Serica Energy Share Discussion Threads

[bountyhunter] 09/9/2018 09:58

I think they would do exactly that rather than see the field closed down due to no waiver with the potential environmental and field damage consequences (as I keep saying). The legislation is already in place for the temporary management scheme as a last resort if it is necessary for the waiver and to keep the field producing.

[chestnuts] 09/9/2018 09:47

Almisvi

Its the last sentance which you dont seem to get the uk are refusing to apply Sanctions so they would not put the money in any UK bank as Escrow , this is the stumbling block you dont seem to get.

[almsivi] 09/9/2018 09:43

Nothing in the new EO issued by trump overrides the provisions in TRA 603 or EO 13645 - it re-enacts them. As I said before, the temporary management scheme was a one-off to nationalise Irans share of Rhum. It needed a UK Act of parliament to happen because the EU's own sanctions prevented any financial transaction with Iran at all. In my mind, this is the renewal of a license that was already approved under the very same criteria.

BP's not-inconsiderable legal team will have calculated the risk of re-enactment of sanctions if the JCPOA fell through so they could continue to operate & maintain Bruce/Rhum.

If an OFAC license fails to materialise, then there is always the option of the temporary management scheme (ESCROW) that the UK already has legislation in place for, essentially removing Iran as the co-partner.

So now, please, for the love of god, will you stop with the ignorant de-ramping?

[almsivi] 09/9/2018 09:29

Chestnuts - have you actually bothered reading the Executive Orders signed by the POTUS? Have you? I have - so what you're saying is complete rubbish. It's a quiet Sunday offshore, so I decided to rake out the following.

hxxps://www.wko.at/service/aussenwirtschaft/OFAC-FAQs---Iran-Sanctions.pdf

618. Does the New Iran E.O. make sanctionable activities related to the pipeline
project to supply natural gas from the Shah Deniz gas field in Azerbaijan to
Europe and Turkey, given that NICO reportedly has a 10 percent stake in the
project?
No. Section 10 of the New Iran E.O. maintains the exceptions previously provided for
in E.O. 13622 and E.O. 13645, as well as in subsection 603(a) of the TRA and
section 1254 of IFCA, for the pipeline project to supply natural gas from the Shah
Deniz gas field in Azerbaijan to Europe and Turkey. [08-06-2018]

First off, section 603 of the TRA

hxxps://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Documents/hr_1905_pl_112_158.pdf

SEC. 603. APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN NATURAL GAS PROJECTS.
(a) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN NATURAL GAS PROJECTS.—Nothing
in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall apply to
any activity relating to a project—
(1) for the development of natural gas and the construction
and operation of a pipeline to transport natural gas from Azerbaijan
to Turkey and Europe;
(2) that provides to Turkey and countries in Europe energy
security and energy independence from the Government of the
Russian Federation and other governments with jurisdiction
over persons subject to sanctions imposed under this Act or
amendments made by this Act; and
(3) that was initiated before the date of the enactment
of this Act pursuant to a production-sharing agreement, or
an ancillary agreement necessary to further a production sharing
agreement, entered into with, or a license granted
by, the government of a country other than Iran before such
date of enactment.

Followed by EO 13645

hxxps://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/13645.pdf

(d) Subsection (a)(i) of this section shall not apply with respect to a
significant financial transaction conducted or facilitated by a foreign financial
institution for the sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of natural gas
only if the financial transaction is solely for trade between the country
with primary jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution and Iran,
and any funds owed to Iran as a result of such trade are credited to an
account located in the country with primary jurisdiction over the foreign
financial institution

In all of the above, BP demonstrated that they qualified as being co-partners in a Natural gas development with energy security & independence implications, enacted before the date of sanctions & authorised by the UK government. They also satisfied the test that financial transaction NIOC benefits from involves natural gas (not oil, crucially) & the financial transaction falls under the primary jurisdiction of the host country - i.e. paid into a UK bank account as opposed to an offshore one.

[bountyhunter] 09/9/2018 08:47

'Pipetech' may be able to unblock any future pipeline wax blockage if there ever is one:

'The firm is now looking to develop a “long reach” system for pipelines.

Mr Doyle said he spoke to Chrysaor about helping unblock a troublesome pipeline between the Lomond and Everest platforms.
The wax build-up was too far out for the current cleaning system, and Chrysaor opted to lay 16 miles of new pipeline to bypass the blocked section.

That job came too soon for Pipetech, but Mr Doyle believes the long-reach system will be a new industry leader when it is ready.'

[sawney] 09/9/2018 06:18

Thanks SW...on the last stage....should be sorted by the end of the month...weather permitting.

Re Arran...just seen that Zennor had 47%...pretty big wedge to offload...haven't seen the article but must assume that Shell have stepped in...

[fardels bear] 09/9/2018 00:05

To be, or not to be: that is the question:Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to sufferThe slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;No more; and by a sleep to say we endThe heart-ache and the thousand natural shocksThat flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummationDevoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;For in that sleep of death what dreams may comeWhen we have shuffled off this mortal coil,Must give us pause: there's the respectThat makes calamity of so long life;For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,The insolence of office and the spurnsThat patient merit of the unworthy takes,When he himself might his quietus makeWith a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,To grunt and sweat under a weary life,But that the dread of something after death,The undiscover'd country from whose bournNo traveller returns, puzzles the willAnd makes us rather bear those ills we haveThan fly to others that we know not of?Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;And thus the native hue of resolutionIs sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,And enterprises of great pith and momentWith this regard their currents turn awry,And lose the name of action.--Soft you now!The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisonsBe all my sins remember'd.

[steelwatch] 08/9/2018 23:12

Chesty - you are arguing for the sake of arguing. The RNS reads:

"This extension is to enable outstanding regulatory and partner consent processes to be completed, including processes by the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) relating to the Rhum Field."

Like it or not, IOC is one of the partners and, however reluctant they may be, their co-operation will have been sought.

[fardels bear] 08/9/2018 23:00

You don't want to get candles near skirts, GG.

[general george] 08/9/2018 22:54

We can pay them with candles from Chesnut's wax factory.

That should skirt the US sanctions.

[fardels bear] 08/9/2018 22:46

Of course they won't. Why on earth would they?

[captainfatcat] 08/9/2018 21:57

Personally I do not think the IOC will be in any hurry to sell off what could be currently seen by them as a secure income of strategic importance in a foreign currency in the current uncertain political climate.

Having it tied up in some form of work around (they will probably get a favourable interest rate on it) will probably longer term work out rather well for them.

The Iranian Rial is going to continue to be under substantial pressure over the foreseeable future.

[bountyhunter] 08/9/2018 21:33

well certainly not with the very generous terms of the deal currently agreed

[fardels bear] 08/9/2018 21:26

If there were any chance of IOC selling their equity in Rhum then BP. wouldn't need to be selling it to us at all.

[bountyhunter] 08/9/2018 21:22

Don't see it at all myself as I say for political reasons but would be happy to be wrong on that.

[chestnuts] 08/9/2018 21:16

Bounty the buy out if its going to happen will happen before Nov 4th

[bountyhunter] 08/9/2018 21:03

The money would go to IOC but only on resolution of sanctions; better to have an accumulating windfall on hold rather than none at all. I haven't considered a buyout since I think that unlikely given the complex political situation while US sanctions are in place post Nov 4th.

[chestnuts] 08/9/2018 21:00

Bounty

But its where the money goes which is the problem, theres only 2 solutions

1/ Sanctions are canceled

2/ A buyout

[bountyhunter] 08/9/2018 20:55

If a temporary management scheme is imposed as last time then that would be correct as the IOC disagreed with it last time (after 'consultation') but it went ahead anyway based on new legislation put in place to prevent 'environmental and field damage'.

[chestnuts] 08/9/2018 20:46

Bounty

I agree with you there but IOC wont have a say, now if IOC sell there share that would be brill.

[bountyhunter] 08/9/2018 20:43

To be honest whether IOC proceeds were to be held in an escrow account as previously or a frozen UK bank account would amount to the same thing from the IOC perspective. For the IOC it would be better to have money building up in a bank account of either type for future payment rather than nothing at all due to the field being shut down if no waiver, potentially resulting in environmental and irreversible field damage and zero future revenue for either party.

Since "this extension is to enable outstanding regulatory and partner consent processes to be completed, including processes by the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) relating to the Rhum Field" I think it reasonable to assume that whatever has been deemed necessary is in the final stages already and will indeed be concluded over the next few weeks or so.

[captainfatcat] 08/9/2018 20:42

Chestnuts

"THe Uk assured Iran that they would not impose sanctions, so why would they hold IOC money back if they are not applying sanctions"

The position to me seems far from black and white compromises will be found and made on all sides.

[general george] 08/9/2018 20:36

Yeah, almost as embarrassing as you and your offshore candle wax idea.......

[chestnuts] 08/9/2018 20:23

Steelwatch

THe Uk assured Iran that they would not impose sanctions, so why would they hold IOC money back if they are not applying sanctions


George your post are quite emabarrassing