"Shell has reportedly been influenced in its pull-out decision by a combination of poor results from its five exploration blocks, rising security concerns for its personnel and operations and suggestions that the government is driving too hard a deal on Qaddafi-era contracts, which it said originally would be honoured."
Libya's National Oil Company chairman, Dr Nuri Buruwin: We thank BP for its commitment to Libya by lifting the force majeure. The NOC will work with BP to deliver the objectives of the EPSA and extends all help and support to BP in order to implement the agreed work program as per existing EPSA terms.
"Shells experience in Libya has been mixed. With the 2004 lifting of international sanctions against the Qaddafi regime, it was the first international oil company to sign an exploration and production deal that focused on gas production and processing."
Sounds like BP is going to comply with "existing EPSA terms" which were the terms of the "original Exploration and Production Sharing Agreement (EPSA) contract with NOC, signed in December 2007" with the Ghaddafi government.
The article doesn't say why Libya was being tougher with Shell and wouldn't just let it function under the terms of the EPSA signed with Ghaddafi. It did point out that Shell was the first IOC to sign an oil development deal with Ghaddafi when international sanctions were lifted in 2004.
It is good to know that the Libyan government is forcing IOC's to, at a minimum comply, with the requirements of the contracts they signed with Ghaddafi and are trying to negotiate even tougher deals in some cases.