Pipeline financing - Norton Rose Fulbright | Global law · PDF file ·...
8
Pipeline financing Ten things to know Financial institutions Energy Infrastructure, mining and commodities Transport Technology and innovation Life sciences and healthcare
Transcript of Pipeline financing - Norton Rose Fulbright | Global law · PDF file ·...
Pipeline financingTen things to know
Financial institutionsEnergyInfrastructure, mining and commoditiesTransportTechnology and innovationLife sciences and healthcare
Introduction
Pipeline projects present challenges that other energy projects do not present. Pipelines can run long distances. They can cross borders. They can even run under the sea. Few other assets share these characteristics. Commercial and legal risks therefore may require greater scrutiny. We have advised on over 70 oil and gas pipelines globally, as well as over 40 cable and interconnector projects. We are familiar with the issues that apply in all contexts, including financings, corporate, regulatory, construction and disputes. The ten things below are more focussed on pipeline financings.
01 | Project financing or financing a project?Sponsors of a pipeline may fund the construction of a pipeline purely through equity contributions or other shareholder funds to the project company, but may also wish to obtain debt funding from commercial banks, export credit agencies and/or multilateral financial institutions.
Where the project company is borrowing from third party lenders in order to fund construction costs, the lenders will need to be comfortable that the gas/oil transportation agreement related to the pipeline is bankable, not least because the lenders will typically only have recourse to the revenue stream generated by the pipeline owner from transporting the gas/oil, and will typically have no recourse to any assets not related to the project. Transportation agreements will also typically be structured on an availability/send-or-pay basis, such that the project company is being paid a capacity fee if the pipeline is operational. The capacity fee would be sufficient to cover interest and principal on the project finance loan and other fixed costs. It would also be paid a separate variable fee to cover variable costs. That said, this is a traditional way of project financing a pipeline. There are also examples of lenders having recourse to additional revenue streams of the sponsors relating to the supply agreements.
Where different parts of the overall supply chain (for example, the upstream facilities, the pipeline, and the downstream facilities) are owned by different sponsors and being project-financed by different syndicates, the construction of a pipeline in that chain may be further complicated by the different syndicates’ competing interests.
02 | Corporate structure – IJV vs. UJVA pipeline will often be developed by multiple parties which have an interest in either selling or buying the oil or gas. These parties may own the project by either an incorporated joint venture (“IJV”) or an unincorporated joint venture (“UJV”). The IJV structure is the more traditional form of corporate vehicle selected for pipeline and other project financings. Where a UJV is used, it gives rise to questions of how the pipeline and other assets are owned by the developing sponsors (eg, tenants in common), how are those ownership interests evidenced and what are the rights and obligations which attach to those ownership interests (eg, what are the funding obligations). Where one of the sponsors is seeking to project finance its share of the costs, then that raises additional questions that require its lenders to conduct extensive due diligence on the underlying UJV structure. Cross border pipelines may present additional corporate challenges if different segments are owned by different companies.
03 | Cross-border aspectsPipelines which cross borders will inevitably operate under different legal and regulatory regimes. Consequently, it will be important on any pipeline financing to consider the implications of the lack of a single overarching legal regime. Often, the states through which a pipeline crosses will enter into a treaty or an inter-governmental agreement (“IGA”) setting out the rights and privileges which will be necessary for the construction and operation of the pipeline. It is also possible that an IGA will provide assurance to the lenders that the states involved will not interfere in their interest in the pipeline. Also important is any Host Government Agreement (“HGA”) that the pipeline company will sign with each host country. While the IGA reflects the political will to facilitate the pipeline project among the countries that the pipeline will cross, the HGA may set out the more commercial aspects of how each country will facilitate the pipeline project on its soil (eg, tax treatment, favourable conditions, import of materials and equipment). The Energy Charter Secretariat has produced model agreements for both the IGA and HGA.
Ten things to know about pipeline financings
Pipeline financing – ten things to know
02 Norton Rose Fulbright – June 2013
Attorney advertising
04 | Sub-sea aspectsWhere a pipeline contains an offshore section, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”) may apply. UNCLOS sets out the rights and obligations of the signatory states in their use of the sea and contains guidelines for businesses and the environment. Furthermore, it establishes the Exclusive Economic Zones (“EEZs”) of the signatory states. Broadly speaking, a state’s EEZ is the area from the shoreline to the point 230 miles out to sea. Where a pipeline passes through a state’s EEZ, it will be subject to that state’s legal regime. Generally, within a signatory state’s EEZ, entities incorporated in other signatory states may lay submarine pipelines, subject to compliance with any applicable local laws and regulations.
While most of the world’s states have signed and ratified UNCLOS, there are a few notable exceptions, such as the United States of America and Turkey.
05 | EPC structuresThere are two common approaches to the contractual framework for the engineering, procurement and construction of a pipeline. The project company can contract all the required services through the EPC contractor alone. The EPC contractor will then be obliged, under the terms of the contract with the project company, to procure all necessary services, by itself contracting with, for example, the pipe supplier and the vessel charter company.
Alternatively, the project company can contract separately with each contractor. In this scenario, the project company would have separate contracts with a pipe supplier to supply the pipes and a contractor to build the pipeline; where there is a sub-sea element, it would also have a contract for chartering the vessels to lay the pipes. This gives rise to enhanced interface risk, although this would not necessarily make it impossible to obtain project financing as there are established mitigants to interface risk. That said, where the sponsors are seeking to obtain project financing, then this contractual structure becomes subject to additional scrutiny as lenders will wish to ensure that the contract(s) required to build the pipeline are as time and cost certain as possible.
06 | Regulatory and competition (antitrust) issues, such as third party accessRegulatory and competition (antitrust) law issues will need to be considered in relation to the construction and operation of a pipeline and merger filings to relevant competition (antitrust) authorities may be needed in relation to the establishment of the project company.
The regulatory and competition (antitrust) rules may require the operator of a pipeline to operate the pipeline in a way which is less than optimal with regards to its interests, and by extension, those of the lenders. For example, in the European Union, refusing third parties access to spare capacity in the pipeline could fall foul of the EU regulatory regime and/or infringe the competition law prohibition on the abuse of a dominant position within the market, since as a general rule EU law requires third parties to be granted access to a pipeline where capacity is available (subject to limited exceptions) on the basis of non-discriminatory and cost-reflective tariffs. Depending on the relevant jurisdiction through which the pipeline passes, the charge which the third party then pays the project company may be set either by the project company (and the project company may be obliged to publish such rates on, for example, an annual basis) or by that jurisdiction’s government.
It is, however, possible for major new infrastructure (including pipelines) to be granted an exemption from the regulatory third party access requirements for a certain period of time, since the European Commission and national energy regulators in the individual EU Member States recognise that investments in such infrastructure – whether cross-border or not – may be risky. An exemption may be granted if a number of conditions are satisfied. For example, it needs to be shown that the investment will enhance competition in the supply of gas in the EU; charges will need to be levied on any users of the infrastructure, and the level of risk attached to the investment should be such that the investment would not take place unless an exemption was granted.
The regulatory regime in the EU also requires the ownership and operation of a pipeline to be separated (“unbundled”) from any gas production, electricity generation and gas or electricity supply operations, which means that in many of the EU Member States the ownership of the pipeline and its operation must be fully separated from any production or supply operations.
Pipeline financing – ten things to know
Norton Rose Fulbright – June 2013 03
07 | The importance of the transportation agreementThe transportation agreement is a vital component of a pipeline financing, as it will usually represent the sole (or at the very least, the main) source of revenue for the project to service its debt. The transportation agreement is typically an availability-based contract, where the basis of the shipper’s obligation to pay is (generally speaking) independent of whether or not it ships gas or oil through the pipeline. This is known as a ship-or-pay basis.
It is important that the ship-or-pay obligation of the shipper is sufficiently tight in order to ensure certainty of payment. Key considerations include whether the obligation survives the occurrence of an event of force majeure to the pipeline, whether the shipper has a right of set-off against any amounts owed to it by the project company, and whether local law impacts on the enforceability of such an unconditional obligation.
08 | Supply riskA key risk to a pipeline financing is that there are either insufficient supplies to take up the pipeline’s capacity, or inadequate infrastructure to bring the gas or oil to the pipeline’s entry point. To a certain extent, the ship-or-pay obligations in the transportation agreement may mitigate these risks from the lenders’ perspective, but the project company’s ability to make full use of the pipeline will nonetheless be reduced if, for example, there is no shipper able to take up any unused capacity which is not subject to the initial gas transportation agreement.
09 | Connections on the other side Similarly, a lack of adequate infrastructure or demand for the gas or oil on the other side of the pipeline can impact on the viability of a pipeline financing. Therefore, it will be important to ensure that a sufficiently robust set of gas or oil supply agreements and adequate interconnectors and other onward infrastructure are or will be in place by completion of the pipeline. Where project financing is part of the sources of funding, then lenders will wish to review the connection agreements entered into by the project company as part of their due diligence. Where the pipeline is cross border and the connection agreements are being entered in to with a state-owned operator of a pipeline system, their terms may be regulated by law and not necessarily subject to extensive negotiation nor may direct agreements/consents and acknowledgements always be available for lenders.
10 | Lenders’ security over the pipeline/contents of the pipeline Lenders will take security over the proceeds of the gas transportation (and possibly supply) agreements, along with any other security which local law will permit, such as a pledge of other assets and the project bank accounts. In addition, lenders may require sponsor support from the sellers in the form of, for example, a completion guarantee or an undertaking to contribute further equity upon certain events occurring. Such support will generally fall away upon completion of the pipeline, and the lenders will only be able to rely upon their security over the project from that point onwards. Lenders may seek to take security over the pipeline itself, and/or over the gas/oil travelling through it, although this is not always possible where a cross-border pipeline is being project financed.
Pipeline financing – ten things to know
04 Norton Rose Fulbright – June 2013
Total package
We have been active globally as legal advisers on transactions in the oil & gas sector for many years. Pipeline projects are a core part of our business and we have advised on many high profile domestic and cross-border pipeline transactions. We have extensive experience working with and advising sponsors, lenders, developers, bilateral and multilateral organisations and governments and from this we are familiar with issues frequently encountered on pipelines projects.
More generally, teams from across Norton Rose Fulbright have worked on a wide range of project and trade financings, mergers and acquisitions, securities offerings, investment trusts, privatisations and dispute resolutions. Most of these transactions have involved substantial due diligence and extensive dealings with the relevant governmental authorities, companies concerned and local counsel. Accordingly, we are familiar with the requirements and structures usually sought by project sponsors, lenders and governments alike.
Awards and accolades
“They cover all asset classes and have exceptional strength in numbers” Tier 1 Asset Finance, Global wideChambers Global 2012
Tier 1 Projects and Energy, PowerChambers Global 2012
Tier 2 ProjectsChambers Global 2012
Tier 2 Power Legal 500 2012, UK
Tier 1 Banking and Finance: Project Finance, South AfricaIFLR 1000 2012
Rankings, awards and accolades included in this publication pre-date the combination of Norton Rose and Fulbright and Jaworski LLP on June 3, 2013.
Pipeline financing – ten things to know
Norton Rose Fulbright – June 2013 05
ContactsIf you would like further information please contact:
AfricaMatt AshDirector, Cape TownNorton Rose Fulbright South Africa(incorporated as Deneys Reitz Inc)Tel +27 (0)21 405 [email protected]
Anne LapierrePartner, CasablancaNorton Rose Fulbright Morocco, SARLTel +33 (0)1 56 59 52 [email protected]
AmericasElisabeth EljuriPartner, CaracasDespacho de Abogados Miembros de Norton Rose Fulbright, S.C.Tel +58 (212) [email protected]
Glenn FaassPartner, BogotáNorton Rose Fulbright Colombia S.A.S.Tel + (571) 746 [email protected]
Dave GuichonPartner, CalgaryNorton Rose Fulbright CanadaTel +1 403 267 [email protected]
Leopoldo OlavarríaPartner, CaracasDespacho de Abogados Miembros de Norton Rose Fulbright, S.C.Tel +58 (212) 276 [email protected]
Deborah GitomerPartner, HoustonFulbright & Jaworski LLPTel +1 713 651 [email protected]
Mark TibbertsPartner, New YorkFulbright & Jaworski LLPTel +1 212 318 [email protected]
Gregg W. HarrisPartner, Washington D.C.Fulbright & Jaworski LLPTel +1 202 662 [email protected]
AsiaGeorge GibsonPartner, TokyoNorton Rose Fulbright Gaikokuho Jimu Bengoshi Jimusho– Norton Rose Fulbright (Asia) LLPTel +81 (0)3 5218 [email protected]
Fei KwokPartner, ShanghaiNorton Rose Fulbright LLPTel +86 21 6137 [email protected]
Barbara LiPartner, BeijingNorton Rose Fulbright LLPTel +86 10 6535 [email protected]
Ashley WrightPartner, JakartaSusandarini & Partners in Association with Norton Rose Fulbright AustraliaTel +65 21 2924 [email protected]
AustraliaAlex CullPartner, PerthNorton Rose Fulbright AustraliaTel +61 8 6212 [email protected]
Vincent DwyerPartner, SydneyNorton Rose Fulbright AustraliaTel +61 2 9330 [email protected]
Michael JoycePartner, SydneyNorton Rose Fulbright AustraliaTel +61 2 9330 [email protected]
Pipeline financing – ten things to know
06 Norton Rose Fulbright – June 2013
EuropeDimitris AssimakisPartner, AthensNorton Rose Fulbright Greece*Tel: +30 210 94 75 [email protected]
* Norton Rose Fulbright Greece is the trading name of Norton Rose Fulbright, Sofianopoulos, Tsohou, Cheilas, Kelly, Koroxenidis, Assimakis, Liberopoulos and Partners Law Firm
Simon CurriePartner, LondonNorton Rose Fulbright LLPTel +44 (0)20 7444 [email protected]
Richard HillPartner, LondonNorton Rose Fulbright LLPTel +44 (0)20 7444 [email protected]
Erol HuseyinPartner, LondonNorton Rose Fulbright LLPTel +44 (0)20 7444 [email protected]
Angelica PhillipsPartner, LondonNorton Rose Fulbright LLPTel +44 (0)20 7444 [email protected]
Nick ProwsePartner, LondonNorton Rose Fulbright LLPTel +44 (0)20 7444 [email protected]
Richard MetcalfPartner, LondonNorton Rose Fulbright LLPTel +44 (0)20 7444 [email protected]
Charles WhitneyPartner, LondonNorton Rose Fulbright LLPTel +44 (0)20 7444 [email protected]
Russia/CISAnatoly AndriashPartner, MoscowNorton Rose Fulbright (Central Europe) LLP*Tel +7 499 924 [email protected]
Nick DingemansPartner, MoscowNorton Rose Fulbright (Central Europe) LLP*Tel +7 499 924 [email protected]
Aydin JebrailovPartner, MoscowNorton Rose Fulbright (Central Europe) LLP*Tel +7 499 924 [email protected]
Yerzhan KumarovPartner, KazakhstanNorton Rose Fulbright (Kazakhstan) LimitedTel +7 727 311 [email protected]
Theodoros ZafiropoulosOf Counsel, MoscowNorton Rose Fulbright (Central Europe) LLP*Tel +7 499 924 [email protected]
*Formerly Norton Rose (Central Europe) LLP – applications have been made to authorities in Moscow and are pending approval
Pipeline financing – ten things to know
Norton Rose Fulbright – June 2013 07
References to ‘Norton Rose Fulbright’, ‘the law fi rm’, and ‘legal practice’ are to one or more of the Norton Rose Fulbright members or to one of their respective affi liates (together ‘Norton Rose Fulbright entity/entities’). Save that exclusively for the purposes of compliance with US bar rules, where Robert Harrell will be responsible for the content of this publication, no individual who is a member, partner, shareholder, director, employee or consultant of, in or to any Norton Rose Fulbright entity (whether or not such individual is described as a ‘partner’) accepts or assumes responsibility, or has any liability, to any person in respect of this communication. Any reference to a partner or director is to a member, employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifi cations of the relevant Norton Rose Fulbright entity. The purpose of this communication is to provide information as to developments in the law. It does not contain a full analysis of the law nor does it constitute an opinion of any Norton Rose Fulbright entity on the points of law discussed. You must take specifi c legal advice on any particular matter which concerns you. If you require any advice or further information, please speak to your usual contact at Norton Rose Fulbright.
Norton Rose FulbrightNorton Rose Fulbright is a global legal practice. We provide the world’s pre-eminent corporations and financial institutions with a full business law service. We have more than 3800 lawyers based in over 50 cities across Europe, the United States, Canada, Latin America, Asia, Australia, Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia.
Recognized for our industry focus, we are strong across all the key industry sectors: financial institutions; energy; infrastructure, mining and commodities; transport; technology and innovation; and life sciences and healthcare.
Wherever we are, we operate in accordance with our global business principles of quality, unity and integrity. We aim to provide the highest possible standard of legal service in each of our offices and to maintain that level of quality at every point of contact.
Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright Australia, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa (incorporated as Deneys Reitz Inc) and Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, each of which is a separate legal entity, are members (‘the Norton Rose Fulbright members’) of Norton Rose Fulbright Verein, a Swiss Verein. Norton Rose Fulbright Verein helps coordinate the activities of the Norton Rose Fulbright members but does not itself provide legal services to clients. This publication was produced prior to June 3, 2013 when Fulbright & Jaworski LLP became a member of Norton Rose Fulbright Verein.
nortonrosefulbright.com
© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP NRF16069 06/13 (UK) Extracts may be copied provided their source is acknowledged.
