Cine are dreptul sa decida exploatarea resurselor din subsolurile Romaniei?Who Has the Right to Decide the Exploitation of Romania’s Subsoil Resources?

In Romania nu e ca in America si in Pungesti nu e ca in Texas. Cu toate acestea, istoria exploatarii resurselor subsolului are multe puncte comune, intre Romania si America, cu atat mai mult cu cat rezervele noastre de gaze neconventionale sunt aproape date (gajate) companiilor americane. In fata unei provocari care a venit peste noi ca un tavalug, guvernantii ar trebuie sa mai stie si ceva istorie, in asa fel incat sa poata lua deciziile cele corecte.

In cadrul unui simpozion restrans, organizat de Ambasada SUA la Bucuresti, profesorul universitar de relatii internationale Walter Russel Mead opina ca un motiv pentru care romanii se opun exploatarii gazelor de sist tine de faptul ca proprietarii de terenuri nu detin si dreptul asupra subsolului.

Fara a dezbate subiectul gazelor de sist, ci dreptul asupra resurselor care se gasesc in subsolurile Romaniei si modul in care acestea pot sa fie exploatate, vom prezenta o scurta trecere in revista asupra evolutiei cadrului juridic a resurselor de petrol si gaze si consecintele acesteia asupra exploatarii resurselor din Romania, unde , ca in mai toate statele, combustibilul lichid si mai ales cel gazos nu s-au bucurat dintotdeauna de aceeasi atentie din partea cercurilor politice, economice sau financiare corespunzatoare.

„O cale de a rezolva problemele asociate extractiilor (in Romania) este reforma drepturilor minerale” Walter Russel Mead (13.10.2013)

In Evul Mediu, pacura, deopotriva cu cele mai multe dintre produsele subsolului (mai putin aurul si sarea) nu a facut obiectul unor dispozitii in materie de drept de proprietate, conditii de extragere etc. Numai de la inceputul secolului al XIX-lea dateaza primele reglementari scrise, relative la proprietatea miniera. Astfel, in 1817 Codul Callimachi (art. 382 si 509) stabilea in Moldova ca bunurile miniere apartineau statului,  in vreme ce Codul Caragea din Tara Romaneasca introducea la 1818 regimul primului ocupant. Ambele coduri s-au aplicat pana la 1832, cand au fost inlocuite cu Regulamentele Organice.

In materie de drept minier, Regulamentele au introdus – dupa modelul rusesc – un sistem unic de proprietate in ambele Principate: „subsolul apartinea proprietarului suprafetei^”. Au persistat deosebiri numai in ceea ce privea regimul de exploatare a minelor in cele doua Principate astfel, atat in Tara Romaneasca cat si in Moldova, proprietarii puteau sa-si exploateze singuri minele dar, daca refuzau sa procedeze la exploatarea lor, „domnia” intervenea – dupa scurgerea unui termen de 18 luni, respectiv 5 ani – pentru a le concesiona unei terte persoane. Se intelege interesul domniei in exploatarea minelor, caci ea percepea, in Moldova, o taxa egala cu a zecea parte din castig (zeciuiala) de la exploatatori.

UItimele deosebiri existente intre Moldova si Tara Romaneasca in domeniul regimului minier au disparut dupa Unirea de la 1859. La 26 noiembrie 1864 Codul civil al lui Cuza a introdus un regim unic valabil pe tot cuprinsul statului roman. Articolul 489 din acest cod prevedea: „Proprietatea pamantului cuprinde in sine proprietatea suprafetei si a subfetei lui”, in privinta normelor de exploatare, articolul 491 stipula ca proprietarii subsolului urmau sa se supuna prescriptiilor (neprecizate) ale unei viitoare legi miniere (lege care nu s-a mai realizat). Constitutia din 1866 (art. 131) a relevat, de asemenea, necesitatea elaborarii unei legi a minelor in Romania.

In a doua jumatate a secolului al XIX-lea, bogatiile miniere (inclusiv petrolul si gazele asociate) ajung sa se bucure de o mai mare atentie, dat fiind rolul lor, ce nu putea fi nicicum neglijat, in dezvoltarea economica a statului roman modern. De acum inainte, ele au format obiectul unor dispozitii speciale – legile miniere. Este semnificativ faptul ca in a doua jumatate a veacului trecut s-au depus in Parlamentul de la Bucuresti nu mai putin de sase proiecte de legi miniere: in 1863, 1870, 1873, 1881, 1886 si 1895. Dintre acestea numai un singur proiect de lege – cel intocmit de ministrul conservator P.P. Carp in 1895 – a apucat sa prinda viata.

Legea minelor din 1895 s-a adoptat in urma unei puternice infruntari a pozitiilor celor doua partide de guvernamant din Romania – conservator si liberal.

A fost introdus sistemul regalian de proprietate miniera pentru cele mai multe dintre bogatiile subsolului (aur, argint, fier, carbune s.a.). In cazul petrolului si al celorlalte sisturi bituminoase, superficiarul putea proceda cum socotea de cuviinta, fara niciun fel de constrangere din partea statului, in privinta valorificarii sau nevalorificarii zacamintelor, a conditiilor de concesionare etc. Superficiarul nu era obligat sa respecte decat acele dispozitii din legea minelor referitoare la: politia miniera, raporturile dintre muncitori si concesionari, plata unor taxe miniere catre stat.

„Cadrul juridic instaurat in anul 1895, privind exploatarea petrolului si gazelor, a permis intrarea masiva a capitalurilor straine in Romania.”  Gheorghe Buzatu

Regimul instaurat pentru petrol la 1895 a favorizat cel mai bine intrarea capitalurilor straine in Romania si, apoi, crearea unei industrii dominata aproape exclusiv de catre acestea. Dispunand in mod liber de perimetrele petrolifere, proprietarii lor – cei mai multi tarani, cu parcele intre 5.000 -10.000 mp – au acceptat cu usurinta ofertele de concesionare ale unor persoane care, in cele mai multe cazuri, nu erau nici macar exploatatorii directi, ci simpli intermediari sau traficanti. Se cunosc numeroase cazuri in care perimetre extrem de bogate din judetele Prahova si Dambovita au fost concesionate initial pentru sume derizorii, pentru ca a doua zi sa fi fost reconcedate unor societati in schimbul unor avansuri considerabile.

Dupa legea din 1895 a urmat o adevarata cursa pentru acapararea perimetrelor petrolifere particulare din Romania, iar capitalistii straini au ajuns sa controleze industria titeiului din tara noastra. Exploatarea terenurilor petrolifere a fost cu totul nerationala si neeconomica. Micile parcele acaparate nu permiteau comasarea terenurilor aflate in exploatare, dar in schimb incurajau concurenta acerba intre concesionari pentru a incepe cat mai grabnic lucrarile. In acest fel, fiecare concesionar nadajduia sa ,,fure” titeiul din subsolul vecinului.

In afara de acestea, capitalistii straini au folosit metode care le permiteau extragerea unor cantitati cat mai mari, cu minimum de cheltuieli. De aceea ei au neglijat mult timp, pana dupa Primul Razboi Mondial, efectuarea unor exploatari rationale, cu sonde dispuse la anumite distante si controlul permanent al presiunii gazelor in interior. Metoda cea mai utilizata a fost mult timp cea a “sondelor eruptive“. Prin asemenea metode numai o parte neinsemnata din zacamintele de titei era adusa la suprafata, restul fiind pierdut probabil pentru totdeauna.Romania is not America, and Pungesti is not Texas. Nevertheless, Romania and America share many common points in the history of exploiting subsoil resources, all the more so our unconventional gas reserves are all but given (guaranteed) to American companies. Confronted to a challenge coming like a bulldozer, the government should learn some history to be able to take the right decisions.

At an exclusive symposium hosted by the US embassy in Bucharest, the international relations professor Walter Russell Mead suggested that one reason for Romanian’s rejection of the exploitation of shale gas is the fact that the landowners do not have rights on the subsoil.

Without debating the matter of shale gas, but merely the rights on Romania’s subsoil and the ways of exploiting it, we will briefly review the evolution of the legal framework of the oil and gas resources, and its consequences on the exploitation of the resources in Romania, where – like in most countries – the political, business or financial circles were not always as interested in liquid fuel, but especially on gas fuel as they are nowadays.

“One way of solving the extraction-related issues (in Romania) is the reforming of mineral rights” – Walter Russell Mead (13.10.2013)

During the Middle Ages oil, like most of the subsoil resources (except gold and salt) was not the subject of legal provisions on property, extraction conditions etc. The first written regulations concerning the mining property came as late as the beginning of the 19th century. Thus, in 1817, Callimachi’s Code (articles 382 and 509) stated that the mining property in Moldavia belonged to the state, while Caragea’s Code of Wallachia implemented in 1818 the occupancy principle. Both codes were in force until 1832, when they were replaced by the Organic Regulations.

Concerning the mining laws, the Regulation implemented – based on a Russian model – a single property system for both Principalities: “the subsoil belonged to the landowner”. Differences remained only in the conditions of exploitation of mines in the two Principalities, but both in Wallachia and in Moldavia, the landowners had the right to exploit the mines themselves, and only if they refused to do so, the “hospodar” intervened – after 18 months, or after 5 years, respectively – to grant the concession to a third party. The rulers interest in the exploitation of mines is understandable, as in Moldavia the state collected a 10% tax on operators’ profits.

The last differences between Moldavia and Wallachia in terms of mining rights disappeared after the Union of 1859. On November 26, 1864 Prince Cuza’s Civil Code introduced a single regulation for the whole Romanian state. Article 489 of this Code stipulated: “The land property includes the property of the ground and of the underground”, and for the exploitation norms, Article 491 stipulated that the owners of the subsoil were subject to the (unspecified) provisions of a future Mining Law (who was never drafted). The Constitution of 1866 (article 131) also underlined the necessity of a Mining Law for Romania.

During the second half of the 19th century, the mineral resources (including the oil and the natural gas) became increasingly prominent, given their significant role in the economic development of the modern Romanian state. From then on, they were subject to special regulation – the Mining Laws. It’s a compelling fact that during the second half of 19th century, no less than six Mining Law drafts were introduced to the Parliament in Bucharest: in 1863, 1870, 1873, 1881, 1886, and 1895. Among them, only one – by the conservative minister P.P. Carp, in 1895 – was eventually implemented.

The Mining Law of 1895 was adopted after fierce confrontations between the two ruling parties of Romania – the conservatives and the liberals.

The royal rights on the mining property were implemented for most of the subsoil resources (gold, silver, iron, coal etc.). For the oil and bituminous shale, the landowner was free to act as he found fit, without any constraints from the state for exploiting or not the reserves, for the concession conditions etc. The landowner was supposed only to abide to the provisions of the Mining Law concerning the following: the mining police, the relations between the workers and the concession holders, the payment of mining taxes to the state.

“The legal framework implemented in 1895 for the exploitation of oil and gas allowed a massive inflow of foreign capitals in Romania” – Gheorghe Buzatu

The regulations for the oil implemented in 1885 best served the inflow of foreign capitals in Romania and the subsequent development of an industry almost completely dominated by these capitals. Freely deciding on the oil fields, the owners – most of them peasants with plots between 5000 and 1000 square meters – were quick to accept the concession offers of individuals who in most cases were not even the direct operators, but merely intermediaries or traders. There are many documented cases where the concession for very rich fields in the counties of Prahova and Dambovita was initially granted for ridiculously small sums, just to be traded the next day to companies for important advance payments.

After the law of 1895, a race began for grabbing the private oil fields in Romania, and foreign investors came in control of the oil industry of Romania. The exploitation of the oil fields was completely irrational and noneconomical. The small plots obtained did not allow merging the operating oil fields, but fueled bitter competition against the concession owners to start drilling as soon as possible. This way, each concession owner hoped to ‘steal’ the neighbor’s oil.

Moreover, foreign investors used methods who allowed extracting the largest possible amounts with minimum expense. Thus, they have longtime neglected, until the end of WWI, rational exploitation using properly spaced wells, and permanently monitoring the gas pressure underground. For longtime, the most widespread method was using ‘gushers’. Such methods brought up just a small fraction of the oil reserves, and the rest of it was lost, probably forever.