Comments

Hi Stephen, Been following all your posts on the blog and have browsed through your previous research reports. My partner is an agent here in Vanuatu, and she's sending four ladies to Australia next month, which we're very pleased about. BTW, I was in your 'Governments, Markets and Global Change' course at Crawford in 2011.

Really interesting post Stephen. Great graph. You touch on the currency issue, but I'd say that it is very influential factor in Kiribati, Tuvalu and Nauru since they all use the Australian Dollar and therefore can't have any monetary policy. That, coupled with the high reliance on imports and the inflationary effect that aid and remittances can have in small economies, certainly goes a long way to explaining high prices. I am not up to speed on wage rates, but i know that a number of years ago the average public servant (teacher/nurse) in Kiribati was earning around $8,000 per year. Very difficult to make ends meet when you are paying essentially Australian prices for sugar, flour, rice.

Excellent post Tess - thanks! All those accolades for Sean are well deserved.

Vailala, Thank you for your thoughts. The oil & Gas Act Section 47(5) is very clear on who was/is responsible for Full Scale Social Mapping and Landowner Identification Studies (FSSMLIS). The provision of this Law confirms that the Licensee (Exxon Mobil) was responsible for the FSSMLIS but it (Exxon Mobil) failed to comply with the legal license requirement and somehow got the Petroleum Development License (PDL) without undertaking the FSSMLIS. The government through its agencies also agreed with Exxon's application for the PDL despite the Exxon Mobil not meeting Section 47(5) requirement. It is all wrong here, if everyone including the government was to follow the laws. The landowners then took the matter to court and under OS No.546 of 2010, the national Court Ordered the ADR/Mediation to be conducted for identification of landowners and their land to meet the Section 47 (5) requirement. The State and Exxon Mobil did not appealed the National Court Decision and now the state is yet to provide funds for the ADR/Mediation to be conducted and as we discuss, DPE is said to be organizing logistic and making other travel arrangement. What Exxon Mobil and state failed to realize is that the national Court order automatically nullified Section E(15) of the PNGLNG Gas Agreement which the State and Exxon Mobil signed on 22 May 2008. Therefore, if the FSSMLIS is the pre-requisite to obtaining the PDL license, technically and legally Exxon Mobil is operating illegally and the onus is on Exxon Mobil to agree and do the FSSMLIS itself than anyone else as required by law. Pending Exxon Mobil meeting Section 47(5) requirement of the law, Exxon Mobil is illegally operating on customary land and its operation is unlawful - period. regards

Thank you Stephen for your comment. I am in broad agreement with your view that the LNG project should not have proceeded without prior identification of landowners, an issue of legal significance to all parties. The issue of reception/acceptance is not, I think, in this instance dispositive. What is at issue is not whether I think the studies were inadequate but instead whether or not the submitted studies supported the legal parameters for landowner identification and facilitated a legally sound Ministerial determination. On this point I believe that the developer (and their consultants) proved resistant to advice and unswayed by persuasion, preferring instead to pursue anthropological truths. The result has been a train wreck and, understandably, there are a number of people who don’t want to read the accident report. The Rimbunan Hijau Case conveys some salutary warnings. Firstly, it defines the SMLIS obligations (i.e. the need to identify landowners) as con-joint to both developer/exploiter and government. Secondly, it implies that there is a continuing obligation on the part of the developer/exploiter/government to ensure that the properly identified landowners are paid their entitlements. Thirdly, the Court has given notice that it is open for the Court to find that the joint venture parties (which includes the State) may have failed to either create or maintain a ‘social licence to operate’. This latter point is of considerable importance in the context of the general debate about natural resource development policy in PNG. Cheers, Vailala

I have been fortunate to know Sean for a decent part of my life. He was a couple of years behind me at school and our paths have crossed often since. A person of great integrity and sincerity and it was an honour for me to make a small contribution to The Embarrassed Colonialist.

Stephen, you are right in that the State and Exxon Mobil reached an agreement and they signed the gas Agreement on the basis that Social Mapping landowner Identification Studies was done as per Section E(15)of the PNGLNG GAs Agreement. What I am saying now is that the national Decision OS No.546 of 2010 nullified that particular Section as Exxon Mobil as the Licensee did not comply with Section 47(5) requirement of the Oil & Gas Act. Exxon Mobil and the State did not appealed the National Court Decision and the ADR mediation is progressing in Angore PRL 11/PDL 08 as we have this discussion. Therefore, pending the completion of the ADR/mediation Exxon Mobil as the licensee is yet to comply with Section 47(5) requirement of the Oil & Gas Act. That is why I insist that Exxon Mobil is operating with out legal license. DPE also agrees that Exxon is yet to comply with Section 47(5) requirement and copy of the news paper article by the current secretary was sent to you via your email/gmail. it is an issue Exxon Mobil need to sit down with genuine landowners and talk social license as legal license is too costly and may not be easy to reach. As social engineer, I can assist in this regard if Exxon Mobil can agree on working through the social licensing process. regards john

Vailala, Thank you - this is the case of 'the truth and the honour don't always win' scenario. The fact of the matter is the customary landowners, the State and the project developers are not above the relevant laws contained therein the Oil & Gas Act, especially Section 47 (5) which states clearly that the Licensee (Exxon Mobil) shall complete the full Scale Social Mapping and Landowner Identification Studies (FSSMLIS) and submit that together with the application for Petroleum Development License (PDL). Has Exxon done the FSSMLIS? The fact is that it has not. It only did Preliminary Social Mapping and Landowner Identification Studies at the time when the PNG LNG Gas Agreement was signed on 22 May 2008. That is why on the cover of the agreement, Hides 4, Angore and Juha gas fields where under Petroleum Retention License (PRL) when the agreement was signed. In 2009 the UBSA and LBBSA was signed but some landowner took the matter to court, yet PDL was somehow granted and in 2010 under OS No.546 of 2010 the National Court Order ADR/Mediation. Today as I comment, the State and ADR mediation team a preparing for logistic arrangement to continue the ADR mediation program which was suspended in 2015 due to funding problem. Therefore, technically and legally pending the completion of the ADR/mediation Exxon Mobil is operating without legal license as it is, as the license is yet to comply with Section 47(5) requirement of the Oil & Gas Act and if it continues to ignore this truth it is only inviting jungle justice and this is dangerous in a place like the Hela region. regards

Thank you Stephen and Sachini. Really informative summary of the status quo. Helpful to see where and who needs further assistance. Gender balance an ongoing issue but much more in the spotlight now which is good. Yes you're right that after many years of trial there is now significant broad based experience for growers to be far more confident in taking that leap of faith.

I'm glad that this article continues to generate interest, but I continue to beg to differ. Exxon prepared the required studies. The government didn't only receive them; the government accepted them. So I don't think you can blame Exxon for not doing the studies or not doing the right type of studies. Where I think all parties are at fault is in proceeding with construction without a determination as to who the relevant landowners are. That's against the law, and I think that should be the focus rather than the studies, which, however, inadequate you might think they are, were completed and accepted by the government.

A great piece. Sean Dorney is a legend. I was fortunate to meet and converse with him last december in Port Moresby. For a young Papua New Guinean I would say that he is a all round Papua New Guinean guy who loves this country! I wish you all the best Sean.

Thanks for another good post Tess, and for capturing Sean Dorney's incredible legacy for the Pacific, PNG and Australia. I had the good fortune to first meet the 'man behind the Radio Australia voice' a decade ago in Vanuatu, and Sean's uncanny nose for public interest stories and journalistic integrity has been both an inspiration and reminder of what our Pacific media can strive for. Wish Sean all the best.