Comments

Agree Stephen, that is correct and confirm on section E(15) of the PNGLNG Gas Agreement the State and Exxon Mobil signed on 22 May 2009, but the National Court Order OS No:546 of 2010 ordered the ADR/Mediation and so in 2018 the government, Exxon Mobil and the customary landowners are waiting for funding to be provided by the State to identify the project area landowners. I am say that Exxon Mobil if it is the licensee - technically it does not have the legal license basically because it did not meet Section 47(5) of the legal license requirement. If it had done that in 2009 than that was challenged by the customary landowners and the National Court Order Os No.546 of 2010 automatically nullified any SMLIS done prior to the date when the National Court made the above decision in 2010. Also note that when a gas field is under PRL - only a preliminary social mapping is done. However, when the status of a license changes to PDL, a full -scales SMLI study is required as a pre-condition for PDL to be granted and as required under Section 47 (5) of Oil & Gas Act. Now in the current PNGLNG project agreement signed on 22 May 2009, it was an integrated project and there was number of PDL gas fields and three (3) PRL gas Fields included in the integrated project. The PRL gas fields are: 1. Hides 4 (PR12..) now PDL 7, 2.Angore (PRL...) now PDL 08 and 3.Juha (PRL..) now PDL 09. If there was Full -Scale Social Mapping and Landowner Identification done in 2009 why is it that, landowners are yet to be identified now and the ADR/Mediation program is going on and the above gas fields remained under PRL status when the agreement was signed in 2009? The fact of the matter is that the law is supreme and the State, Exxon Mobil and customary landowners are not above the law. The challenge for the State and Exxon Mobil now is to somehow meet the Section 47(5) requirement. How it is done remains a challenge. In the mean time the licensee (Exxon Mobil) is yet to meet Section 47(5) requirement of the Oil &n Gas Act and therefore technically, it does not have legal license. regards john

Thank for for correcting this Bal. It is true that there is long history of youth protest and that the student protests at the University were against the O'Neill Government's corruption and mismanagement of the country's future. What I would contend however, is that it is precisely that future-mindedness of young people in PNG that leads them to see that the actions of the O'Neill Government is denying them the chance of a better governed future; a future with greater opportunities. I appreciate the chance to clarify my point.

Hi John, The government accepted in writing the "full scale social mapping and landowner identification" reports which Exxon produced back in and around 2009 . Regards, Stephen.

Hi Stephen, The legal license requirement is very clear and there is no ambiguity in the law under Section 47(5) of the Oil & Gas Act which reads: - “if a licensee or a person makes an application for a Petroleum Development License under Section 53, the licensee shall submit with that application a Full-Scale Social Mapping Study and Landowners Identification Study of Customary Land owners in: (a) The license area of that petroleum development license; and (b) Other license areas, including pipeline areas, which pertain to that petroleum development license and (c) The land within five kilometres of any facility which would be a dedicated project facility (other than a facility which would be situated on such a petroleum development license) of the petroleum project; and (d) Other areas which would be affected by the petroleum project if developed” Over the years, there was no Full Scale Social Mapping and Landowners Identification studies (FSSMLIS) done in Hides but it operated on a court decision between the Hiwa and Tuguba tribes. Hence, they had agents which represented tribes in Hides and Petroleum Development License (PDL) was granted without a FSSMLIS done. In the PNGLNG project the State and Exxon Mobil signed the PNGLNG Gas Agreement on 22 May 2008 and under Section E(15), it confirms that social mapping and landowner identification study was done and there was number of PDL gas fields covered in the agreement including PDL 01 (Hides). The agreement also includes Petroleum Retention License (PRL) status gas fields and they includes Hide 4 (PRL 12) now PDL 07, Angore PRL 11 (now PDL 08) and Juha PRL?(Now PDL09). Now after the above agreement was signed in May 2008, the Umbrella Benefit Sharing Agreement forum was held in May 2009 and some aggrieved customary landowners took matter to court. Whilst the matter was registered with the courts, the License Base Benefit Sharing Agreement (LBBSA) was held in December 2009 and the last of the LBBSA forum was held for Angore on 7 December 2009. Meanwhile, the National Court Order OS No. 546 of 2010 rules in favour of the landowners and the alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mediation as Ordered. The ADR/mediation started in August 2015 and it is now pending completion. The delay is caused by funding issues. Stephan, there are two main issues here: First who is the licensee? Is it the Courts, Exxon Mobil or the State (DPE)? The law states that it is the licensees 'role to complete the FSSMLIS. If it is Exxon Mobil, why is DPE (regulator) and Courts (ADR) involved? Second, if the ADR mediation is now complying with Section 47(5) of the legal license requirement and the landowners identification is yet to be completed, the courts decision under OS no.546 of 2010 automatically nullifies Section E(15) of the PNGLNG Gas Agreement signed between the State and Exxon Mobil on 22 May 2009. As I comment 17 January 2018, Exxon Mobil and the State through its agencies supports the ADR/Mediation process and everyone is now waiting for the government to provide funds for completion of the ADR/mediation. With above brief scenario of the issues, it is clear Exxon Mobil is responsible for complying with Section 47(5) of Oil & Gas Act and completing the FSSMLIS. The FSSMLIS is yet to be completed by Exxon Mobil and so, I ask the question - how did Exxon Mobil get the PDL for the PRL gas fields and other PDLs, if FSSMLI is yet to be completed now in 2018 and FSSMLI is the pre-requisite for getting PDL for any gas field. Hence, Section 47(5) of the oil & Gas Act is very clear and technically Exxon Mobil does not have legal license for the gas fields. It is now operating on assumed social license and blackmail. Further, the customary landowners are not a party to the PNG LNG Gas Agreement signed on 22may 2008 and so that agreement is not binding on the landowners. How the State regulates the industry and Exxon Mobil not complying with Section 47(5) is an issues. For now without the FSSMLI been done by Exxon Mobil, technically it is operating illegally and stealing the gas resources and the weakness of the State to enforce the law on it should not be an excuse. to this end, I think the onus is now on Exxon mobile to comply with the law, even if the State is not monitoring its compliance matters. regards john

Thank you for raising some important issues concerning youths in PNG. This statement, however, is questionable: “Young people, denied opportunities and with little to lose, often turn to civil unrest. This was evident in the violent student protests at the University of PNG against the O’Neill Government in June 2016.” It was the need to defend the national interest & rule of law, not the lack of opportunity that provided the impetus for protest. PNG has a long history of youth protest, esp patriotic university students, the causes of which are far greater & nobler than a struggle against lack of opportunities.

Hi John, My understanding is that Exxon did so the SMLISs required back in the 2000s, and that they were signed off by the government. The problem is that the government didn't then do the determination of landowner beneficiaries. If the government wasn't happy with the SMLISs it shouldn't have accepted them, and none of the parties involved should have allowed the project to go ahead before the government had made its landowner beneficiaries determination. Regards, Stephen

A refreshing DevPolicy piece on the resurgence, potential and enhanced role of development journalism in the digital media age. Western media blithely dismiss development journalism as govt-say-so journalism. Even in Fiji, the mere mention of concepts such as Peace Journalism (a derivative of DevJourn), even in academic discussions, sends some close-minded journalists into a panic and elicits frenzied accusations of 'pro-government' reporting. This indicates a blind faith in the western-standard formula of 'what is news' - perhaps as a result of custom and/or economics. The classical news reporting approach, which places a premium on conflict as a news value, can be quite reductive, even risky, in fragile societies and post-conflict situations, as Fiji's troubled past shows. The insistence on nothing but the classical reporting frame could betray the politicisation of sections of the news media corps in Fiji.The politicisation of media corps and media organisations is neither new, not confined to Fiji of course. This only re-emphasises the need for and relevance of development journalism. While concerns in Fiji about media capture under the guise of development are valid, development journalism is a far broader concept, with many possibilities. Ideas about different approaches in journalism should not be demonised or shouted down prematurely:

Stephen, Agree - the project is operating on assume social license and blackmail. The law states the "licensee" must do the SMLI (PRL - preliminary, PDL - Full-scale) SMLI. The question is who is the licensee, as the State (DPE) is the regulator. Obviously Exxon Mobil is the licensee. Thus, when Section 47 (5) of the Oil & GAs Act is enforced, Exxon Mobil does not have license now as currently SMLI is yet to be completed. A huge blunder and right now from a layman's perspective, Exxopn Mobil is stealing - period.

Thank you so much for the info. Sam.

Thanks Stephen - really useful analysis. I think that we should also reflect on the experience in Canada where, when there was a change in government, we have seen a Feminist aid policy and positive talk around aid but not the funding to back it.

Well said Dan!

Thanks for reading and for your feedback, always much appreciated!