Nigerian Petroleum Ministry invalidates Exxonmobil oil leases

May 16, 2011 | Africa, Government & Regulations

 

NNPC_Towers_Abuja

Eighteen months after the Ministry of Petroleum Resources renewed three shallow water oil licenses jointly operated by the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation and Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited (MPNU), the ministry has written the US energy giant informing it that the renewal is invalid.

In a letter dated March 4, 2011, titled, “Grant of Oil Mining Leases 67, 68 and 70 to Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited”, and signed by the Minister of Petroleum Resources, Mrs. Diezani Alison-Madueke, the ministry declared the lease renewals, which came into effect on December 1, 2009, “null and void and of no effect whatsoever”.

Exactly one year ago, Nigerian THISDAY had reported that the renewal of affected oil leases – Oil Mining Leases 67, 68 and 70 – with a combined output of 580,000 barrels per day had run into a legal logjam over the validity of the contract signed on behalf of the federal government by the then Minister of State for Petroleum, Mr. Odein Ajumogobia.

It has taken the ministry the same period to review the process and previous oil grants for the same leases before it eventually wrote to the US oil multinational, informing it that the 20-year lease renewal is invalid.

But Mobil has formally protested the decision to invalidate its leases through a letter written by its Chairman/Managing Director, Mr. Mark R. Ward, and has tried unsuccessfully with his management team to have a meeting with Alison-Madueke to resolve the issue.

Given the ministry’s refusal to budge on the matter or meet with Mobil’s executives, the company, sources confirmed, has decided to seek all legal avenues at its disposal to enforce its rights in the leases and will be filing a law suit this week to seek legal redress.

OMLs 68, 69 and 70 are some of the most prolific shallow water leases in the country’s continental shelf and are said to hold considerable proven and probable reserves of oil and associated/non-associated gas that still remain untapped.

The blocks accounted for much of the country’s oil production in 2008 when output was halved at the height of attacks on onshore oil and gas installations by militants in the Niger Delta.

But the said leases held by Mobil, along with several others operated by Shell and Chevron, totalling 16 in number, had expired in December 2008, after the oil multinationals had operated for them 40 years.

At the time of their expiration, however, the federal government balked at renewing the leases under the same terms that they had been granted to the multinationals 40 years earlier in 1968.

The argument at the time was that the Petroleum Industry Bill was under consideration at the National Assembly, and the federal government felt if the leases had to be renewed, it would be done under revised terms that would have compelled the international oil companies to pay fees.

The decision was taken on the premise that at the time they were originally awarded to the IOCs in the 1950s and renewed subsequently in 1968, they were done at no cost whatsoever.

But the government felt that since the oil-licensing regime had introduced a tender process by 2008, requiring bidders to pay a signature bonus before the award of oil leases, the IOCs would have to also pay a fee to get their leases renewed.

It was on this basis that the petroleum ministry granted a one-year extension on all the expired leases, pending negotiations for extended renewals for 20 years.

While Shell kicked up a fuss over the revised regime for the renewal of its leases and proceeded to court to challenge the decision by the federal government, Mobil elected to enter into negotiations to get the leases renewed.

Accordingly, a committee was set up by the petroleum ministry to evaluate the leases. The committee then determined that Mobil and NNPC would have to pay $2.55 billion to renew their leases.

Following tough negotiations during which Mobil initially refused to pay anything, the company then made a conditional offer for $75 million, but this was rejected by the committee.

The US multinational eventually made a final offer for $600 million, which was accepted by Ajumogobia.

Ajumogobia, who had been assigned the responsibility of overseeing all acreage allocation licences, lease awards, renewals and assignment by late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, then sought the president’s approval just before he fell ill and renewed the leases for and on behalf of the federal government.

But now Alison-Madueke has written to Mobil notifying the company that “the addendum purporting to have renewed the said leases in 1971 is ab initio null and void and of no effect whatsoever.”

She informed Mobil that having reviewed the renewal of its leases in 2009, it had come to the notice of the ministry that the actual effective date when the leases were renewed was March 11, 1971 and not December 1, 1968.

In the letter, she advised the company that should the federal government give consideration to renewing OMLs 67, 68 and 70 the effective date would be March 1, 2011.

All efforts to get Alison-Madueke to comment of the issue proved unsuccessful, but when contacted, Mobil admitted that they had received a letter from the minister notifying it that its leases had been nullified.

In a terse response signed by Mrs. Gloria Essien-Danner, an executive director of the company, it stated that “in November 2009, the Federal Government of Nigeria granted a long-term renewal of three NNPC-Mobil Producing Nigeria (MPN) joint venture leases (OMLs 67, 68 and 70).

“MPN, as operator, strongly maintains that the NNPC-MPN joint venture’s long-term rights in those leases are entirely valid and legally binding. Accordingly, MPN will vigorously protect the rights that it acquired in 2009.”

She added that Mobil would work with the Minister of Petroleum Resources and other relevant government officials to resolve any confusion that may exist on this matter.

“We have a long-standing association with the Government of Nigeria and look forward to continuing that mutually beneficial relationship,” she stated.

An official in NNPC, who spoke on the cancellation of the leases, explained that the situation with Mobil is “quite precarious” and that the ministry would have to tread with care before the situation blows out of proportion.

He explained that before the ministry wrote the letter it should have sought proper legal counsel because once a contract has been executed by a deed, only a court of law can declare the contract invalid not the minister.

He said the problem stems from when the oil leases were first renewed in 1968 before the enactment of the Petroleum Act of 1969.

The said leases, he disclosed, were originally granted to Mobil for seven years in 1961 under Mineral Oil Act, 1958, which was the law in force at the time.

At their expiration in 1968, Mobil got them renewed for 40 years under the same Act that was still in force, but the deeds for the leases were not signed by the then Commissioner of Petroleum Resources until March 1, 1971.

But petroleum ministry sources have dismissed this notion on the grounds that the Petroleum Act, 1969, empowers the minister to cancel leases without having to seek a court order, especially if any section of the oil lease is deemed to have been violated.