You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

August 26, 2016

Decommissioning Offshore Oil and Gas Installations in Thailand

Informed Counsel

Thailand’s Ministry of Energy promulgated the Ministerial Regulation Prescribing Plan and Estimated Cost and Security for Decommissioning of Installations Used in the Petroleum Industry B.E. 2559 (2016) earlier this year. As the specific rules and procedures governing the end of the life cycle for upstream petroleum projects had been somewhat uncertain, the decommissioning regulation adds a great deal of clarity on legal obligations for concessionaires.

Unlike businesses with perpetual growth potential, upstream petroleum production has a limited project life cycle—since oil and gas are not renewable resources, every project will have a finite timetable. The tail end of the production cycle is also generally when fewer barrels of oil are being produced, which, to the detriment of petroleum producers, coincides with the capital-intensive task of decommissioning various installations.

A common misconception about offshore drilling rigs is that at the end of the production cycle they will retain some monetary value. This seems intuitive, since it can be assumed that, at the very least, the metal which has been used to construct the installations could be melted down for scrap. But these materials have endured the corrosive effects of seawater over several decades, and the logistical expenses of retrieving the salvageable material are extraordinary. The reality is that the decommissioning of offshore rigs is extremely costly and does not generally enable the petroleum producer to realize any return on the physical assets.

Since the costly endeavor of decommissioning will occur precisely at the moment in the production cycle when revenues will be decreasing, petroleum producers and governments must design appropriate procedures to ensure that decommissioning work is properly carried out. Policy issues of major concern for host governments include protecting the environment, minimizing the impact on fisheries, and ensuring that shipping lanes remain clear of any obstacles. Although offshore petroleum production has been occurring around the world for decades, decommissioning is increasing in importance globally as more projects near the end of their life cycles. Accordingly, lawmakers everywhere are still in the process of learning what processes are best employed to achieve the desired policy objectives.

In Thailand, the Petroleum Act was amended in 2007, introducing two sections which provide the Director General of the Department of Mineral Fuels with the authority to prescribe regulations concerning decommissioning activities. Section 80/1 of the Petroleum Act outlines the general rule that the concessionaire will be responsible for decommissioning works, while Section 80/2 is concerned with the requirement of the concessionaire to make a security deposit to ensure that it will be financially responsible for those decommissioning works. The specific procedures, rules, and timelines outlined under Sections 80/1 and 80/2 of the Petroleum Act are to be in accordance with Ministerial Regulations.

The decommissioning regulation requires the concessionaire to submit a Decommissioning Plan (divided into an Initial Decommissioning Plan and a Final Decommissioning Plan), an Estimate of Decommissioning Costs, a Decommissioning Environmental Assessment Report, and a Best Practical Environmental Option Report to the Director General within prescribed timelines.

The obligation of the concessionaire to begin the decommissioning process will be triggered by any of the following:

  1. when the concessionaire does not use the installations continuously for more than one year;
  2. when petroleum reserves of the concession are less than 40 percent of the sum of the accumulated petroleum production and the petroleum reserves;
  3. when the remaining time for petroleum production as specified in the concession is five years; or
  4. if the concessionaire wishes to commence decommissioning activities.

The Estimated Decommissioning Costs and Decommissioning Plan must be audited by authorized third parties based on qualifications prescribed by the Director General and published in the Government Gazette. The Director General has the authority to accept the decommissioning reports or request clarifications and/or amendments if the reports are not in compliance with the prescribed rules.

The concessionaire will be obligated to make a security deposit to the Director General, which may be in the form of cash or a cashier check payable by a bank, Thai government bonds, a letter of guarantee issued by a bank, an irrevocable standby letter of credit, or any other security prescribed by the Director General and announced in the Government Gazette. The security deposit will be for an amount approved by the Director General which must not be less than the Estimated Decommissioning Cost. Failure to make a complete security deposit will result in a written warning from the Director General, and exposure to a surcharge of 2 percent per month of the unpaid amount.

The decommissioning regulation leaves a few rules and procedures open, to be determined later by the Director General. In addition, depending on how the decommissioning regulation is implemented in practice, there may still be room for further minor amendments. In general, the decommissioning regulation provides a great deal of clarity and certainty for petroleum producers working on concessions which are nearing the end of their production lifespan.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

April 8, 2021
On March 24, 2021, the Prime Minister of Vietnam issued Decision No. 12/2021/QD-TTg issuing regulations on oil spill response. One of the more notable changes is the introduction of templates for oil spill response plans.
February 23, 2021
As many are already aware, following the change of government in Myanmar on February 1, 2021, a draft Cyber Security Law was proposed which attracted widespread criticism. However, less attention has been paid to significant amendments to two existing laws, some of which have a similar effect to parts of the draft Cyber Security Law. In other words, while the draft Cyber Security Law has not progressed further and is under public scrutiny, significant elements of it have found their way into law in Myanmar by other routes. Because these amendments are already law, it is very important that individuals and businesses in Myanmar understand their implications. Amendments to the Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens The Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens (2017), or the “Privacy Law,” was amended on February 13, 2021, less than two weeks after the military government came into power. These amendments chiefly address the power of the government to conduct searches, seizures, and arrests; to extend detention without judicial oversight; and to carry out broad surveillance and investigation activities that could intrude on individual privacy. The amendments accomplish this by suspending various sections of the Privacy Law for as long as the State Administration Council (the military body now governing Myanmar) is in power. The suspended sections include the following: Section 5: Search, seizure, and arrest without civilian observation The relevant part of Section 5 of the Privacy Law states, “The responsible authorities shall … when acting in accordance with existing law, not enter into a person’s residence or a room used as a residence, or a building, compound or building in a compound, for the purpose of search, seizure, or arrest, unless accompanied by minimum of two witnesses who should comprise Ward or Village Tract Administrators…”. The suspension
February 22, 2021
Following the recent imposition of sanctions on Myanmar individuals and companies by the US, the UK and Canada have now imposed new sanctions. As with the US sanctions, these new measures impact UK and Canadian citizens and companies, and non-UK and non-Canadian companies and citizens with interests in those jurisdictions. The EU has indicated that it is planning to issue similar sanctions in the near future. New UK Sanctions In addition to the 16 individuals already sanctioned by the UK government, on February 18, 2021, the UK government announced that three individuals have been sanctioned for serious human rights violations and are now subject to asset freezes and travel bans. The full list of Myanmar individuals and companies sanctioned by the UK is available on the website of the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation. Breaches of UK financial sanctions are criminal offences punishable in the UK by up to 7 years imprisonment and heavy fines. New Canadian Sanctions Also on February 18, timed to coincide with the UK sanctions, new Canadian sanctions were imposed on nine individuals. As with the UK, Canada already had a number of individuals in the Myanmar military on its sanctions list, and the new additions bring the total number of individuals sanctioned by Canada to 54. All assets of these individuals in Canada are now frozen, and they are banned from travelling to Canada. Canadian businesses or entities may not do business with any of the 54 individuals. Full details of the impact of the sanctions are available on the Government of Canada’s website, as is a database of the Myanmar individuals and companies subject to them. Breach of Canadian sanctions carries with it up to 5 years’ imprisonment in Canada and/or a large fine. Other Countries The EU is reportedly drawing up sanctions
February 18, 2021
As you will no doubt know, on February 1, 2021, the Myanmar military declared a state of emergency in Myanmar for a period of one year. State Counsellor Daw Aung Sang Su Kyi was detained, as were the president and various significant political and civil leaders. Min Aung Hlaing, commander-in-chief of the Tatmadaw (Myanmar armed forces) has installed himself as chairman of the State Administration Council, the current administration. New sanctions The reaction of the Biden administration has been swift. On February 10, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14014, which provides bases to impose sanctions on individuals and companies deemed by the US to, among other things: operate in the defense sector of Myanmar; be responsible for policies that undermine democratic processes in Myanmar; have taken actions to undermine democratic processes or institutions, or prohibit, limit, or penalize the exercise of free speech, in Myanmar; or be a spouse or child of the foregoing. On the next day, February 11, the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), imposed sanctions under the new executive order on ten individuals—including General Min Aung Hlaing—and three companies, including Cancri Gems & Jewelry Co, Myanmar Imperial Jade Co, and Myanmar Ruby Enterprise.  All such individuals and companies have now been designated on the US list of specially designated nationals (SDNs). Effect of sanctions As a result of such sanctions, the property of these individuals or companies that is located in the US or is under the possession or control of US companies and citizens is frozen, and US companies and citizens are generally prohibited from dealing deal with any such property.  Reportedly, roughly USD 1 billion of funds belonging to the individuals and companies blocked on February 11 are located in the US and thus now frozen. The SDN list As many