Monrovia – Liberia’s offshore petroleum sector is facing renewed scrutiny after the National Oil Company of Liberia (NOCAL) announced separate agreements with two foreign firms to conduct offshore survey activities in the Liberia and Harper Basins, raising questions about regulatory authority, licensing requirements, and compliance with the country’s Petroleum Law.
By Gerald C. Koinyeneh, gerald.koinyeneh@frontpageafricaonline.com
The agreements, signed with GeoPartners Limited and Searcher Geodata UK Ltd, are being promoted by NOCAL as important steps toward advancing Liberia’s offshore energy ambitions through the acquisition of new geological and geophysical data. However, the deals have sparked criticism from transparency advocates and prompted a cautious response from the Liberia Petroleum Regulatory Authority (LPRA), which maintains that such activities fall within Liberia’s reconnaissance licensing framework.
NOCAL Vice President Boakai Jaleiba described the agreements as a significant milestone in Liberia’s efforts to better understand its offshore resource potential.
“We are pleased to share an important development for Liberia’s offshore energy sector,” Jaleiba said. “NOCAL has entered into an agreement with GeoPartners Limited to advance offshore survey activities in the Liberia and Harper Basins.”
According to Jaleiba, GeoPartners will conduct a multibeam seep survey involving seabed mapping technology designed to identify geological features that may indicate the presence of hydrocarbons beneath the ocean floor. Under the agreement, GeoPartners will acquire, process, and market survey data collected within designated offshore areas.
NOCAL also announced a separate agreement with Searcher Geodata UK Ltd to acquire, process, and market new 3D seismic data offshore Liberia. The company has reportedly been granted exclusive rights to market and license the data for seven years under a multi-client survey arrangement intended to attract international exploration companies.
Jaleiba said the agreements would ensure the continued collection of reliable technical data needed to support future exploration decisions and encourage investment in Liberia’s offshore sector.
Legal Questions Surface
The announcements have triggered concerns among civil society actors and legal observers who argue that the agreements may effectively grant reconnaissance and geophysical survey rights without authorization from the LPRA, the statutory regulator responsible for overseeing petroleum activities.
The Liberia Early Warning Watch (LEW-Watch), a civil society monitoring institution, questioned the legality of the arrangements, arguing that the contracts appear to authorize activities that fall under Liberia’s petroleum licensing regime.
“The contracts grant the two firms rights to conduct offshore geophysical surveys across the Liberia and Harper Basins—activities that Liberia’s petroleum law reserves for companies licensed by the Liberia Petroleum Regulatory Authority,” the organization said in a statement.
According to LEW-Watch, both the multibeam seep survey and the proposed 3D seismic acquisition qualify as “reconnaissance” activities under Liberia’s Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Reform Law, which defines reconnaissance as the acquisition of geological, geophysical, and geochemical data for petroleum assessment purposes.
The group cited Section 11.1 of the law, which requires any company seeking to conduct reconnaissance activities to obtain a reconnaissance license from the LPRA before operations begin.
Exclusive Rights Raise Additional Concerns
LEW-Watch further argued that the Searcher agreement raises additional legal questions because it grants the company seven years of exclusive rights to market and license offshore seismic data.
The organization pointed to Section 12.2 of the Petroleum Law, which provides that exclusive reconnaissance licenses may only be awarded through a competitive bidding process conducted by the LPRA, including bidder prequalification and formal evaluation procedures.
“There is no public record indicating that such a process was conducted,” the organization stated, adding that the arrangement could undermine the safeguards intended to ensure transparency and competition in the management of Liberia’s petroleum resources.
NOCAL Defends Agreements
NOCAL President and Chief Executive Officer Fabian Michael Lai has rejected claims that the corporation acted outside its legal mandate.
In comments provided to FrontPage Africa, Lai argued that Sections 11 and 12 of the Petroleum Law recognize a role for NOCAL in the administration of reconnaissance activities and related petroleum data management functions.
“Section 11 of the Petroleum Law provides that any company may apply for a reconnaissance license,” Lai said.
He further noted that the law assigns NOCAL responsibilities in the administration of reconnaissance licenses, participation in bid evaluations, and receipt of financial benefits generated through the licensing process.
According to Lai, these provisions create a conflict of interest that would make it inappropriate for NOCAL itself to apply directly for a reconnaissance license.
“If NOCAL applies for a reconnaissance license, it would be managing a license it owns, participating in the evaluation process, and benefiting from decisions in which it is involved,” Lai argued. “This creates a conflict of interest, raises questions of fairness, and increases the risk of legal challenge.”
Lai maintained that the law instead contemplates NOCAL’s participation through joint ventures, partnerships, and commercial arrangements with specialized technical firms.
He stressed that the agreements with GeoPartners and Searcher should not be interpreted as transfers of sovereign petroleum rights.
“NOCAL recognizes the important regulatory role of the Liberia Petroleum Regulatory Authority,” the corporation said in a statement. “At the same time, the NOCAL Act and related petroleum legislation confer operational, commercial, and petroleum data management responsibilities on NOCAL, including responsibilities for the administration and commercialization of petroleum-related technical data.”
NOCAL further argued that the use of specialized contractors and commercial data partners is standard practice across the international petroleum industry and does not automatically amount to the transfer of regulatory authority.
LPRA Reasserts Regulatory Mandate
While not directly naming NOCAL, the LPRA issued a strongly worded statement reaffirming its authority over petroleum licensing and reconnaissance activities.
The Authority emphasized that seismic surveys, basin studies, subsurface data acquisition, geoscientific assessments, and related petroleum evaluations are governed by Part IV of the Petroleum Law and therefore require compliance with LPRA-administered licensing requirements.
“Activities involving seismic surveys, basin studies, subsurface data acquisition, geo-scientific assessments, or similar technical petroleum evaluations fall within the reconnaissance framework established under Part IV of the Petroleum Law and are therefore subject to the applicable licensing and regulatory requirements administered by LPRA,” the Authority stated.
LPRA urged all operators, contractors, technical partners, and investors intending to undertake petroleum-related activities in Liberia to engage the regulator and secure all necessary approvals before commencing operations.
Implications for Liberia’s Energy Sector
The dispute has revived longstanding questions about the division of responsibilities between NOCAL and the LPRA under Liberia’s petroleum governance framework.
While LPRA serves as the sector’s independent regulator, NOCAL functions as the state-owned oil company with commercial and advisory responsibilities. The apparent disagreement over the interpretation of the Petroleum Law now threatens to create uncertainty at a time when Liberia is seeking to attract renewed investment in offshore exploration.
Energy sector observers warn that conflicting public positions from the two institutions could complicate efforts to market Liberia’s offshore potential and raise concerns among prospective investors regarding regulatory certainty.
“There is a need for the Legislature to step in and resolve this brewing tension by revisiting the law to correct and make clear any ambiguity or conflicting clauses,” said an energy expert.
As scrutiny intensifies, key questions remain unresolved: Did NOCAL exceed its legal authority by entering into offshore survey agreements without LPRA authorization, or is the corporation acting within a legitimate interpretation of its statutory mandate?
The answer may ultimately determine not only the future relationship between NOCAL and LPRA, but also investor confidence in Liberia’s offshore petroleum governance regime.
