According to reports, the Department of Mineral Fuels earlier proposed that maritime negotiations should proceed in parallel with talks on boundary demarcation north of latitude 11 degrees, as the two cannot be separated. The department also outlined six key issues for consideration:


Benefit-sharing ratio between the two governments
Revenue collection system to be applied in the joint development area
Rights allocation for existing concession holders from both countries, as well as determination of operators
Governance structure to oversee budget allocation, domestic legal frameworks and regulatory mechanisms
Customs, taxation and environmental management
Other issues such as fisheries, pipeline routes, hydrography and oceanography

Past negotiations over overlapping maritime areas have produced different outcomes. Thailand and Malaysia concluded talks in 1979 after 11 years, agreeing to establish a JDA. The negotiations with Vietnam ended in a boundary demarcation agreement in 1997 after about eight years, Hanoi has prioritised its disputes in the South China Sea.

The Thai-Cambodian OCA is believed to hold strong petroleum potential. Adjacent to the disputed zone on the Thai side, several petroleum fields such as Erawan and Arthit have already been discovered and proven commercially viable. 

Thailand first awarded concessions in the area in 1968, but exploration was halted in 1975 following a Cabinet resolution to suspend operations in all overlapping zones with neighbouring countries.

Deputy Prime Minister and Energy Minister Pirapan Salirathavibhaga recently said that resolving the Thai-Cambodian OCA dispute may require a shift in strategy. Instead of focusing solely on maritime boundary demarcation, he proposed emphasising shared energy development through new mechanisms.

One idea under discussion is the creation of a joint company or organisation, co-owned by Thailand and Cambodia, which would operate with the approval of both governments. This model would enable the two sides to benefit from petroleum resources without linking the issue directly to boundary disputes, which are legally and politically complex.

Pirapan stressed that tying boundary demarcation to energy cooperation would make negotiations impossible, as the legal frameworks governing the two matters emerged in different eras. “If Thailand and Cambodia jointly establish a company or body and both governments endorse it, then it can proceed to utilise resources without reference to boundaries,” he said.

Meanwhile, the Department of Mineral Fuels has been working closely with the Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to prepare policy guidance. They have outlined three key objectives for negotiations:


Resolving the overlapping claims area, covering 26,000 square kilometres of the continental shelf.
Implementing the 2001 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Thailand and Cambodia, which calls for two parallel processes: maritime boundary negotiations north of latitude 11°N, and a joint petroleum development agreement south of latitude 11°N.
Using the Thai-Cambodian Joint Technical Committee (JTC), as already agreed with Phnom Penh, to oversee negotiations and technical arrangements.