Ghana: Energy And Natural Resources

By: Mr. Kojo Bentsi-Enchill

Miss. Seyram Dzikunu

Miss. Eyitemi Adetugbo

In this newsletter, we review the decision of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea ("ITLOS") in relation to the dispute concerning the delamination of the maritime boundary between Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean. Côte d'Ivoire had accused Ghana of overstepping its maritime boundary in the exploration of oil in portions of the Tano Basin in the Western Region of Ghana. However the ITLOS Special Chamber in a unanimous decision on Saturday 23rd September 2017 held that, there had not been any violation on the part of Ghana on Côte d'Ivoire's maritime boundary. This newsletter will review the implications of this decision for companies engaged in petroleum activities within the disputed area.

A. Background

The area in dispute between Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire lies at the centre of the Tano Basin, a proven petroleumrich offshore basin. Both countries were claiming ownership of the territory, which energy experts estimated to hold two billion barrels of oil reserves and 1.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

A year after Ghana discovered oil in commercial quantities, Côte d'Ivoire staked a rival claim to parts of the area covered by the discovery. Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire (the "Parties") attempted to settle the matter by

amicable negotiations but to no avail. On 3 December 2014, the Parties entered into a Special Agreement to submit the maritime border dispute to a Special Chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (the "Special Chamber"). On 27 February 2015, Côte d'Ivoire filed a Request for the Prescription of Provisional Measures to the Special Chamber, requesting the Special Chamber to grant temporary provisional measures for Ghana to suspend all oil exploration and production activities in the disputed area pending the resolution of the full case in late 2017. On 25th April 2015, the Special Chamber granted this request and placed a moratorium on new drilling activities. This meant that operators such as Tullow, Kosmos and Hess were forced, for example, to stop new drilling in the disputed area. On Saturday 23rd September 2017, the Special Chamber rejected Côte d'Ivoire's claim that Ghana's exploration activities in the disputed basin were infringing on its sovereign rights or maritime boundary. Justice Boualem Bouguetaia, President of the Special Chamber in reading the judgment, accepted Ghana's argument of adoption of the equidistance method of delineation of the maritime boundary.

B. The judgement

In a unanimous decision, the Special Chamber held that Côte d'Ivoire did not provide a strong argument for its claims. The Special Chamber mostly ruled in Ghana's favour, on the arguments put forward by Côte d'Ivoire. In its judgement, the Special Chamber addressed the points outlined below.

Jurisdiction of the Special Chamber

There was no disagreement between the Parties regarding the jurisdiction of the Special Chamber in this case. Nevertheless, the Special Chamber held that it had the jurisdiction to delimit the maritime boundary between the Parties in the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone ("EEZ") and on the continental shelf, both within and beyond 200nm.1 The Special Chamber also held that it had the jurisdiction to decide on the claim of Côte d'Ivoire against Ghana on the alleged international responsibility of Ghana.2 This was on the basis that both Parties were parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the "Convention") which gives the Special Chamber jurisdiction over any dispute concerning interpretation or application of the Convention.3

Tacit agreement

Ghana asked the Special Chamber to declare that the Parties mutually recognised, agreed and applied an equidistance based maritime boundary in the territorial sea, EEZ and continental shelf within 200nm during various bilateral exchanges. Ghana referred to this as the "customary equidistance boundary". Ghana wanted the Special Chamber to hold that Côte d'Ivoire was, in accordance with international law and by reason of its representations upon which Ghana had placed reliance, estopped from objecting to the agreed maritime boundary.4 Côte d'Ivoire rejected this argument.

The Special Chamber found in favour of Côte d'Ivoire and rejected Ghana's claim that Côte d'Ivoire was estopped from objecting to the customary equidistance boundary.5 Further, the Special Chamber found that Ghana did not present enough evidence to show the existence of an implicit agreement between the Parties in relation to the customary equidistance boundary.6 For example, the limits of the oil concessions of the Parties was not sufficient to infer the existence of the maritime boundary.7 Further, the fact that the Parties engaged in bilateral exchanges in an attempt to delimit their maritime boundary showed that there was no tacit agreement.8

Equidistance vs bisector method of delineation

Ghana argued that the Special Chamber should use the equidistance/relevant circumstances methodology for maritime delineation. This is the concept that a nation's maritime boundary should conform to a median line equidistant from the shores of neighbouring nation states. Further, Ghana argued that the existing customary equidistant line, and the oil activities of both countries be considered as a special circumstance to adjust any new line in Ghana's favour.

Côte d'Ivoire however argued that the angle bisector line method of delimitation was the most geometrical approach. This method is based on the general direction of the coastal geography of two countries with adjacent coasts. This would result in a 168.7 degrees azimuth line9 extending to the outer limit of the Ivorian continental shelf. Côte d'Ivoire also argued that if the Special Chamber were to adopt the equidistance/relevant circumstances method, certain geography related special circumstances warranted an adjustment of the resulting equidistance in their favour.10 Côte d'Ivoire suggested that some geography related special circumstances were that both countries had unstable coastlines11 and that the base points used for the construction of the provisional equidistance line were all located on Jomoro. Being only one percent of Ghana's territory, Côte d'Ivoire argued that Jomoro is an incursion into Ivorian territory that takes the form of a narrow strip of land blocking the seaward projection of part of the Ivorian land mass.12

Critically, the Special Chamber accepted Ghana's argument and adopted the equidistance method of delimitation of the maritime boundary, rejecting Côte d'Ivoire's angle bisector line method of delimitation.13 This was on the basis that the equidistance/relevant circumstances method would achieve the most equitable result and there were no compelling reasons making it impossible or inappropriate to draw a provisional equidistance line.14 The Special Chamber also rejected both Parties' arguments that certain special circumstances warranted the adjustment of the resulting line in either Party's favour.15 The Special Chamber noted that Jomoro is part of Ghana's territory and could not be ignored in determining Ghana's maritime entitlements. Significantly, the Special Chamber held that "a de facto line related to oil practice of the disputing coastal States cannot per se be a relevant circumstance" in maritime delimitation.16

Starting and turning points

The Parties agreed that the land boundary and starting point for the maritime boundary was at Boundary Pillar 55 (BP 55). However, the Parties disagreed on the points along their coasts from which the boundary was to be measured, the so called base points.

Significantly, the Special Chamber plotted new geographic coordinates for BP 55, which it referred to as BP 55+, on the basis that the geographic coordinates used by both Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire were inaccurate. BP 55+ was held to be at 05° 05' 23.2" N, 03° 06' 21.2'' W.17 Using the equidistance/relevant circumstances methodology, the Special Chamber delineated the maritime boundary, starting on land from BP 55+, extending into the sea, to 200 nm and beyond.18 The resulting boundary includes six turning/base points at which the direction of the line changes and which are connected by geodetic lines.19

Violation of Côte d'Ivoire's sovereign rights

Côte d'Ivoire urged the Special Chamber to hold that Ghana's unilateral petroleum activities in the disputed maritime area constituted a violation of the exclusive sovereign rights of Côte d'Ivoire over its continental shelf. On this basis Côte d'Ivoire asked the Special Chamber to invite the Parties to carry out negotiations to agree on terms of compensation due to Côte d'Ivoire. Failing successful negotiations within 6 months, the Special Chamber was to determine the terms of compensation.

The Special Chamber held that Ghana did not violate the sovereign rights of Côte d'Ivoire20 and therefore no compensation was payable.21

Obligation to negotiate in good faith

Côte d'Ivoire argued that Ghana's unilateral activities in the disputed area and its inflexibility in negotiations constituted a violation of Ghana's obligation to negotiate in good faith, as well as its obligation not to jeopardize or hamper the conclusion of an agreement. Ghana called on the Special Chamber to reject these claims.

The Special Chamber found in favour of Ghana and held that Côte d'Ivoire failed to prove bad faith on the part of Ghana during negotiations. As such, it held that Ghana negotiated in good faith and did not jeopardize or hamper the conclusion of an agreement.22

Violation of provisional measures

An order of the Special Chamber of 25 April 2015, prescribed for a moratorium on new petroleum activities and for the Parties to cooperate to that end (the "Order"). Côte d'Ivoire argued that although there was no drilling of new wells, Ghana carried out new drilling activities within existing wells thus violating the Order as Ghana should have abandoned all drilling activities. Ghana called on the Special Chamber to reject such a claim. Ghana argued that it complied faithfully with the Order as there was no drilling of any new wells. The only activity undertaken by operators was work carried out on wells which had already been drilled, which was necessary for production and maintenance of the oil deposits, permitted under the Order.

The Special Chamber agreed with Ghana and held that Ghana did not violate the provisional measures prescribed by the Order. Ghana did not violate the Order by continuing existing drilling activities in developed oilfields as these were ongoing activities as opposed to new drilling activities.23

C. Implications of the decision

Uninterrupted continuation of Ghana's petroleum operations

This decision permits Ghana to continue with its petroleum operations in the Tano Basin. The initial moratorium which prevented Ghana from drilling more wells in the disputed area has been lifted by the ruling. Petroleum companies that have entered into Petroleum Agreements with the Government of Ghana with respect to the Tano Basin that have been unable to carry out their contractual duties as a result of the moratorium can move to site and comply with their amended minimum work obligations or relinquish their interests. For example, this decision will allow Tullow to rigorously increase its production activities, while Hess can now proceed to develop the Deep Water Tano Cape Three Points fields. Petroleum service providers can also resume exploration and drilling activities. This will in effect have positive social impacts for Ghana in light of the local content requirements for companies engaged in petroleum activities.

Expansion of Ghana's territory

By the Special Chamber plotting new coordinates for BP 55+ and applying the equidistance method of delineation, this in effect gave Ghana more territory than it had initially argued for. According to Ghana's Energy Minister, Mr. Boakye Agyarko, Ghana has 80 square kilometres of territorial space which was not originally anticipated.24 However, Ghanaian authorities are yet to publish a map showing the new territorial limits established by the decision of the Special Chamber. In any case Ghana could potentially have more territory open for petroleum exploration activities if the Minister for Petroleum decides to exercise his power to open the new areas for petroleum activities.25 Petroleum companies already engaged in activities in the Tano Basin can take advantage of this and may seize the opportunity to enter into new or revised Petroleum Agreements with the Government of Ghana in respect of petroleum activities in this new territory. Consequently, this would also create more opportunities for petroleum service providers with the area for exploration and extraction being larger than anticipated.

Comfort for investors in certainty of delimitation

This decision is of extreme importance. ITLOS is the most competent legal body to resolve maritime disputes. The decision is binding and not open to appeal. This provides clarity and certainty of the delimitation of the maritime boundary between Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire and will create a sense of stability for prospective investors. The decision therefore provides comfort for investment attraction to the Tano Basin straddling both sides of the previously disputed border, which has lower exploration risk after discoveries by Tullow and Hess in Ghana, and Total in Côte d'Ivoire.

Uncertainties for future discoveries straddling the boundary

Given the discoveries that have been made on both sides of the previously disputed maritime boundary, there is the possibility of future discoveries that could straddle the newly established maritime boundary. Such discoveries may require joint field development and operation. The Petroleum (Exploration and Development) Act 2016 (Act 919) provides that where a petroleum discovery extends onto the territory of another country, Ghana may seek to reach agree ment with that other country on the most efficient coordination of petroleum activities in connection with accumulation and apportionment of petroleum.26 While both countries seek to reach some agreement as to how petroleum activities will be coordinated, this period of uncertainty could prove problematic for petroleum companies engaged in activities close to the new maritime boundary.

Ongoing cooperation between Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire

Finally, the decision of the Special Chamber must be seen as a victory for Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire, West Africa and for Africa as a whole. Without the Parties' cooperation and commitment to a peaceful resolution, the dispute resolution process would have been frustrated, thus creating insecurity to petroleum activities within the disputed area. Insecurity could have presented in the form of socio cultural unrest, international meddling, and rising political tensions between the Parties. The agreement by the Parties to be bound by the decision of the Special Chamber, is a step in the right direction towards peaceful coexistence which strengthens the basis for future partnerships in the upstream oil and gas sector. This provides some reassurance for petroleum operators and service providers that future disputes between the Parties can be resolved cooperatively, therefore minimising the effects on petroleum operations.

Footnotes

1. Delimitation of the maritime boundary between Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean (Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire) 2017, ITLOS Case No 23 @ paras. 88 – 89.

2. Id., paras. 546 and 554.

3. Id., paras. 83 – 84.

4. Id., paras. 229 – 240.

5. Id., paras. 241 – 246.

6. Id., paras. 211– 228.

7. Id., para. 217.

8. Id., para. 221.

9. The azimuth of a line is its horizontal angle measured clockwise from geographic or true meridian.

10. Delimitation of the maritime boundary between Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean (Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire) 2017, ITLOS Case No 23 @ para. 253 – 256, 270 – 276 and 291.

11. Id., para. 311 – 313.

12. Id., para. 303 – 305.

13. Id., para. 289.

14. Id., paras. 281 – 289.

15. Id., paras. 426, 434, 455, 479 and 480.

16. Id., para. 477.

17. Id., para. 356.

18. Id., paras. 400 – 401 and 540.

19. Geodetic lines are the shortest lines that can be drawn between two points on the curved surface of the earth.

20. Delimitation of the maritime boundary between Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean (Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire) 2017, ITLOS Case No 23 @ para. 594.

21. Id., para. 659.

22. Id., para. 634.

23. Id., paras. 651 – 658.

24. 'ITLOS ruling: Ghana gains 80 square km more of territorial space, available from: https://www.myjoyonline.com/news/2017/September27th/itlosrulingghanagains80squarekmmoreofterritorialspace.php [Last accessed 28.09.2017] and Delimitation of the maritime boundary between Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire in the Atlantic Ocean (Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire) 2017, ITLOS Case No 23 @ para. 401.

25. Petroleum (Exploration and Development) Act 2016 (Act 919), Section 7(1).

26. Id., s. 35.

Frst published 13 November 2017.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions