Academic literature on the topic 'Title to petroleum'

Commercial people often draw an analogy between the Torrens system and the system of registration of petroleum tenements to reach the conclusion that title to petroleum tenements is indefeasible or secure. The analogy is a false analogy.This paper examines some of the fundamental principles relevant to title to petroleum tenements to demonstrate why titles are not as secure as is sometimes supposed. The paper also highlights some of the key points resources lawyers need to remember when they consider title.In its conclusion, the paper outlines the reasons why Torrens system legislation is inappropriate for petroleum tenements. It also suggests some simple reforms the State Governments might introduce to improve security of title.

This paper focusses on onshore exploration and production because the right to negotiate does not apply offshore. However, the Native Title Act can be relevant to offshore oil and gas explorers and producers. First, where their area of interest includes an island within the jurisdiction of Western Australia. Secondly, in respect of land required for the facilities to treat petroleum piped ashore.Under the original Native Title Act the right to negotiate proved unworkable, the expedited procedure failed to facilitate the grant of exploration titles and titles granted after 1 January 1994 were probably invalid.The paper examines the innovations introduced by the amended Native Title Act to consider whether it will be more 'workable' for petroleum explorers and producers. It examines some of categories of future acts in respect of which the right to negotiate does not apply (specifically indigenous land use agreements, renewals and extensions of titles, procedures for infrastructure titles, reserve land, water resources, low impact future acts, approved exploration etc acts and the expedited procedure).Other innovations include the new registration test for native title claims, the validation of pre-Wik titles, the amended right to negotiate procedure, the State implementation of the right of negotiate procedure and the objection and adjudication procedure for grants on pastoral land.The response of each state and territory parliament to the amended Act is considered, as is the Federal Court decision in the Miriuwung Gajerrong land claim (particularly the finding that native title includes resources, questioning whether these resources extend to petroleum).The paper observes that the full impact of the new Act cannot be determined until the states and territories have passed complementary legislation and it is all in operation. However, the paper's preliminary conclusion is that it does not provide a workable framework for the interaction between petroleum companies and native title claimants.The writer's view is that the right to negotiate procedure is unworkable if relied upon to obtain the grant of a title. If a proponent wishes to develop a project in any commercially acceptable timeframe, it will have to negotiate an agreement with native title claimants. The paper's conclusion is that a negotiated agreement is the only way to cope with native title issues.

There is now a greater degree of certainty for the petroleum industry in Native Title law following the High Court’s decisions in Ward v Western Australia1 and Wilson v Anderson2. Both decisions were handed down on 8 August 2002. Ward in particular is the most significant Native Title decision in Australia since the High Court’s decision in Wik v Queensland3 in 1996. This paper presents an analysis of the issues dealt with in Ward and Wilson v Anderson with particular emphasis on the application for petroleum. The paper will also illustrate that while greater certainty flows from these decisions, it is still necessary for petroleum and resource companies to engage with Native Title groups (particularly by negotiating agreements) to enable the valid grant of titles and tenements to land subject to Native Title.

This paper explains the claimant and the future act processes of the Commonwealth Native Title Act and their operation in Western Australia, particularly in relation to petroleum titles. It then outlines the WA Government's response and future directives, focussing on the amendments needed to produce workable native title legislation.

The judgement of the High Court of Australia in 1992 in Mabo v. Queensland has had a major impact on land law in Australia.The Native Titles Act, 1993, is the first of what will be many steps in a long, complex legislative program to integrate 'native title', into Australia's land law.Those drafting the Native Title Act seemed to have concentrated on dealing with 'native title' issues in isolation and to have ignored or put to one side the need for it to mesh with other aspects of land law. This has created uncertainty for many users of land and will require review.Although the contrary was intended, the Act creates, in practical terms, significant uncertainty for renewal of existing oil and gas exploration and production titles. It also has implications for applicants for new titles and in due course for farmouts and assignments.Eventually additional legislation will be required to clarify the relationship of native title with the other areas of land law.

Secure title is necessary for petroleum exploration and production. Without it, he who spends the risk money may not reap the rewards. The Petroleum Act 1923-1990 is the Queensland legislation under which exploration and production titles are granted. It is 1923 legislation which has been amended from time to time. It suffers from uncertainties in areas including application and granting procedures, and title transfer and administration procedures. The Petroleum Act by its terms requires the provisions of the Mineral Resources Act 1989-1990 to be read into it and this has emphasised the need for amendment and preferably replacement. There are indications that a review of the Petroleum Act will be carried out in the near future. To minimise the possibility of unfavourable replacement legislation, the industry must address and decide the principles it favours.

The mosaic of the common law relating to Native Title, which underpins the Native Title and other Acts, continues to be filled in by the courts increasing certainty for all parties. Last year saw the High Court’s Ward decision—the most significant decision for the petroleum industry since Mabo in 1992. Since then there have been three more important decisions, which while not making new law, have shown how the principles enunciated in Ward and Yorta Yorta are being applied. Some of the cases examined include the Daniel and De Rose Hill decisions, which have application to petroleum tenements.This paper will outline the recent developments, and demonstrate how the decisions have reduced uncertainty, thereby narrowing the areas about which negotiation must occur. The hurdle for proving the existence of Native Title remains high.It has not all been in favour of industry, however. Increasingly, Native Title cases, such as Daniels have resulted in unexpected findings that some conventional titles had been invalidly granted. Titles which seemingly ought to have extinguished Native Title have turned out to be invalid, and in many cases irretrievably so. The paper looks at the implications of this for industry as well.

This paper is principally concerned with native title issues as they affect oil and gas exploration and production. However, it also reviews Aboriginal heritage laws and practices because they have the potential to be just as disruptive to an expeditious exploration program or to the construction of a production facility as do native title claims.The paper focusses on onshore petroleum exploration and production because the right to negotiate under the Native Title Act (NTA) does not apply offshore. However, the paper does consider offshore because the NTA can still affect offshore petroleum explorers and producers; either because their area of interest could include an island within a State or Territory jurisdiction or because the facilities to treat the offshore oil and gas could be located onshore.The paper examines the key provisions of the NTA which are relevant to petroleum explorers and producers, principally the subject of tenure to ground. It considers the validity of already granted titles. It then examines the process of application for new titles.Although the NTA is the common source of problems throughout Australia, it is necessary for the paper to consider the situation in each State and Territory, since the titles are different and the government processes of dealing with native title issues differs in each jurisdiction.Although the focus of the paper is on how to cope with the right to negotiate, the paper considers some of the categories of future acts in respect of which the right to negotiate does not apply (specifically, procedures for infrastructure titles, renewals and extensions of titles, the expedited procedure, indigenous land use agreements, reserve land and approved exploration etc acts).The paper mentions the Federal Court decisions in the Miriuwung Gajerrong and Croker Island native title claims and ponders the options for the High Court in deciding the recent appeals.The paper’s conclusion is that a negotiated agreement is the only way to cope with native title issues. The contents of such an agreement are considered.

The existence of native title in Australia was recognised by the High Court in its historic Mabo No. 2 judgment on 3 June 1992. Native title is a shorthand expression used to describe those activities pursued by native peoples in connection with their traditional lands, in accordance with traditional law and custom. It could be extinguished in many ways, and once extinguished cannot be revived. Following an intense public debate, the Commonwealth enacted the Native Title Act (NTA) which, for most purposes, commenced on 1 January 1994. The NTA recognises and protects native title, enabling its future extinguishment in only limited cases, principally by government acquisition for public purposes which are actually fulfilled. The High Court decision and the NTA are both constructed around the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA) which has a dual limb operation. Where laws omit inclusion of people on racial grounds, the RDA uplifts the rights of those people to equate with all other citizens. Where such laws prohibit people on racial grounds, the prohibition provisions will be ineffective. The former limb extends principles of due process and compensation to persons dispossessed of their native title after commencement of the RDA on 21 October 1975. By so doing, existing petroleum tenements probably avoided invalidity, leaving the question of compensation alive for tenements created after that date. Alternatively, the NTA enables those tenements to be validated by legislation, and provides for compensation in appropriate cases. Since 1 January 1994, the RDA imposes a non-extinguishment principle into the general law, whereby granted tenements will not extinguish native title, only displace it for the life of the grant enabling the native title rights to then be resumed. Further Court cases, legislation and proposed international treaties are all now in the course of development, with the combined capacity of expanding native title concepts. Australia is still at the beginning of the evolution of legal recognition of native title.

Since the introduction of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) and its subsequent amendment in 1998, the main focus for developing pipeline projects was on native title issues. Cultural heritage was seen as a more operational matter and not one that would affect the ability to operate or construct pipelines. With higher standards being set by the High Court for native title claimants to maintain a claim, the management of cultural heritage issues (as opposed to the protection of native title rights) are now forming a significant part of negotiations between project proponents and indigenous groups for the development of petroleum projects.State, Territory and Commonwealth legislation dealing with Aboriginal cultural heritage also provides a more immediate source of obligations on project proponents. Even when all regulatory authorities and approvals are held, this legislation can provide affected parties the ability to stop projects if proponents ignore the requirements to protect and manage Aboriginal cultural heritage.This paper briefly examines how cultural heritage issues and native title issues interact from a practical viewpoint and then goes on to provide an overview of cultural heritage legislation throughout Australia including a focus on the unique model adopted in Queensland through the introduction of the ‘cultural heritage duty of care’.This paper then provides examples of what companies will need to do to comply with statutory obligations in minimising harm to cultural heritage through examples of common inclusions in cultural heritage management plans, together with identifying issues that are often forgotten to the detriment of a project in such plans. It also points out why cultural heritage issues may need more immediate actions in comparison with native title issues for the development and construction of new petroleum projects.