George Naumof
Senior inspector
Romanian Naval Authority
Dear Professor Erik Rosaeg,
After reading your letter on 10 September 2007 I try to express my opinion on the draft resolution you proposed.
As I mentioned before, these letters are an exercise for me. I have not behind me the practice of the LNG terminals operations or of the LNG trade. What I know is that the implementation of an international convention or a law must be done with the instruments offered by the respective convention or law, respecting the spirit and the wording of them.
Referring Recommendation 1:
It is suggested to be introduced in equation the receiver of the LNG cargo.
Referring at the first variant.
As I understood from the wording of the HNS Convention, the receiver of the LNG cargo is not an actor in this convention, but through the implementation law the receiver of the LNG cargo should become an actor having a very ungrateful role: to obtain from the person liable to pay contribution a security for a limited amount to the satisfaction of the HNS Fund Secretariat.
Here is introduced another strange element, respectively a security for a limited amount. Such a security for the person liable to pay contribution is not foreseen in the HNS Convention. Consequently, nor the Assembly, nor the Director, nor the Secretariat of the HNS Fund have the attribution to establish a limited amount for the security.
Furthermore, who is in charge to appraise and validate as valuable the security and the surety which offers such a security? As I understood, the receiver of the LNG cargo will appraise the validity of the security.
Referring at the second variant.
The same observation, the receiver of the LNG cargo should become an actor, but having another role, respectively the role of the surety for the person liable to pay contribution. And in this variant it is not respected the spirit and the wording of the HNS Convention, respectively the contribution will be not paid by the person liable to pay contribution.
As I understood, these proposed methods are to be applied only in the case of the contributors which are not subject to the jurisdiction of a state party. For sure these categories of titleholders/receivers will have additional costs to obtain/offer such a security. Therefore, discrimination between titleholders of LNG or between receivers of the LNG cargo will be introduced and the free competition will be distorted.
Referring Recommendation 2:
I agree with the recommendation 2, but not in whole.
In my opinion, the reports of the states parties may be based only on the information submitted by the contributors (self declaration). The delation (denouncement) of others should not be reliable for a state to base its report. The information provided by others could be incorrect, incomplete or obsolete and could be not recognized by the person liable to pay contribution, but the responsibility on this information belongs to the state party and, if will be produced a prejudice to the HNS Fund, then will be applied art. 21(4) of the HNS Convention.
Referring Recommendation 3:
I agree with the core of the recommendation 3, but I didn’t understand how States Parties could apply it to fulfill their obligations under Article 6 of the HNS Convention.
I am sorry that my opinions differ from yours. I understood your message inserted in the point 2.4 of the draft Resolution, but I am not in the position to submit proposals in a separate paper to IOPC Fund Assembly.
I agree that the recommendations proposed by you will have the result to improve the collection of the levies for the LNG account and, imposing such measures through an internal law, will be helped the implementation process of the HNS Convention.
I expect the decision of the IOPC Fund 1992 Assembly on this draft resolution and I will propose a draft implementation law in Romania harmonized with this approved recommendations.
Best regards,
George Naumof
Bucuresti, 17 September 2007