New Zealand upstream decommissioning bill becomes law

: Crude oil, Natural gas
21/12/03

Upstream operators of oil and gas fields in New Zealand will now be required by law to carry out and fund the decommissioning of projects at the end of their productive life, after legislation was given Royal assent this week, said New Zealand energy and resources minister Megan Woods.

The passage of the Crown Minerals (Decommissioning and Other Matters) Amendment bill, which was first introduced to parliament in June will mitigate the risk to the New Zealand government and taxpayer of having to fund decommissioning if a permit or licence holder is unable to do so, Woods said in a statement.

"The amendments to the Crown Minerals Act 1991 address a fundamental gap in the legislation to provide greater protection in respect to decommissioning obligations," the minister said.

The New Zealand government has introduced legislation that includes new provisions to mitigate a risk to the government and other third parties of having to carry out and fund decommissioning, instead of the upstream sector. All upstream exploration permits contain a plan to decommission infrastructure associated with field development.

The legislation includes financial and criminal penalties for upstream firms and their executives for failing to meet this obligation, the New Zealand government said.

The bill also requires permit holders to be liable for meeting the costs of decommissioning even if they transfer out of a permit, in the event that the new permit holder fails to carry out and fund decommissioning, the explanatory memorandum to the legislation said.

Petroleum exploration and production activities in New Zealand are regulated by the Crown Minerals Act 1991. Production activities are undertaken through a mining permit issued by the government that entitles the permit holder to undertake exploration and extraction activities under an approved work programme. Under the previous petroleum programme, there was an obligation for each permit holder to properly decommission production facilities and abandon wells, but not a binding requirement.

The New Zealand government in November 2018 banned further offshore upstream exploration permits and restricted onshore permits to the Taranaki region, located on the west coast of the North Island. The offshore ban is part of New Zealand's plan to be carbon neutral by 2050.

The legislative change in New Zealand aim to avoid some of the issues facing the upstream sector in Australia, where the industry is at loggerheads with the Australian government over its plans to impose a levy for the decommissioning of infrastructure for just one upstream project. The Australian government introduced the Offshore Petroleum (Laminaria and Corallina Decommissioning Cost Recovery Levy) bill 2021 into the lower house of parliament in October, which has not passed neither house of the Australian parliament so far.

Canberra has no plans yet on funding for the decommissioning of upstream infrastructure for all depleted oil and gas fields.

By Kevin Morrison

Related news posts

Argus illuminates the markets by putting a lens on the areas that matter most to you. The market news and commentary we publish reveals vital insights that enable you to make stronger, well-informed decisions. Explore a selection of news stories related to this one.

25/04/11

Opec+ overproducers cast doubt on compensation pledges

Output is set to rise in the coming months, with Kazakhstan and Iraq unlikely to live up to commitments to rein in production, writes Aydin Calik London, 11 April (Argus) — The Opec+ alliance's planned production increases in April and May should, in theory, be offset by pledges to compensate for past overproduction, particularly by Kazakhstan and Iraq. But there are few signs that either country will significantly reduce output in the coming weeks. If anything, Kazakhstan has signalled that production will continue at or near record levels of around 1.8mn b/d , putting it some 300,000 b/d above its Opec+ target. Opec+ members subject to targets cut output by 90,000 b/d to 33.93mn b/d in March, according to Argus estimates, but this was still 80,000 b/d above the group's collective crude production target of 33.85mn b/d. The decision by a core group of eight Opec+ members to accelerate the return of 2.2mn b/d of production cuts is a key reason for the recent slide in oil prices, alongside US tariff announcements. But Opec+ has stressed that its implied output increase of 137,000 b/d for April and another 411,000 b/d in May should be cancelled out by compensation-related cuts of 249,000 b/d for April and 309,000 b/d in May. In reality, this is unlikely to happen — the group's output is set to rise. Kazakhstan is the main reason why Opec+ has exceeded its target over the past two months. Kazakh production has surged following a major output increase at the Chevron-led Tengiz field in January — part of the field's future growth project (FGP). Tengiz production rose to a record 901,000 b/d in March, compared with previous levels of 600,000-660,000 b/d. The increase came several months earlier than anticipated, Kazakh officials say, and they have subsequently asked international oil companies that operate Tengiz and the Kashagan oil field to reduce output. But the answer has so far been negative. "Unfortunately, we have not yet agreed with them to the reduction, because for them it is a very challenging action, especially Chevron, [which] spent $50bn on the FGP project. They told us it's not possible for them to reduce [output]," deputy energy minister Alibek Zhamauov said this week. Kazakhstan will try to reduce production from smaller fields operated by domestic producers such as state-controlled Kazmunaigaz, Zhamauov said. But any decrease from these fields will not be enough to offset the rise from Tengiz. Target practice Iraq's output dipped below its 4mn b/d target in March at 3.98mn b/d, but this was still well above the country's effective target of 3.88mn b/d under its compensation plan. If Iraq's past production record is anything to go by, its output is unlikely to fall much further in the months ahead. While Kazakhstan and Iraq are unlikely to see much change in their production, members such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE are set to drive the alliance's output higher. The biggest increase is expected from Saudi Arabia, which will see its 8.98mn b/d target rise by 222,000 b/d by May, offset only marginally by its compensation plans. Riyadh has already signalled that it is preparing to increase production after state-controlled Saudi Aramco cut the official formula price of its May-loading crude exports. The largest cut was for buyers in Asia-Pacific, Saudi Arabia's biggest market. Formula prices can indicate intentions on output, as producers fine-tune how affordable their crude is for marginal refiners. The second-largest production increase is set to come from the UAE, which has long been eager to raise output . The UAE will see its target rise by 103,000 b/d by May, which will also only be offset marginally by its compensation plan. Russia is also scheduled to deliver a significant production increase over the next two months, with its target rising by 105,000 b/d. But all of this increase will be cancelled out if the country sticks to its compensation plan. Opec+ crude production mn b/d Mar Feb* Mar target† ± target Opec 9 21.22 21.36 21.23 -0.01 Non-Opec 9 12.71 12.66 12.62 0.09 Total Opec+ 18 33.93 34.02 33.85 0.08 *revised †includes additional cuts where applicable Opec wellhead production mn b/d Mar Feb* Mar target† ± target Saudi Arabia 8.98 8.93 8.98 0.00 Iraq 3.98 4.05 4.00 -0.02 Kuwait 2.42 2.43 2.41 0.01 UAE 2.91 2.93 2.91 -0.00 Algeria 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.01 Nigeria 1.49 1.58 1.50 -0.01 Congo (Brazzaville) 0.26 0.24 0.28 -0.02 Gabon 0.20 0.22 0.17 0.03 Equatorial Guinea 0.06 0.06 0.07 -0.01 Opec 9 21.22 21.36 21.23 -0.01 Iran 3.34 3.38 na na Libya 1.36 1.39 na na Venezuela 0.87 0.84 na na Total Opec 12^ 26.79 26.97 na na *revised †includes additional cuts where applicable ^Iran, Libya and Venezuela are exempt from production targets Non-Opec crude production mn b/d Mar Feb* Mar target† ± target Russia 8.97 8.96 8.98 -0.01 Oman 0.75 0.75 0.76 -0.01 Azerbaijan 0.47 0.47 0.55 -0.08 Kazakhstan 1.79 1.76 1.47 0.32 Malaysia 0.36 0.36 0.40 -0.04 Bahrain 0.18 0.18 0.20 -0.02 Brunei 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.02 Sudan 0.02 0.02 0.06 -0.04 South Sudan 0.07 0.07 0.12 -0.05 Total non-Opec 12.71 12.66 12.62 0.09 *revised †includes additional cuts where applicable Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

US tariffs cast a shadow on global gas market

25/04/11

US tariffs cast a shadow on global gas market

Steel can make up nearly a third of an LNG terminal's pricetag, so the new levies could push up costs and push back start-up dates, writes Xiaoyi Deng London, 11 April (Argus) — US president Donald Trump's volatile tariff policy and some of the countermeasures already announced by large trade partners are unlikely to cause any direct disruption to global gas markets. But they will have a direct impact on future US liquefaction capacity. And the indirect effects on gas supply and demand could be huge, stemming from a weaker macroeconomic outlook, fuel substitution and inflationary pressures on infrastructure development. US LNG developers hailed Trump's return to office, after complaining that his predecessor complicated the issuance of additional export licences. But Trump's imposition of 25pc tariffs on all foreign-sourced steel and aluminum, from 12 March, will increase infrastructure costs in the US' upstream and midstream sectors. These present an immediate risk for US LNG developers, particularly for the five projects under construction and the six others expected to reach final investment decisions (FIDs) this year. Metals account for up to 30pc of the cost of an LNG export plant. A terminal can cost $5bn-25bn to build, depending on its size, with steel used for pipelines, tanks and other structural frameworks. Facilities can be built using some domestically produced metal, but higher prices for this might lead to construction and FID delays for the country's planned liquefaction projects. US tariffs' primary effect on the domestic gas market stems from duties levied on non-energy goods used by the oil and gas industry, including steel and specialised pipeline components such as valves and compressors, which are imported. The US remains a net natural gas importer from Canada , but these flows are unlikely to be affected by trade tariffs, given the lack of alternative supply sources available to some northern US states. Tariff baiting Trump's latest tariff round , unveiled on 2 April, involves a a minimum 10pc on all foreign imports from 5 April,with much higher tariffs on selected countries that briefly came into force on 9 April, before Trump bowed to panic in financial markets and announced a 90-day pause. China is the key exception. It has announced retaliatory tariffs that could disrupt US energy exports, resulting in an escalation that leaves the overall levy at 145pc in the US and 125pc in China. China had already stopped importing US LNG earlier this year. But disruption to trade between the world's two largest economies may weigh heavily on manufacturing activity in China, in turn reducing industrial gas demand. And the ripple effects of disruption to US LPG exports to China may alter fuel-switching economics in the region and beyond. Most other countries in Asia-Pacific have opted not to follow China's lead by retaliating. The Japanese government intends to negotiate a better tariff deal and is considering investing in the US' proposed 20mn t/yr Alaska LNG export project as part of wider efforts to reduce its trade surplus with the US. Countries in Asia-Pacific have been hit with some of the highest of Trump's targeted duties. The EU is keeping retaliatory measures on the table, but these are unlikely to involve US LNG. Europe has become much more reliant on LNG imports after losing the bulk of its Russian pipeline supply, and imposing tariffs on energy imports would only reignite inflationary pressures that European countries have tried to curb over the past three years. The bloc says it is ready to negotiate on possibly increasing its US LNG imports to reduce its trade surplus and would axe tariffs on industrial imports if the US agrees to do the same. But Trump says this is not enough, citing the EU's upcoming Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism as one of the "unfair trade practices" that justifies a tariff response. US LNG project pipeline mn t/yr Project Capacity Expected start/FID Under construction Plaquemines 19.2 2025 Corpus Christi stage 3 12.0 2025 Golden Pass 18.1 2026 Rio Grande 17.6 2027 Port Arthur 13.5 2027 Waiting for final investment decision Delfin FLNG 1 13.2 mid-2025 Texas LNG 4.0 2025 Calcasieu Pass 2 28.0 mid-2025 Corpus Christi train 8-9 3.3 2025 Louisiana LNG 16.5 mid-2025 Cameron train 4 6.8 mid-2025 Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Q&A: IMO GHG scheme in EU ETS could be 'challenging'

25/04/11

Q&A: IMO GHG scheme in EU ETS could be 'challenging'

London, 11 April (Argus) — Delegates have approved the global greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing mechanism proposal at the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) 83rd Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting. Argus Media spoke to ministerial adviser and Finland's head representative at the IMO delegation talks, Anita Irmeli, on the sidelines of the London MEPC meeting. What is your initial reaction to the text? We are happy and satisfied about the content of the agreed text, so far. But we need to be careful. This week, all member states were able to vote. But in October, when adaption will take place, only those states which are parties to Marpol Annex VI will be able to vote if indeed a vote is called for, and that changes the situation a little bit. Here when we were voting, a minority was enough — 40 votes. But if or when we vote in October, then we need two thirds of those party to Marpol Annex VI to be in favour of the text. Will enthusiasm for the decision today remain by October? I'm pretty sure it will. But you never know what will happen between now and and the next six months. What is the effect of the decision on FuelEU Maritime and the EU ETS? Both FuelEU Maritime and the EU ETS have a review clause. This review clause states that if we are ambitious enough at the IMO, then the EU can review or amend the regulation. So of course, it is very important that we first consider if the approved Marpol amendments are ambitious enough to meet EU standards. Only after that evaluation, which won't be until well after October, can we consider these possible changes. Do you think the EU will be able to adopt these the text as it stands today? My personal view is that we can perhaps incorporate this text under FuelEU Maritime, but it may be more challenging for the EU ETS, where shipping is now included. What was the impact of US President Donald Trump's letter on the proceedings? EU states were not impacted, but it's difficult to say what the impact was on other states. By Madeleine Jenkins Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

IMO approves two-tier GHG pricing mechanism

25/04/11

IMO approves two-tier GHG pricing mechanism

London, 11 April (Argus) — Delegates have approved the global greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing mechanism proposal at the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) 83rd Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting, pending an adoption vote at the next MEPC in October. The proposal passed by a majority vote, with 63 nations in favor including EU states, the UK, China and India, and 16 members opposed, including Mideast Gulf states, Russia, and Venezuela. The US was absent from the MEPC 83 meeting, and 24 member states abstained. The proposal was accompanied by an amendment to implement the regulation, which was approved for circulation ahead of an anticipated adoption at the October MEPC. Approval was not unanimous, which is rare. If adoption is approved in October at a vote that will require a two-thirds majority, the maritime industry will become the first transport sector to implement internationally mandated targets to reduce GHG emissions. The text says ships must initially reduce their fuel intensity by a "base target" of 4pc in 2028 ( see table ) against 93.3 gCO2e/MJ, the latter representing the average GHG fuel intensity value of international shipping in 2008. This gradually tightens to 30pc by 2035. The text defines a "direct compliance target", that starts at 17pc for 2028 and grows to 43pc by 2035. The pricing mechanism establishes a levy for excessive emissions at $380 per tonne of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e) for ships compliant with the minimum 'base' target, called Tier 2. For ships in Tier 1 — those compliant with the base target but that still have emission levels higher than the direct compliance target — the price was set at $100/tCO2e. Over-compliant vessels will receive 'surplus units' equal to their positive compliance balance, expressed in tCO2e, valid for two years after emission. Ships then will be able to use the surplus units in the following reporting periods; transfer to other vessels as a credit; or voluntarily cancel as a mitigation contribution. IMO secretary general Arsenio Dominguez said while it would have been more preferable to have a unanimous outcome, this outcome is a good result nonetheless. "We work on consensus, not unanimity," he said. "We demonstrated that we will continue to work as an organization despite the concerns." Looking at the MEPC session in October, Dominguez said: "Different member states have different positions, and there is time for us to remain in the process and address those concerns, including those that were against and those that were expecting more." Dominguez said the regulation is set to come into force in 2027, with first revenues collected in 2028 of an estimated $11bn-13bn. Dominguez also said there is a clause within the regulation that ensures a review at least every five years. By Hussein Al-Khalisy, Natália Coelho, and Gabriel Tassi Lara IMO GHG reduction targets Year Base Target Direct Compliance Target 2028 4% 17% 2029 6% 19% 2030 8% 21% 2031 12% 25% 2032 17% 30% 2033 21% 34% 2034 26% 39% 2035 30% 43% Source: IMO Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

US consumer sentiment 2nd lowest on record: Survey

25/04/11

US consumer sentiment 2nd lowest on record: Survey

Houston, 11 April (Argus) — US consumer sentiment fell for a fourth straight month in April, reaching lower levels than during the Great Recession in 2008, as inflation expectations surged to four-decade highs. The preliminary consumer sentiment gauge fell to 50.8 in April, below the 55.3 end-of-month level it reached in November 2008 during the start of the Great Recession, according to the University of Michigan's preliminary reading for April. The only lower reading in records going back to 1952 was in mid-2022 during Covid-19. Year-ahead inflation expectations surged to 6.7pc this month, the highest reading since 1981, from 5pc last month. Sentiment fell by 10.9pc from 57 in March and has lost more than 30pc since December 2024 "... amid growing worries about trade war developments that have oscillated over the course of the year." "Consumers report multiple warning signs that raise the risk of recession: expectations for business conditions, personal finances, incomes, inflation, and labor markets all continued to deteriorate," the survey said. The index of current economic conditions fell to 56.5 in April from 63.8 the prior month. The index of consumer expectations fell to 47.2 this month from 52.6 in March. The proportion of consumers who expect unemployment to rise in the year ahead rose for a fifth month and is more than double the November 2024 result. Interviews for the report were done between 25 March and 8 April, ending prior to the 9 April partial reversal of US tariffs. By Bob Willis Send comments and request more information at feedback@argusmedia.com Copyright © 2025. Argus Media group . All rights reserved.

Business intelligence reports

Get concise, trustworthy and unbiased analysis of the latest trends and developments in oil and energy markets. These reports are specially created for decision makers who don’t have time to track markets day-by-day, minute-by-minute.

Learn more