Sounding Board
Some questions about Spratlys deal
By Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J.
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 00:53:00 03/17/2008
Filed Under: Politics, Spratlys
MANILA, Philippines - Let me raise some questions about the contract PNOC signed with China and Vietnam regarding some activities in the Spratlys area. We need clear and convincing answers from those who can give them.
First, the contract says that it covers 142,886 square kilometers. It will help if the administration will release what in technical terms this means. What territory does it cover? Does it include undisputed Philippine territory or the exclusive economic zone or only territory disputed among Asean states?
If it involves activities in disputed territory where the common opponent of Asean nations is China, what effect does the Philippines’ action have on the common stand of the Asean nations against China?
If it involves territory or the exclusive economic zone clearly within the jurisdiction of the Philippines, which I suspect it does, there is need to understand the nature of the activity that is contemplated.
The second question therefore is, What kind of activity is envisioned? Here there is need for an explanation of the technical terms used in the contract which was an outgrowth of “discussions with a view of engaging in a joint research of petroleum resource potential of certain areas of the South China sea.” The discussions led to the “Agreement for Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking.”
This brings us to a key technical aspect of the agreement. As Article 4.1 says: “It is agreed that certain amount of 2D and/or 3D seismic lines shall be collected and processed and certain amount of existing 2D seismic lines shall be reprocessed within the Agreement Term.”
Not being a geologist or geophysicist myself I sought help in trying to understand what “seismic lines” are. Let the geologists and geophysicists correct me if I am wrong, but this is part of what I found in an article titled “Looking for Oil and Gas.”
“Several geologic elements are necessary for oil and gas to accumulate in sufficient quantities to create a pool large enough to be worth producing. These elements include an organic-rich source rock to generate the oil or gas, a porous reservoir rock to store the petroleum in, and some sort of trap to prevent the oil and gas from leaking away. . . .
“To find a convergence in the subsurface of the geologic elements necessary to form an oil or gas pool requires a careful blend of science and art. To discover what geometries and compositions the rocks might possess deep underground, geologists examine the rocks where they are exposed in surface outcrops, or they examine aerial photographs and satellite images when surface access is limited. Geologists also work closely with geophysicists to integrate seismic lines and other types of geophysical data into their interpretations ...
“Seismic lines in the old days were just that ... two-dimensional lines created by laying the geophones out in single line. But today, the data is commonly collected as an intersecting grid of seismic lines referred to as 3-D seismic volume. Data collected in this fashion may even be used to help create 3-D computer models of the underground geometries of the rocks.
“Geologic and geophysical clues are enticing, but drilling is the only way to learn if an oil or gas field really exists. . . .”
My own non-scientific mind concludes from this material that drawing and analyzing seismic lines are part of the business of oil and gas exploration prior to actual drilling. It is not pre-exploration activity but part and parcel of the exploration to determine if there are clues which can justify the next step, drilling.
A third question therefore is whether such activity is already covered by the constitutional provision on the natural resources of the nation.
Article XII, Section 2 says: “The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens.”
The activities covered by this provision are three: “exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources.” These activities are open only to the state working alone, or to the state jointly with Filipino individuals or Filipino corporations.
How does the controversial agreement measure against these requirements considering that China has a big role? Although the Palace apologists correctly say that only the Supreme Court can give the final answer, there is nothing to prevent especially the Senate from looking for answers. In fact, Congress has a special role to play in this matter, as a fourth question will show.
The fourth question is whether foreign entities can have a role in the exploration and development of natural resources. The last two paragraphs of Article XII, Section 2 authorize the President, and not anybody else, to enter into financial and technical agreements with foreign corporations, and the President must notify Congress about such agreements within 30 days from execution.
To my mind the JMSU is not a “financial or technical assistance agreement” but a “joint venture” with a prohibited corporation. Worse yet, the contract contains a secrecy clause in complete disregard of the constitutionally guaranteed right of the people to information on matters of public concern.
|
