In the letter, the interested party states that, on the basis of compliance with these two documents, it does not object to the crossing. It is unlikely that this letter is legally binding and has no intention of doing so. However, it remains useful in indicating on what basis the interested party is prepared to enter into a crossover agreement. It also offers some security for the Crossing Party and nearby parties, such as lenders and insurers. The crossover contract often provides, in a standard clause, that the Crossing Party perform all installation work according to general standards of care and common sense. This term can be expressed in different ways. B, for example, “the practice of the good oil industry” or “as a reasonable and prudent operator,” to name but two examples. In cases where an agreement is required, Gassco concludes, on behalf of the owners of the pipelines concerned, crossing and reconciliation agreements on the basis of the standard applicable to these agreements, drawn up by the Norwegian Association of Oil and Gas Industries (Norsk olje og gass). If an agreement is signed, the technical dialogue with Gassco can begin. Gassco also requires documentation of the insurance plan in accordance with the requirements of the agreement.
Crossing agreements are a fascinating example of the conflict between established companies and invaders over the use of the same seabed area. The fundamental question remains: how to strike a balance between the interests of the party, which first entered an open field, and those of the newcomers? UNCLOS defines the main principles, but as the review of contractual practices has shown, many additional provisions are needed and different solutions must be found to resolve potential conflict situations. The two sides must therefore agree on a crossover agreement. Finally, the possible “role reversal” in the post-completion phase of the crosses/projects will be more likely to seek balanced solutions than if the crossing in question were considered an isolated case. Some cross-agreements provide for a particular need to change the configuration of intersections. For example, the connector in question, which was originally under the cross connector, may pass it later. The content of such a change in cross-configuration clauses varies. One approach is to amend consent obligations to facilitate changes, but also to clarify the consequences, for example, of costs.