LNG facilities that are an integral part of upstream production are subject to Petroleum Law G.U. requirements (may be combined with an IOP) and other approvals for construction, operation and decommissioning, as outlined above in the comments in Question 3.2. Onshore processing facilities are an integral part of production, including projects that require large-diameter pipelines for the export of natural gas to Europe. Land-to-land use for pipelines or terminals is limited. The acquisition of land or land rights is agreed with the landowners. In the absence of an agreement, the compulsory acquisition of land (expropriation) is available in accordance with applicable law. Unlike the statutory liability for decommissioning in the event of an asset transfer, the decommissioning liability is imposed for share sales in the form of a guarantee to be granted by the parent company of the seller group. The guarantee applies to licensing partners in the sectors concerned as well as to the Norwegian State (Decom PCG). Such a PCG decom will be required for the MEP`s approval of the share transaction in accordance with afN paragraphs 10 to 12 and 10-18. These provisions, which have increased the commercial risk to sellers, have led to a practice (also widespread in the United Kingdom) whereby asset sellers require a decommissioning guarantee contract under which the parent company or the buyer`s bank deprives the seller of the guarantee if that secondary liability is invoked. The costs associated with decommissioning and decommissioning facilities are relatively low compared to exploration, development and operating costs and field revenues.
Decommissioning costs are uncertain and vary from field to field. The main cost elements of waste management projects are related to permanent well constipation and the disposal of offshore facilities. Since 2009, the Norwegian Petroleum Act has contained provisions that the seller of a direct interest in a licence has a secondary responsibility for the dismantling costs associated with the facilities at the time of the closing of the sale. If the buyer is late as a new licensee, the seller may be held responsible. Closure – Types of dismantling contracts As in the United Kingdom, licensees are jointly responsible for licensing obligations, so they may have to pay the dismantling costs if one of the other licensees does not pay its share. For facilities that are not part of Gassled, the parties are free to negotiate under the restrictions of the ACCORD provisions and the specific conditions for granting authorizations or other agreements (z.B.dem Oseberg Transportation System). Stopping the operation of oil facilities or activities and decommissioning or removing facilities may only be carried out in accordance with the Oil Act and subject to an approved closure plan. The applicable law contains rules of the oSPAR convention to which Norway has adhered.
THE MEPs, supported by the NDP and PSA, are the main authorities. The legislation and concession framework will establish the authorisation system for all upstream activities (exploration, development, production, transport and dismantling) resulting from resources and facilities under Norwegian jurisdiction. Although the Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy (MEP) has indicated that it is considering using similar agreements for the sale of shares, the issue has not been resolved until 2017, namely that, until 2017, the MEP, triggered by certain transactions it processed at that time, decided to take advantage of a system of closure liability for share sales.