石油圈中国石化新闻网讯 据路透社10月25日东京报道，日本最大的LNG买家杰拉公司周三表示，已经与马来西亚国家石油公司的一家子公司签署了3年期LNG购买协议，协议自2018年起执行。
杰拉公司是东京电力公司与中部电力公司合资联营的燃料采购公司，该公司在一份公布所谓框架协议的声明中称，自明年4月份开始，每年将从马来西亚国家石油公司旗下的马来西亚LNG有限公司购买250万吨LNG。
日本公平贸易委员会（JFTC）6月裁定，凡有关申报目的地的限制，限定了LNG货船发售地的，即违反竞争原则。这是裁定下达后杰拉公司首次签订协议。杰拉公司在声明中表示，与马来西亚LNG公司签署的协议符合JFTC规定。
杰拉公司称：“我们相信这不仅有益于提升我司应对LNG需求不确定性的能力，而且能使我司得以优化LNG业务。”
杰拉公司目前每年从马来西亚LNG公司购买480万吨LNG，这份15年长期协议将于明年3月截止。
杰拉公司表示，LNG将以目的港船上交货价（DES）或离岸价格（FOB）成交，前者买家需于约定地点取货，后者买家在货物装载上船后即可取货。
JFTC在6月的裁定中表示，FOB合同中的目的地条款“可能将违反”该国《反垄断法》，而采取DES合同条款并取得卖方同意便不存在问题。
JFTC表示，若卖方拒绝买方出于必要性与合理性所提出的改变货运路线的要求，则卖方行为或将违犯法律。 詹乐乾 摘译自路透社 原文如下：
Japan’s JERA signs three-year LNG purchase contract with Malaysia JERA Co, Japan’s biggest liquefied natural gas (LNG) buyer, said on Wednesday it signed a three-year LNG purchase agreement with a subsidiary of Malaysian state energy company Petroliam Nasional Bhd (Petronas) starting in 2018.
JERA, the fuel purchasing joint venture between Tokyo Electric Power and Chubu Electric Power, will buy 2.5 million tonnes per year (tpy) of LNG from Petronas subsidiary Malaysia LNG Sdn Bhd starting in April of next year, the company said in a statement announcing the so-called heads of agreement.
The deal is JERA’s first since the Japan Fair Trade Commission’s (JFTC) ruling in June that declared destination restrictions, which limit where a LNG cargo can be sold, to be anti-competitive. This deal with Malaysia LNG is “in line” with the commission’s ruling, JERA said in the statement.
“JERA believes this will contribute to its ability not only to respond to uncertainties in LNG demand, but also to put JERA in position to optimize its LNG operations,” the company said.
The Japanese firm’s existing 15-year long-term contract for 4.8 million tpy of LNG with the firm expires next March.
The LNG will be sold as either delivered ex-ship (DES), where the buyer takes the cargo at an agreed destination, or on a free-on-board (FOB) basis, where the buyer takes the cargo once it is loaded onto a ship, JERA said.
The JFTC’s June decision said having a destination clause in a FOB contract is “likely to be in violation” of the nation’s Antimonopoly Act, while having the clause in a DES contract and requiring a seller’s consent is not problematic in itself.
But, the regulator said that if the seller rebuffs a buyer’s request for diversion out of necessity and reasonableness, such a refusal is likely to be in violation of the law.
未经允许，不得转载本站任何文章：
