guaranty backs the performance of the UTEs by Contractor. The form of such letter of credit
is also included as an Annex to the Contract.
Assignment and Change of Control. Neither party comprising Contractor may assign,
encumber or transfer the Operations Contract, either in whole or in part, or any rights or
obligations thereunder, except with the prior written consent of YPFB and the Ministry. The
contract does not provide that such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, denied or
delayed. No approval is required if the beneficiary is an entity directly or indirectly owned
by the Bolivian State.
**********************
First published in Oil, Gas and Energy Law Intelligence, OGEL,
Volume 5, Issue 4, November 2007, http://www.gasandoil.com/ogel.
María Victoria Vargas is counsel of the Global Transactions Practice Group
of the law firm King & Spalding L.L.P., in Houston, TX USA.
This article can be downloaded in its entirety by
clicking on this link or by copying it into your browser:
21
http://www.aipn.org/documents/attachments/Bolivia_Hydrocarbons_1129200795925.pdf
(Footnotes are available in the full document.)
WORLD BID ROUNDS
List of E&P Bid Invitations around the World - November 2007
Contributed by Barrows Company 1
Asia & Australia Central America & Caribbean
Australia (Offshore) Barbados
Bangladesh (Gas) Costa Rica
Cambodia Guatemala
China (Offshore) Jamaica
India (7th Round – October 29, 2007) Nicaragua
Indonesia (25 blocks)
Korea (South) (Offshore) South America
Malaysia Argentina (Salta)
Myanmar Brazil (313 blocks – November, 2007)
Pakistan (17 onshore blocks) Chile (10 blocks)
Philippines (9 areas) Colombia (37 blocks)
Sri Lanka (End January, 2008) Ecuador (Gas – 2008)
Thailand (20th Round – May 22, 2008) Falkland Islands
Vietnam (Song Hong Basin) Uruguay
Europe North Africa
Albania Algeria (Gas – January, 2008)
Cyprus (Offshore) (Closed) Egypt (7 blocks by Ganope)
Greece Libya (Gas) (December 9, 2007)
Ireland (Frontier)
Latvia South & Central Africa
Poland Angola (10 blocks)
Romania Benin
Turkey (End 2007) (22 blocks) Cameroon (6 blocks)
Congo (Gas)
Middle East Guinea Bissau
Abu Dhabi (Gas areas) Liberia
Bahrain (October 31 deadline) Mozambique (End 2007)
Iran (17 blocks) Nigeria (60 Blocks)
Iraq (54 blocks) SADR (Sah. Dem. Rep. – Early 2008)
Iraq (Kurdistan 40 blocks) Uganda
Jordan (JAFR block) Zambia
Kuwait
Oman (Onshore & offshore blocks) North America
Syria (November 20, 2007) Canada (Oil sands)
Yemen (11 blocks – December 8, 2007) Greenland (Western offshore – February 1, 2008)
United States (Sales 206 & 224) (GOM) (March 19, 2008)
Russia & NIS
Azerbaijan
Kazakhstan
Russia (10 blocks – January, 2008)
Turkmenistan
Ukraine (Black Sea)
1
Bid specifications, legislation texts and model contracts available at gbarrows@barrowscompany.net.
22
* Governments may use the following email to convey international notices of bid rounds. Companies
may also use the email for bid round information: gbarrows@barrowscompany.net
Welcome!
NEW AIPN MEMBERS
Admitted October 2007
AAP Tetsuhiro Murayama
David Clinch Coordinator
Partner Inpex Corporation
Herbert Smith LLP 4-1-18 Ebisu
41st Floor, Midtown Tower, 9-7-1 Akasaka, Minato-ku Shibuya, Tokyo 150-0013
Tokyo 107-6241 Japan
Japan T: +81-3-5448-1204
T: +813-5412-5412 F: +81-3-5448-1244
E: david.clinch@herbertsmith.com E: tmurayama@inpex.co.jp
Geoffrey Compton Kevin Pewitt
Senior lawyer New Business Manager - SE Asia
Department of Defence Hess Corporation
256-310 St Kilda Road Menara Tan & Tan, Level 9, 207 Jalan Tun Razak
Southbank, Victoria 3006 Kuala Lumpur 50400
Australia Malaysia
T: +6-139-282-4931 T: + 603 2050-9016
E: geoffrey.compton@defence.gov.au E: kevin.pewitt@hess.com
Gregory Holman Anne Romadine Tieng
Marketing Manager Legal Counsel
Talisman Energy Shell Philippines Exploration B.V.
165 Jalan Ampang, lvl 31 19th Floor Asian Star Building, Asean Drive, Filinvest
Kuala Lumpur 50450 Corporate City
Malaysia Alabang, Muntinlupa 1780
T: +601-2321-6592 Philippines
F: +60-32-164-1905 T: +632-876-4000
E: gholman@talisman-energy.com F: +632-850-4332
E: Dinnie.Tieng@shell.com
Michael McNeill
Principal Mike Walsh
Baker & McKenzie Chief Corporatre Counsel
#27-01 Millenia Tower, 1 Temasek Avenue Cairn India
Singapore 39192 3/4th Floors, Vipul Plaza, Sun City, Sector 54
Singapore Gurgaon 122002
T: +65 6434 2548 India
F: +65 6337 5100 T: +91 (0)1244593190
E: michael.m.mcneill@bakernet.com F: +91 (0)1242889320
E: mike.walsh@cairnindia.com
Ben McQuhae
Senior Associate Canada
Fulbright & Jaworski LLP Aaron Rodatz
1901 Hong Kong Club Building, 3A Chater Road Land & Contracts Manager
Hong Kong Artumas Group Inc.
T: +852 2523 3200 715 - 5th Ave SW, #1810
E: bmcquhae@fulbright.com Calgary, Alberta T2P 2X6
Canada 23
T: +403-975-6028
F: +403-294-1521
E: aaron.rodatz@artumas.com
NEW AIPN MEMBERS
Admitted October 2007
CIS Sarah Fentem
Walter Daniel IV Senior Legal Adviser
Partner Mærsk Olie og Gas AS
White & Case 50 Esplanaden
117/6 Dostyk Avenue Copenhagen 1263 K
Almaty 50059 Denmark
Kazakhstan T: +45-3363-5107
T: +7-701-218-2770 F: +45-3363-3878
F: +7-727-250-7493 E: sfm@maerskoil.com
E: wdaniel@whitecase.com
Olurotimi Idowu
EA Manager, Legal Services
Alkaly Bangoura Oando Plc.
Ministry of Mines & Geology 2, Ajose Adeogun Street
B.P. 295 Boulevard du Commerce Victoria Island, Lagos
Conakry Nigeria
Guinea T: +234-1270-2415
T: +224-6034-2041 E: oidowu@oandoplc.com
E: cirekhaly@yahoo.fr
Renelle Joffe
Nick Barber Legal Advisor of Natural Gas & Fuels
Solicitor Israel Electric Co. Ltd
Stephenson Harwood P.O. Box 10, Netiv Haor Str. 1
One, St Paul’s Churchyard Haifa 31000
London EC4M 8SH Israel
United Kingdom T: +972-4810-0042
T: +44-207-452-4295 E: renelle@iec.co.il
F: +44-207-003-8500
E: nick.barber@shlegal.com
Suzanne Mobed
Legal Counsel
Mahmoud Bassiouny
Aabar Petroleum
Associate
7 Hilary Close
DLA Matouk Bassiouny, member of DLA Piper Group
London SW61EA
13 El Birgass Street, Garden City
United Kingdom
Cairo
T: +44-208-785-7499
Egypt
E: smobed@aabar.com
T: +202-795-4228
F: +202-795-4221
E: mahmoud.bassiouny@dlamatoukbassiouny.com Sylvi Naether
Lawyer
Karim Ben Romdhane Wintershall Holding AG
Legal Manager Friedrich-Ebert-Str. 160
Eni Tunisia B.V. (ex. Agip) Kassel 34119
Rue du Lac de Côme-Les Berges du Lac Germany
Tunis 1045 T: +495-613-012-515
Tunisia F: +495-613-011-877
T: +216-20-366-106 E: sylvi.naether@wintershall.com
F: +216-71-861-918 24
E: karim.benromdhane@enitunisia.eni.it
NEW AIPN MEMBERS
Admitted October 2007
Erik Nyborg Dunni Segun-Oki
Attorney Legal counsel
Nyborg & Rordam Petroleo Brasiliero Nigeria Limited
77 Store Kongensgade 4th & 5th floors Sapetro towers, plot 98 Adeola Odeku Street
Copenhagen 1264 K Victoria Island, Lagos
Denmark Nigeria
T: +453-312-4540 T: +234-803-978-0324
F: +453-393-4540 E: dunni@petrobras.com.br
E: en@nrlaw.dk
Eike Siebels
Thomas Obidairo General Manager Marketing
Business Development Manager RWE Dea AG, Überseering 40
Indigopool (Schlumberger) Hamburg 22297
8th Floor, South Quay Plaza II, 183 Marsh Wall Germany
London E14 9SH T: +49-406-375-2329
United Kingdom F: +49-406-375-3106
T: +44-207-517-2564 E: eike.siebels@rwe.com
F: +44-207-517-2640
E: tobidairo@indigopool.com Mohamed Thiam
Counselor
Folasade Olusanya Ministery of Justice
Partner Conakry
Jackson, ETTI & EDU Guinea
3-5 Sinari Daranijo Street T: +224-6029-7844
Victoria Island, Lagos E: ericalythiam@yahoo.fr
Nigeria
T: +234-1462-6841 Latin America
E: folaolusanya@jacksonettiandedu.com Fernando Fresco
Senior Staff Attorney
Fawad Quraishi Pan American Energy LLC
Head, Commercial & Negotiations, Global Exploration Av. Leandro N. Alem, 1180, 1st Floor
EMEA Buenos Aires 1001
StatoilHydro ASA Argentina
Oslo T: +5411-4310-4297
Norway F: +5411-4310-4297
T: +479087-9213 E: ffresco@pan-energy.com
E: fawad@statoilhydro.com
Luiz Lemos
Philippe Rose Partner
Commercial Advisor Tozzini Freire Avogados
Shell International Exploration & Production Praia De Bota Fogo 228, 3rd floor
SIEP BV, Kessler Park 1 Rio de Janeiro 22-250040
2288GS Rijswijk Brazil
The Netherlands T: +5521-3535-2110
T: +31-61-068-2251 F: +5521-3535-2100
E: philippe.rose@shell.com E: llemos@tozzinifreire.com.br
25
NEW AIPN MEMBERS
Admitted October 2007
Patricia Nuñez Figueroa Reggie Mezu
Lawyer Regional Tax Manager
Nuñez Muñoz y Cía. Ltda. Shell Exploration and Production International Limited
Isidora Goyenechea 3250, #13 Dubai Covention Tower, P.O. Box 11677
Santiago 7550083 Dubai
Chile United Arab Emirates
T: +562-431-9040 T: +971-4405-4433
F: +562-378-8060 F: +971-4329-3311
E: pnunez@nam.cl E: reggie.mezu@gmail.com
Constanza Rivera Marisela Ponce
Senior Counsel Business Development Manager
Chevron Petroleum Schlumberger
Calle 100 No. 7A-81, #9 Hamdan Street, Al Masaood Tower 16th floor,P.O. Box 4754
Bogota Abu Dhabi
Colombia United Arab Emirates
T: +571-639-4523 T: +0097-150-657-8323
F: +571-611-0722 E: mcortes2@slb.com
E: rivac0@chevron.com
United States
Juan Torres-Landa Sasha Begum
Partner Attorney
Barrera, Siqueiros y Torres Landa, S.C. Baker & McKenzie
Paseo de los Tamarindos 150 711 Louisiana, #3400
Mexico City 5129 Houston, TX 77002
Mexico T: +1-713-427-5082
T: +5255-5091-0157 F: +1-713-427-5099
F: +5255-5091-0123 E: sasha.begum@bakernet.com
E: jftl@bstl.com.mx
Alan Chatfield
Middle East International Geoscience Manager
Omar El Fahel Challenger Minerals Inc.
Legal Counsel 15375 Memorial Drive
Schlumberger Houston, TX 77079
P.O. Box 2836 T: +1-281 925-7292
Al-Khobar 31952 F: +1-281-925-7280
Saudi Arabia E: alan.chatfield@globalsantafe.com
T: +96-655-890-0925
E: ofahel@al-khobar.oilfield.slb.com Adrian Goodisman
Managing Director
Frits Klap Scotia Waterous
Commercial Advisor 700 Louisiana, #3900
Shell Houston, TX 77002
Al Mirqab Tower, 7th floor T: +1-713-222-0546
Doha 3747 F: +1-713-222-0572
Qatar E: adrian_goodisman@scotiawaterous.com
T: +974-587-3004
E: Frits.Klap@shell.com 26
NEW AIPN MEMBERS
Admitted October 2007
Kuan Hsu Tim Zoba
Commercial Advisor General Manager
Chevron IHS Energy
1500 Louisiana St., #36088 5333 Westheimer, #100
Houston, TX 77002 Houston, TX 77056
T: +1-832-854-4047 T: +1-713-369-0342
E: hsukh@chevron.com E: timothy.zoba@ihs.com
Lauren Mohr STUDENTS
Attorney
Afar Exploration Company EA
1924 South Utica Avenue, #1201 Nasiruddeen Muhammad
Tulsa, OK 74104 LL M Petroleum Law Candidate
T: +1-918-749-9401 CEPMLP University of Dundee
E: lauren-mohr@sbcglobal.net Centre for Energy Petroleum Mineral Law & Policy
Dundee, Scotland DD1 4HN
Ronald Smith United Kingdom
Business Development Consultant T: +440-779-894-5168
Challenger Minerals, Inc. E: muhammadnsr@gmail.com
15375 Memorial Dr., Suite G200
Houston, TX 77079 Murielle Oble
T: +1-281-925-7273 Student
F: +1-281-925-7280 University of Dundee
E: ron.smith@globalsantafe Dundee, Scotland DD1 4HN
United Kingdom
David Sweeney T: +440-138-238-4299
Attorney E: yane_oble@hotmail.com
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP
711 Louisiana Street, #2300 US
Houston, TX 77002 Nathan Abercrombie
T: +1-713-221-1288 Student
F: +1-713-437-5380 University of Texas - Energy and Earth Resources
E: david.sweeney@bgllp.com 1 University Station, Room C1100
Austin, TX 78712
Robert Thibault T: +1-512-795-1925
Of Counsel E: nabercrombie@msn.com
Patton Boggs LLP
1801 California Street, #4900 Lisa Castle
Denver, CO 80202 Student
T: +1-303-894-6191 The George Washington University Law School
F: +1-303-894-9239 700 20th Street, N.W., Lower Level
E: rthibault@pattonboggs.com Washington, DC 20052
T: +1-313-320-1404
E: lcastle@law.gwu.edu
27
NEW AIPN MEMBERS
Admitted October 2007
Brett Cramer
Student
Texas Tech University School of Law
1802 Hartford Avenue
Lubbock, TX 79409
T: +1-806-742-3990
E: brett_cramer@hotmail.com
Kyle Evans
Student
OU College of Law
1304 Commerce, Unit 1
Norman, OK 73071
T: +1-405-414-3835
E: Kyle.D.Evans-1@ou.edu
Enes Hosgor
Masters Student
The University of Texas at Austin
Jackson School of Geosciences
Austin, TX 78741
T: +1-512-706-5054
E: enes.hosgor@mail.utexas.edu
Omotolu Idowu
LLM Student
University of Houston Law Center
Houston, TX 77002
T: +1-646-345-4864
E: motolu@hotmail.com
Nikita Mehta
Student
Seton Hall School of Law
Newark, NJ 07103
T: +1-732-629-1641
E: nikita.mehta@gmail.com
Blake Waggoner
Law Student
SMU Law
3314 Daniel, #16
Dallas, TX 75205
T: +1-214-450-2219
E: blakewaggoner@hotmail.com
28
IN EVERY ISSUE:
All Model Agreements are available
at no charge to AIPN members.
For a complete listing, visit our Website at:
www.aipn.org
For a listing of the current
AIPN Board of Directors:
2007-2008 AIPN Board of Directors
Please send your comments
or contributions to the
AIPN Advisor via e-mail to:
aipn@aipn.org
29
Related docs
