石油圈中國石化新聞網訊 據路透社10月25日東京報道，日本最大的LNG買家杰拉公司周三表示，已經與馬來西亞國家石油公司的一家子公司簽署了3年期LNG購買協議，協議自2018年起執行。
杰拉公司是東京電力公司與中部電力公司合資聯營的燃料采購公司，該公司在一份公布所謂框架協議的聲明中稱，自明年4月份開始，每年將從馬來西亞國家石油公司旗下的馬來西亞LNG有限公司購買250萬噸LNG。
日本公平貿易委員會（JFTC）6月裁定，凡有關申報目的地的限制，限定了LNG貨船發售地的，即違反競爭原則。這是裁定下達后杰拉公司首次簽訂協議。杰拉公司在聲明中表示，與馬來西亞LNG公司簽署的協議符合JFTC規定。
杰拉公司稱：“我們相信這不僅有益于提升我司應對LNG需求不確定性的能力，而且能使我司得以優化LNG業務?！?br />
杰拉公司目前每年從馬來西亞LNG公司購買480萬噸LNG，這份15年長期協議將于明年3月截止。
杰拉公司表示，LNG將以目的港船上交貨價（DES）或離岸價格（FOB）成交，前者買家需于約定地點取貨，后者買家在貨物裝載上船后即可取貨。
JFTC在6月的裁定中表示，FOB合同中的目的地條款“可能將違反”該國《反壟斷法》，而采取DES合同條款并取得賣方同意便不存在問題。
JFTC表示，若賣方拒絕買方出于必要性與合理性所提出的改變貨運路線的要求，則賣方行為或將違犯法律。 詹樂乾 摘譯自路透社 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.
未經允許，不得轉載本站任何文章：
