Turkey, Israel, and Greece weigh in on Cyprus drilling plans

The rapidly shifting politics of the eastern Mediterranean have become even more complex in recent days, as Turkey has warned Cyprus to avoid exploratory drilling off the coast - work which would be undertaken with Israel, fast becoming Turkey’s regional rival.

Greek-speaking Cyprus is pledging to press ahead with plans to begin exploring its offshore resources, despite a lack of agreement on the exact maritime boundary with Turkish-speaking Northern Cyprus, which is only recognised by Turkey. EU member Cyprus has turned to Israel for support: the two countries demarcated their maritime boundary in December 2010, and both have contracted Noble Energy to explore the offshore deposits along their mutual border.

Turkey has responded angrily, warning against “adventurist policies” by Cyprus and threatening to agree a maritime border with Turkish Cyprus, which would enable them to pursue oil and gas exploration but would also stoke tensions with other regional players. Speaking on 8th September, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said that Turkey, "as a guarantor of the Turkish republic of north Cyprus, has taken steps in the area, and it will be decisive and holding fast to the right to monitor international waters in the east Mediterranean”.

Greece has also weighed in to back Cyprus – it is also likely to have been the driving force behind an EU statement on 9th September that warned Turkey to refrain from threats.

Turkey has no relations with Cyprus, and once-warm ties with Israel have plummeted to a new low, with Ankara repeatedly threatening to deploy warships into the eastern Mediterranean. Along with an increasingly tense dispute between Israel and Lebanon over their maritime boundary (and the gas fields in the border area), the situation in the eastern Mediterranean is becoming increasingly fraught and tangled. Indeed, rumours have circled that Cyprus is planning to keep its military on alert during offshore drilling.

The next steps are not clear. Turkey’s recent bullish behaviour is mainly directed at Israel, but the connection between Cyprus and Israel over developing gas fields is widening the dispute significantly. Ankara’s sudden insistence on joint exploration with Turkish Cyprus seems partly a rhetorical move: to date, Turkey has shown little passion for prospecting in the area.

Given Ankara’s deteriorating relationship with Tel Aviv, however, and Erdoğan’s fiery assertiveness in the foreign arena, it is plausible that Turkey will actively work to bar Cyprus from drilling in the Mediterranean and start working with the Turkish Cypriots to start exploring energy resources offshore. This could set the stage for an increasingly tense and complex regional situation.

Sources: Reuters, Hürriyet, Bloomberg

A new 'flashpoint'? The Israel-Lebanon maritime border dispute

Overview

At first glance, a new flashpoint in the Middle East appears to be emerging in the form of the disputed maritime border between Israel and Lebanon. The states have not successfully formalised their maritime borders, and this has become problematic with the discovery of natural gas reserves in the Levantine Basin. The discovery of the Tamar and Leviathan fields has prompted speculation that other, similar discoveries stand to be made along the coastline of the eastern Mediterranean. This suggests the increasing criticality of precisely delimited maritime boundaries between the states' exclusive economic zones (EEZs), within which they exclusive rights over natural resource exploitation.

Four hundred and thirty square miles are contested in the present dispute which is made further problematic by the diplomatic relations between the state parties: Lebanon, for example, does not recognise Israel and has left the matter open for resolution by the UN. The UN has said that it cannot take any such action on the basis that the delineation of the maritime boundary between the states is no part of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) mandate. For its part, Israel includes the maritime boundary as but one aspect of the generalised political crisis that it says characterises the entire maritime and land border that separates it from Lebanon. The other major player, the US, has appeared to support the Lebanese position for instrumental reasons, and its representative has sought to depoliticise the current crisis, and frame it in technical and legal terms.

It would seem that the US is on its own, at least in this respect. Media reports have speculated on the potential for a repeat of the war fought between Israel and Lebanon five years ago, with the maritime border as the new, critical factor. But while the dispute may be overtly political it seems that risks of a new confrontation are being exaggerated. Moreover, it may also be that the position adopted by the US with respect to its ally, Israel, is not as unusual as it may first appear; rather, it is the continuation of policy through more nuanced means.

The nature of the dispute

In August 2010 the Lebanese government submitted a map to the UN which, through the use of a border line, defined the extent of its EEZ. This line is to the south of the equivalent line proposed by Israel on 10 July 2011, but its position has been endorsed by the US government. Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel has argued that the Lebanese line contradicts both the lines that both Lebanon and Israel have agreed with Cyprus in, respectively, 2007 and 2010, on the western extents of their EEZs.

In international law, the principle of acquiescence suggests that a right to a claim may be lost if a party remains silent when a unilateral move, i.e. the claim to territory articulated by the Lebanese submission of a map, is made. It was for this reason that the Israeli cabinet approved its own border delimitation during the last week. Lebanon's response has been to signal its commitment to protecting the 2010 borders. The hydrocarbon reserves enclosed by the limits of these overlapping claims are those at the centre of the present dispute. Energy analysts have discussed how Israeli control of them would make Israel a gas-exporting state whereas, at present, its supply is under threat of disruption, the pipeline from Egypt having been repeatedly bombed in recent months.

Elements within the Israeli government have argued that protestations to the Israeli line are made by elements within Lebanon, principally Hezbollah, intent on provoking a conflict. This, to Israeli officials, may represent a maritime Shebaa Farms—the area of territory that Hezbollah has long accused Israel of occupying illegally, but claimed, by Israel, as a part of the Golan Heights—and, thereby, offer the pretext to a conflict. As in the case of the Shebaa Farms, their policy view is that the territory is legitimately held, and that the existence of the dispute and the competing claims presents little more than a rationale for a confrontation provoked by the hostile powers that surround Israel. Indeed, a position used by Israeli politicians is that the present dispute is symptomatic of a relationship with Lebanon, in which elements within the country will seek to thwart everything that Israel seeks to do.

The Lebanese government's position has been that Israel has violated international law, and Lebanese sovereignty, in coming to the 2010 agreement with Cyprus. In January 2011 the Lebanese Foreign Minister wrote to the UN Secretary-General to ask that the UN work to prevent Israeli exploitation of hydrocarbon reserves in within the EEZ determined in the maps submitted by his ministry in August 2010. The Energy Minister, Gebran Bassil, has said that the government plans to auction off concessions in 2012; before then he has said that Lebanon will seek to counter Israel's continuing aggression and retaliate through political and diplomatic means.

The position of the US, and of the senior US diplomat in charge of the Israel-Lebanon brief, Frederic Hof, has been to ensure that the dispute cannot become the pretext for conflict that the Israeli government anticipates. Hof has sought to ameliorate tension through the appearance of appeasement, if not appeasement outright. The US, after all, has a number of private commercial interests within this context; companies are involved in exploratory and research activities in the Levantine Basin. Hof has appeared to back, at least in part, the Lebanese line, and has suggested that Israel submit the dispute to the UN, and indirectly negotiate with Lebanon through this channel, given the non-recognition problem. (Israel has, of course, refused this option and called upon Lebanon to negotiate all of the current border issues, both on land and at sea.) Its commercial interests considered—and its future access to the reserves in question—it is in US interests to adopt a policy that does not automatically privilege its longstanding regional ally in the Middle East. The US has recognised the danger of the pretext in the specific setting and played its hand accordingly; it will back the Lebanese claim to avoid a Shebaa Farms situation at sea and protect the interests of American firms and investors.

The way ahead

Perhaps this apparent marginalisation of Israel by the US makes more sense than at first it might appear. Granted, the commercial interests are important, but two other concerns should also be considered: Israel's energy security (and recognition of the potential disruption of the gas supply to Israel, and the increase in prices that this would dictate); and the actual scale of the natural resource reserves in the disputed area. A third factor, the likelihood of a new conflict, five years on from the border war, is also debatable despite the line peddled by news sources.

The disruption inflicted by recent attacks upon the gas pipeline between Egypt and Israel have shown that attacks on Israeli gas facilities will not be borne lightly. In this sense the US and Israel can work together: Israel can perform a display of jealously guarding its sovereignty, while its more powerful ally can adopt a pragmatic, conciliatory line, and support the Lebanese claim. This may reduce the potential for gas supply disruption to Israel given that the justification for Hezbollah sabotage could evaporate; the US conciliates so that Israel does not have to appear to stoop so low.

With respect to the scale of the deposits in the disputed area, it may be that the problem is being inflated quite falsely. According to one source, the border route that follows the Lebanese course affects only the northern parts of the Alon and Ruth licences which, although they may contain smaller oil and gas deposits, are not the prime concerns of Noble Energy and Delek, the firms that own the licences. Their primary interests are situated further south. If this view is correct then the major consequence of adopting the Lebanese maritime line would only be to delay—and by no means permanently forestall—the development of the less consequential Alon and Ruth licences.

Hof has attempted to frame the dispute in technical and economic terms and to ensure that it does not become a political matter. Perhaps this is in line with an overall US strategy, concerned with protecting Israel but, moreover, with appeasing Iran, Syria and Hezbollah. Put simply, perhaps the stakes are not as high, and maybe Israel is not conceding as much, as the US and Israel might like it to appear at first sight.

In any case, as Eyal Zisser of Tel Aviv University has argued, a conflict between Israel and Lebanon is unlikely. Both sides have a great deal to lose. Rocket attacks on Israel, and the destruction of Lebanese infrastructure would be the consequences, and the 2006 war is still a memory fresh enough to provide a measure of deterrence. Supporting the Lebanese interpretation of the maritime boundary therefore provides the US with a route to protect the Israeli energy supply, articulate a show of its own strength (and independence from Israel), at cost (in resource terms) that is lower than it seems.

Sources: Al Arabiya, Bloomberg, The Financial Times, Haaretz, The Independent, Jerusalem Post, Jewish Week, New Zealand Herald

For more information, please see the Menas Borders website, here.

Egypt to open Rafah crossing to Gaza

The blockade of Gaza was deeply unpopular in Egypt

Egypt has announced it is to open the Rafah border crossing into Gaza from Saturday 28th May.

Israel and Egypt have blockaded Gaza since 2007 when Hamas, an Islamist movement considered to be a terrorist organisation by many governments, took control of the territory.

The blockade was a deeply unpopular part of former Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak's rule, and the transitional military government that was established after his downfall in February said last month that it intended to open the crossing permanently.

The Rafah crossing – the only crossing into Gaza that bypasses Israel – will now be open from 0900 to 2100 every day except Fridays and holidays.

The blockade of Gaza has been condemned by numerous international bodies, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, who in 2010 said it was a clear violation of international humanitarian law, and the UN, whose officials have called it a 'medieval siege'.

It has been called 'collective punishment' for the people of the Gaza strip, most of whom rely heavily on aid and smuggled goods.

Egypt's post-Mubarak government has already helped broker a unity agreement between the two main Palestinian factions – Fatah and Hamas, and have shown a definite coolness towards Israel.

Hamas spokeman Fawzi Barhum celebrated the move as “a courageous and responsible decision which falls in line with Palestinian and Egyptian public opinion.”

"We hope that it is a step towards the complete lifting of the siege on Gaza," he said in a statement, and called on the world "to follow Egypt's example" in breaking the Israeli blockade.

Israel has condemned the decision and vice premier Silvan Shalom said on 26th May that international supervision of the crossing was necessary.

"This is a dangerous development that could lead to weapons and al-Qa'ida smuggling into Gaza," Shalom said.

Israel eased the restriction on the region somewhat last summer following a surge of international pressure after an Israeli raid on a Turkish aid flotilla killed nine activists. The situation, however, has remained dire for many Gazan residents since.

Sources: BBC News, Egyptian Gazette, Jerusalem Post

For more information, please see the Menas Borders website, here.

Israel's Netanyahu rejects return to 1967 borders



Netanyahu called on Palestinian leader Abbas to accept a Jewish state



Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected American pressure to make significant concessions and has said that Israel “will not return to the indefensible boundaries of 1967” in a major speech to US Congress on 24th May.

Speaking to a largely sympathetic Congress, Netanyahu repeatedly argued that he was prepared to make 'painful sacrifices' including a partial pullout from the West Bank, but said Israel would retain control of the larger Jewish settlements in the area.

US President Barack Obama gave a landmark speech on Thursday 19th May in which he argued that a future Palestinian state must be based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.

Netanyahu said Israel recognised that any Palestinian state had to be large enough to be politically and economically viable, but said a return to the 1967 borders was impossible because of the large number of Israelis now living in the territory beyond them.

“Israel will be generous on the size of the Palestinian state, but will be very firm on where we put the border with it,” he said.

He also reasserted Israel's claim to the West Bank, called Judea and Samaria in Israel. "In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers," he said.

"We're not the British in India. We're not the Belgians in [the] Congo. This is the land of our forefathers.”

Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas expressed deep outrage over Netanyahu's speech, and said he was determined to approach the UN General Assembly in September, looking for state recognition, despite the fact that Obama had rejected it.

Abbas was quoted in Xinhua as saying a Palestinian state must have borders with Jordan, Egypt and Israel and said he was sticking with the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation deal signed earlier this month, which Netanyahu had encouraged him to “tear up”.

Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said the speech proved Israel was not interested in peace.

"He dictated that Jerusalem will be undivided, that refugees cannot return, that his army will remain on the borders, that his settlements will be expanded and kept, that he wants Palestine to be demilitarised," Erekat said, according to the BBC.

Netanyahu spoke on the touchy issue of the right of return, and said that Palestinians will not get a right of return to Israel. Refugees in Jordan, Lebanon and across the Palestinian diaspora want to be able to return to the homes they left in Israel.

According to the New York Times, Israeli officials say a flood of returnees would mean more Arabs than Jews in Israel, thereby compromising its identity as a Jewish nation.

Netanyahu also refused to budge on the issue of Jewish settlements, saying new boundaries would have to incorporate the large settlement areas in the suburbs of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

He insisted that any peace deal would have to include an Israeli Army presence along the Jordan River.

Sources: BBC News, Guardian, New York Times, Xinhua

For more information, please see the Menas Borders website, here.

Obama backs pre-1967 Israeli borders

Obama backed the Palestinian's position on Israeli borders

Borders took centre stage in US President Barack Obama's speech on the future of US policy in the Middle East on Thursday 19th May.

Speaking to the State Department, Obama said a future Palestinian state must be based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.

 

In the 1967 war, also known as the 6-Day War, Israel took effective control of the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan and the Golan Heights from Syria.

 

While many analysts have long said that the pre-war borders would be the foundation for any peace agreement, having a US President say so is hugely significant, and marks a subtle change in the American position.

Obama noted, in his 45 minute speech, that Israel and the Palestinians would have to 'swap' territory on either side of the border to take into account the large Jewish settlements that have sprung up in the West Bank since 1967.

This is significant, according to the New York Times, because it means Obama endorses the Palestinian view that new Israeli settlement construction will have to be reversed, or compensated for, in any future talks over the Palestinian state.

Some 500,000 Israelis live on land in the West Bank and east Jerusalem seized during the war. Most live in government-supported settlements, but there are also hundreds of so-called 'outlying outposts', often temporary buildings in and around east Jerusalem.

Israeli settlement building has been one of the most controversial aspects of the Israeli-Palestinain conflict, and the UN deemed them illegal in Resolution 446, which was passed in 1979.

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected Obama's comments, saying the pre-war borders were 'indefensible'.

In a statement, he said that while he appreciated Obama's commitment to peace, “the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state.”

Netanyahu and Obama are due to hold meetings in Washington on Friday 20th May. Previous meetings between the two have often not gone smoothly.

Obama's comments suggest that he expects Israel to eventually make big concessions, according to Al-Jazeera. He also, however, had tough words for the Palestinians, and said attempts to isolate Israel through the UN will fail.

The Palestinians decided to go to the UN to seek recognition of state in September 2011, after Israel resumed the construction of settlements in the West Bank last year.

The Gaza-based Islamic movement, Hamas rejected Obama's speech, saying it leant towards Israel and was part of his electoral campaigning.

Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah signed a unity agreement in April, which marked a important shift in Palestinian affairs.

The two parties had been at odds since Hamas won the Palestinian parliamentary elections in January 2006. Fatah then set up headquarters in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, thus limiting Hamas to the Gaza Strip.

 

Hamas is considered a terrorist organisation by the US, as well as many other governments, and it does not recognise Israel as a legitimate state.

Sources: Al-Jazeera, BBC News, New York Times, Press TV, Xinhua

For more information, please see the Menas Borders website, here.

Palestinians clash with Israeli troops at borders

Clashes took place at the Maroun Al-Ras border between Lebanon and Israel

Israeli forces have fired on groups of protesters at borders with the Palestinian territories, Syria and Lebanon during clashes on Sunday 16th May.

Protests erupted in the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, as well as on Israel's sensitive northern borders, and resulted in Palestinians clashing with Israeli troops and police leaving at least 13 people dead and hundreds injured.

Demonstrators were marking “Nakba” or Catastrophe, the term for the 1948 war which saw the founding of the Israeli state as well as the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.

 

Nearly 10,000 border police officers were stationed throughout the country in preparation for the day, however the clashes on its borders were largely unexpected, according to The Guardian.

 

Facebook and other social media outlets appear to have played a part in organising the demonstrations, which seem to have gained impetus from the uprisings in a number of countries in the Middle East and North Africa.

The clashes on Sunday are the first time that the protests of the so-called Arab Spring have been directed at Israel.

Every year Nakba is marked with demonstrations, and security forces in Israel expected larger numbers than usual in this first Nakba since the start of the protests which have swept the Arab world since January.

But never before have protesters marched on Israel's borders in all directions.

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a televised address on Sunday in which he said he hoped “calm and quiet will quickly return, but let nobody be mistaken: we are determined to defend our borders and sovereignty.”

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon also called for calm and urged all sides to show 'utmost reponsibility'. He called for a renewed effort to reach comprehensive peace in the region.

Clashes took place at four separate borders or crossing points, according to the BBC: on the Golan Heights, at the border with Lebanon, at Erz in Gaza and near Ramallah in the West Bank. Clashes also occurred within east Jerusalem.

Thousands of Palestinian refugees in Syria marched towards Majdal Shams, a village in the Golan Heights that Israel captured from Syria in 1967.

After the protesters "violently rioted" in the words of the Israeli military, its troops fired "selectively" on the group. At least two people were killed, although the real number may be as much as ten.

Resident reports suggest that some 200 protestors managed to cross into Israel, a rare incident at the usually tightly controlled border.

Israel accused Syria of provoking the confrontation to divert attention away from its own internal problems, and said the provocation was an attempt to exploit Palestinian nationalism in the wake of regional unrest. The Israeli military has also suggested Iranian involvement.

Syria was quick to condemn what it called Israel's “criminal activities”, and the foreign ministry called on the international community to hold Israel responsible for the deaths.

The confrontation could be seen as beneficial to the beleaguered Syrian regime of President Bashar Al-Assad in a number of ways. It will divert attention away from internal troubles by focussing on the external Israeli enemy.

It will also allow al-Assad to cast himself as the only person who can bring stability to Syria, and will suggest to Israel and the US that should al-Assad go, Israel could face a much more militant neighbour.

Lebanon's border town of Maroun al-Ras also saw Israeli troops firing upon stone-throwing protestors, leaving at least two dead.

Protestors, which had received support from Hezbollah according to the Guardian, broke through the Lebanese army's barricade, however they were eventually dispersed.

Dozens of buses had brought protesters to the area under the rally slogan of “March for the return to Palestine.” Many of the protesters came from the 12 crowded refugee camps in Lebanon where some 400,000 Palestinian refugees live.

Israel's internal borders also witnessed problems. At the Erez border crossing from Israel to Gaza, Israeli troops fired on protestors with machine guns, injuring at least 125. The Israeli military said it shot dead a man trying to plant a bomb near the border.

In the West Bank, clashes occurred after some 600 people marched from Ramallah towards the Qalandia checkpoint into Jerusalem. There were also reports of clashes in other areas of the West Bank, and soldiers dispersed groups of activists who were stoning Israel Defence Forces (IDF) positions in Ramallah itself.

Tensions were also high in east Jerusalem after a Palestinian youth was shot during a riot on Friday in the capital's Silwan neighbourhodd.

Milad Ayish, 17, died after being shot in the stomach, during a confrontation between police and masked Palestinian youths.

The clashes left dozens injured and 34 people were arrested for rioting. Youths threw stones at security personnel and at Jewish homes during the funeral procession for Ayish on Saturday, and tension remained high on Sunday, when more clashes took place.

Lebanon has filed a complaint with the UN about Israel's actions, while Israel has also complained to the body that Lebanon and Syria violated its international borders.

Sources: Associated Press, BBC News, The Guardian, Jerusalem Post

For more information, please see the Menas Borders website, here.

Border Focus: Eastern Mediterranean

What is disputed?

The problem in the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea is that very few countries have established their maritime boundaries. As the extent of the quantities of gas that lies beneath the sea floor has become more clear, the potential for dispute has risen substantially. The existing territorial disputes between Israel and many of its neighbours and between Cyprus and Turkey also complicate the situation as land borders are typically considered a prerequisite for determining maritime boundaries.

Where is the oil and gas?

The US Geological Survey reported in 2010 that the Levantine Basin, which stretches from the Jordan River into the eastern Med, encompassing the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, Israel, Lebanon and Syria, could contain up to 122 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

The Israeli and surrounding waters seem to be the most prospective at the moment, or at least have received the most attention. BG discovered gas in the Palestinian Authority's territorial waters in 1999, but political issues means the find has not been exploited. American firm Noble Energy had more luck in their early explorations, striking gas in Israel's Mari-B field, which has been in production since 2004.

More recently, Israel, again through Noble Energy, has made substantial finds in the northern parts of its waters. The Tamar field, discovered in 2009 is thought to contain 178.4 billion cubic metres, while new results in December 2010 suggested the nearby Leviathan field may contain up to 450 billion cubic metres of gas, making it one of the largest gas discoveries in the last ten years.

These finds have the potential to radically alter Israel's energy position, but with Lebanon already making claims to some of the new finds, taking advantage of the new finds will not be easy.

Who owns the gas?

While the blocks that Israel have licensed to Noble are in Israeli waters, the question is whether the fields they have tapped into extend across the border to Gaza in the south and Lebanon in the north.

The Mari-B license ends at the unfinalised Palestinian Authority-Israel border, but the gas field may stagger the border. Gaza is, needless to say, not receiving any revenues from the profits Noble and Israel are making. If the field does cross into Gaza's waters, Israel is required under international law to share the proceeds from the field, and while critics of Israel have pointed this out repeatedly, Gaza's lack of legal infrastructure and weak government has meant that its potential claim has been largely overlooked.

Lebanon claims that the Tamar field is partially within Lebanese territory, and in November 2010, Iran's ambassador to Lebanon, Qazanfar Roknabada, claimed that three-quarters of the Leviathan field actually belonged to Lebanon.

There is considerable difficulty in determining who owns the gas however, as Israel and Lebanon do not have a finalised land border, much less a maritime border. While any agreement on a land border is probably a long way off, what the line actually would be is fairly uncontroversial. It is likely to be very similar to the current working land border, which is the June 2000 UN Blue Line, which marked the territory from which Israel was required to withdraw.

Once the terminal land border point is determined, a maritime boundary can be determined. Given the flat, controlling coastline that exists along the eastern Mediterranean and given that there are few indentations and no significant islands to take account of, it seems the most sensible approach to determining a maritime boundary would be by constructing a line perpendicular to the coastline.

This issue, therefore, is not that it would be difficult to plot a maritime boundary line that would uphold the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea's aim of achieving 'equitable result': the difficulty is purely political.

Are other boundaries determined?

Other countries have had more success in determining their maritime boundaries, or at least outlining their claim to an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). These, however, must be seen still as provisional until Israel and its neighbours determine their boundaries.

Cyprus , much to Turkey's annoyance, has taken the lead in settling its EEZ, and has made agreements with Egypt, Lebanon and Israel.

In 2003, Cyprus and Egypt signed the first agreement specifically devoted to the delimitation of an EEZ in the eastern Mediterranean. The boundary line is composed of seven segments, each based on equidistance, and no special circumstances have been taken into account to modify the boundary.

Cyprus also signed an EEZ agreement with Lebanon in 2007, but significantly, the Lebanese parliament has yet to ratify the agreement. Lebanon's hesitations are surprising, given that they have shown their dedication to determining their maritime boundaries in a number of other ways. In July 2010, Lebanon deposited with the UN Secretary General, charts and a list of geographical coordinates of points defining the southern limit of Lebanon's EEZ: in other words where they see their border with Israeli as lying. The deposit also gave coordinates for their EEZ with Cyprus.

In August 2010, the Lebanese parliament passed a law which established a committee to oversee exploration and drilling off Lebanon. Energy Minister Gibran Bassil said at the same time that Lebanon planned to outline its maritime sea borders and auction off rights to explore offshore gas reserves by 2012. Norway's Petroleum Geo-Services has already explored Lebanese waters and said they gained 'valuable information' on potential offshore gas reserves.

In December 2010, Israel and Cyprus signed an agreement defining their EEZs, and it committed the two sides to cooperating on any cross border resources that are found.

Syria does not appear to have made any maritime agreements with its neighbours. In November 2003, it repealed previous legislation and reduced the width of its territorial sea from 35 nautical miles to the more conventional 12 nm. The legislation established a 24 nm contiguous zone and an EEZ of 200 nm, although it did not give any specifications about its delimitations.

Turkey, also, has not made any maritime boundary agreements in the Mediterranean, and its offshore hydrocarbon exploration has been focused, until recently, on the Black Sea. 

What are the prospects for the future?

Israel looks set to reap the rewards of their early exploration efforts. Noble Energy has recently announced their 2011 programme for the region worth US$650 million, and said a large portion of that sum will go towards the development of the Tamar gas field. Appraisal of the Leviathan find will also continue.

Cyprus, it appears, is also ready to push ahead with exploration despite Ankara's misgivings, and after an unsuccessful first licensing round in 2007, they signed an agreement with Noble Energy for the 1,250 square mile Block 12 in 2008. The block lies 35 miles away from the Leviathan discovery and recent reports have suggested that Noble will start exploratory drilling the region in late 2011 or early 2012. Cyprus has said it will hold a second licensing round, although a date has not yet been set.

The wealth that Israel's finds are likely to bring has caused all of its neighbours to take a closer look at what they can claim. Before the Mubarak regime fell in February then minister of petroleum and mineral resources Sameh Fahmi was quoted by an Egyptian newspaper as saying the government is “studying the precise coordinates of the maritime borders in order to determine our share of the reserves” in late January 2011.

The main issue continues to be between Israel and Lebanon, however, and the tone of conversation between the two sides has been anything but amicable. Both sides have threatened the use of military force to maintain their hold on what they see to be their rightful resources, and there does not seem to be any likelihood of an agreement between the two sides in the near or medium term future.

For the full Border Focus, please see the Menas Borders website, here.

Egypt moves to define eastern Med borders to boost gas claims

Sameh Fahmi

Egypt's Petroleum Ministry is reported to be considering claiming a stake in the big natural gas fields discovered in the eastern Mediterranean while Greece, a potential customer, has begun exploratory talks on moving the gas to the European market.

The Egyptian newspaper Al-Masri al-Youm Tuesday 25th January quoted Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources Sameh Fahmi as saying the Cairo government is "studying the precise coordinates of the maritime borders in order to determine our share of the reserves." 

That implied that Egypt, already the main natural gas producer and exporter in the eastern Mediterranean, may find itself at odds with Israel. 

It signed a historic peace agreement with the Jewish state in 1979 but it's largely been a cold peace even though Cairo exports gas to Israel. 

The gas finds off Israel's northern coast, made in 2009-10, have already drawn accusations by Beirut of Israeli encroachment into Lebanese waters and threats of violence from both sides. 

But the potential for conflict is even wider. The US Geological Survey reported in 2010 that the Levant Basin, stretching from the Jordan River into the eastern Mediterranean, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, Lebanon and Syria, could contain up to 122 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. 

"These discoveries have added a new, hitherto unseen dimension to the Arab-Israeli conflict," observed analyst Walid Khadduri, former editor of the Middle East Economic Survey, a prominent energy industry newsletter. 

"This geopolitical dimension is not limited to the Israeli-Palestinian or Israel-Lebanese disputes … but will also encompass several other Arab countries, particularly those that export natural gas, and especially in the event Israel intends to export to European markets." 

Khadduri, writing in the pan-Arab daily Al Hayat, noted that "preliminary contacts in this regard have already started with another source of gas being made to available to gas-thirsty Europe … a source that overlooks the Mediterranean directly, obviating the need for pipelines crossing several countries, as it can be exported as liquefied gas." 

"The current disputes …are somewhat old. What is new, however, is the competition over gas markets." 

Israel's gas bonanza offers geopolitical opportunities as well as perils. 

The Jewish state is negotiating with Cyprus, most of which is ruled by Greek Cypriots, and with Greece about transporting gas to them and on to the vast European market. 

Greek Minister of Investments Haris Pamboukis said Saturday 22nd January that Athens is conducting exploratory talks with Israel about moving gas from the main Israeli gas field, Leviathan, to Europe. "We're a natural road to the Balkans and Europe," he said. 

But Egypt may be a more natural partner. It already has a liquefied natural gas terminal on the Mediterranean coast where tankers carry the LNG to Europe, Asia and North and South America. 

It is conceivable - although far from certain given the prevailing relations between Israel and Egypt - that the Israelis might find it convenient to export their gas in liquid form through Egypt rather than engage in costly undersea pipelines and other infrastructure. 

Egypt has proven gas reserves of 77 trillion cubic feet, three times Israel's estimated reserves, and is established as the main gas producer in the eastern Mediterranean. It serves Jordan, Lebanon and Syria as well as Israel. 

According to the US Geological Survey, Egypt's Nile Delta Basin could contain as much as 223 trillion cubic feet of gas. 

"Israel has several potential export options of its own but all would pose technical and, often, political challenges," observed Simon Henderson, director of the Gulf and Energy Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. 

"Greece has been mooted as a possible market, perhaps by undersea pipeline; India is another potential market; and the Russian giant Gazprom is currently proposing a joint venture," Henderson wrote in a 4th January analysis. 

"Israel's most commercially viable option might be to export surplus gas as LNG, converted via existing facilities in Egypt." 

He concluded that the energy developments in the eastern Mediterranean, long a US preserve, mean that Washington "needs to pay careful attention, since these … offer opportunities for U.S. companies as well as the potential for friction between US allies."

"Although the amounts of gas discovered so far seem unlikely to change the world, they could certainly change the eastern Mediterranean." 

Source: UPI

For more information on the eastern Mediterranean, see the Menas Borders website, here.

Noble Energy's new find draws attention to eastern Mediterranean borders

Israel's gas boom got further support last week when Noble Energy announced that it had made a significant natural gas discovery in the Leviathan field on Wednesday 29th December.

The newest discovery was in the Rachel licence, and results from the well confirm earlier reports that the supergiant gas field holds an estimated 450 billion cubic metres (16 trillion cubic feet) of natural gas.

The Leviathan field is located about 80 miles offshore of Haifa, and 29 miles southwest of the Tamar discovery, which Nobel also holds the licence for. The new estimates announced by the US firm means that Leviathan dwarfs Tamar, which was previously Israel's biggest offshore field. The Tamar field has an estimated capacity of 178.4 billion cubic metres (6.3 trillion cubic feet), but it is not yet operational.

"Leviathan is the latest major discovery for Noble Energy and is easily the largest exploration discovery in our history," the firm's chairman Charles Davidson said in a statement.

"This discovery has the potential to position Israel as a natural gas exporting nation," added company president David Stover.

Even before Leviathan, a series of finds had put the so-called Levant Basin on the international energy map. In March 2010, the US Geological Survey released its first assessment of the area, estimating that it contained 1.7 billion barrels of oil and 122 trillion cubic feet of gas. That is equivalent to half of the proven gas reserves of the US.

The finds in Israel have prompted its neighbours to start their own exploration programmes. In August, lawmakers in Beirut rushed through the country's first oil-exploration law and in October, Lebanon's oil minister Gebran Bassil, an ally of Shi'a militant group Hezbollah, said the country hoped to start auctioning exploration rights by 2012.

The finds have also prompted countries in the region to get their maritime boundaries in order. Cyprus, for example, has in recent years made agreements with Lebanon, Egypt, and in December 2010, Israel.

Remaining border issues are, however, stalling development for Israel. Lebanon claims that the Tamar field is partially within Lebanese territory, and in November 2010, Iran's ambassador to Lebanon, Qazanfar Roknabada, claimed that three-quarters of the Leviathan field actually belonged to Lebanon.

Disputes over Noble's licenses in the eastern Mediterranean are nothing new. Their Mari-B field, production from which began in 2004, is on the border of the Gaza marine area, and the field may stagger the border. If this is the case, Israel is required under international law to share the proceeds from the field, and while critics of Israel have pointed this out repeatedly, Gaza's lack of legal infrastructure and weak government has meant that its potential claim has been largely overlooked.

It seems, however, that affairs in the north of Israel's waters will not be so easy to control.

Lebanon and Israel are still officially in a state of war, and both sides have threatened each other over offshore resources. Clearly, until peace is found and borders established, disputes over offshore resources will remain ever present.

Sources: Rigzone, Wall Street Journal

For more information on disputes in the eastern Mediterranean, see the menas borders website, here.