Lebanon-Cyprus EEZ: oil investment and geopolitical challenges (2)

The Energy Gamble in the Face of Economic Collapse

With the signing of the maritime boundary delimitation agreement with Cyprus in 2025, the exploitation of offshore resources is emerging as a potentially decisive lever for reviving Lebanon’s deeply troubled economy.

While this agreement has provided a formal legal framework for maritime boundaries, it has not, however, eliminated all the economic and geopolitical challenges. Development delays, persistent regional disputes, and political gridlock present Lebanon with a complex equation: seizing energy opportunities without compromising its national interests.

Oil First: From Legal Risk to the Choice of Agreement

According to General Khalil Gemayel, an expert in maritime boundary delimitation, Lebanon was convinced that resorting to international maritime courts to resolve the dispute with Cyprus would have transformed the Lebanese oil blocks adjacent to that country—blocks 1, 3, 5, and 8—into disputed zones until a final ruling was issued.

Such a situation would have, de facto, led to a considerable delay in exploration operations, as major international oil companies systematically avoided the disputed areas.

In this context, the signing of the agreement was seen as a way to remove these zones from legal uncertainty and make them immediately exploitable, without legal obstacles.

Legal Clarification, Deferred Exploitation

However, Gemayel strongly qualifies this interpretation. He points out that the recent award of Lebanon’s Block 8 granted the TotalEnergies-led consortium a three-year period to decide, based on the results of seismic surveys, whether or not to proceed with drilling a well.

According to him, this “open” period could, in practice, prove to be much longer than the time required for a ruling by a competent international court, a ruling that would have guaranteed Lebanon’s rights and definitively, clearly, and unambiguously established its maritime borders with Cyprus, leaving no room for interpretation.

Limited Legal Gains in a Complex Diplomatic Environment

Gemayel does not expect the agreement to significantly contribute to strengthening Lebanon’s legal or diplomatic stability. He believes the agreement was concluded without the involvement of a key player in border demarcation, namely Syria. He also emphasizes that Turkey rejects any infringement on the rights of Turkish Cypriots in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

Turkey and Syria: Absent but Decisive Actors

He warns that Turkey, through the presence of its military vessels, is effectively preventing any oil company from conducting exploration activities in areas it considers to fall under the rights of Turkish Cypriots.

This reality, combined with the unresolved maritime dispute with Syria, could pose both a practical and political risk to the effective implementation of the agreement.

The Outstanding Tripartite Point: A Border Time Bomb

Gemayel emphasizes that the agreement left the issue of Tripartite Point No. 7 (Syria – Cyprus – Lebanon) unresolved, pending the completion of the delimitation with Syria. However, according to him, the problem runs much deeper.

Damascus considers the disputed maritime zone with Lebanon to extend from Lebanese Point No. 5 in the south to Point No. 7 in the north, covering a contested area estimated at approximately one thousand square kilometers. Gemayel warns that this situation could eventually become a genuine strategic problem for Lebanon.

The necessary roadmap: accelerate delimitation and compensate for losses

In light of these factors, Gemayel believes that Lebanon must, as a priority, accelerate the resolution of the maritime dispute with Syria in order to definitively establish its northern borders.

He also calls for expediting the allocation and exploitation of Lebanese oil blocks adjacent to Cyprus, with the aim of compensating for some of the losses incurred by an agreement that he considers fundamentally unbalanced.

Strategic analysis of the agreement: three key lessons

While Gemayel's statements clearly highlight the legal and geopolitical risks, a strategic analysis reveals three major observations:

Rapid investments, temporal uncertainty

1. The short-term economic priority: Lebanon has chosen to remove legal obstacles in order to reassure investors and quickly attract oil companies. However, this approach did not allow for immediate exploitation of resources, particularly due to the long delayi. granted for block 8.

Regional conflicts resurface at sea

2. Persistent regional threats: Disputes with Syria and Turkey's refusal to recognize the rights of Turkish Cypriots expose Lebanon to recurring risks that could hinder exploration and production. The agreement provides a legal framework but offers no real protection against political or military tensions.

Defined borders, fragile sovereignty

3. A fragile internal balance: The agreement reflects a swift political decision, but it leaves Lebanon with legally defined borders while remaining vulnerable to future disputes. This situation reduces the country's room for maneuver in future negotiations and weighs on the expected economic benefits.

Conclusion: A legal agreement without strategic guarantees

Ultimately, the agreement with Cyprus offers Lebanon formal stability and a legal framework, but exposes it to major strategic challenges. The success of this agreement as a tool for economic sovereignty and energy security will depend on Lebanon's ability to quickly resolve its dispute with Syria, accelerate exploration operations, and prudently manage its regional relations, thereby transforming a mere legal text into a genuine opportunity for the national economy and the energy sector.

Previous article: Lebanon-Cyprus EEZ: Between Legal Gains and Maritime Losses