Fiscal regimes for mineral exploitation

2020 ◽  
pp. 146-191
Author(s):  
Evaristus Oshionebo
Keyword(s):  
2002 ◽  
Vol 180 ◽  
pp. 54-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ray Barrell

The UK has to make a decision on membership of EMU in the next two years. The monetary and fiscal regimes in the Euro Area and in the UK do not differ greatly. However, we argue that membership of EMU will increase the stability of the economy and the credibility of the policy framework, and hence will enhance the prospects for growth and higher incomes and employment. There appear to be no major problems associated with joining EMU at around 1.50 euros to the pound, although there are risks to the UK if the euro appreciates against the dollar after we have entered. However, the costs associated with this risk have to be offset against the probability of the significant output gains that could come from EMU membership in the medium term.


Energy Policy ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 101 ◽  
pp. 473-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan M. Ramírez-Cendrero ◽  
María J. Paz

Energy Policy ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 88 ◽  
pp. 253-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nor Aziah Abdul Manaf ◽  
Abdulsalam Mas'ud ◽  
Zuaini Ishak ◽  
Natrah Saad ◽  
Alex Russell
Keyword(s):  

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 161-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony J. Venables

Developing economies have found it hard to use natural resource wealth to improve their economic performance. Utilizing resource endowments is a multistage economic and political problem that requires private investment to discover and extract the resource, fiscal regimes to capture revenue, judicious spending and investment decisions, and policies to manage volatility and mitigate adverse impacts on the rest of the economy. Experience is mixed, with some successes (such as Botswana and Malaysia) and more failures. This paper reviews the challenges that are faced in successfully managing resource wealth, the evidence on country performance, and the reasons for disappointing results.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-35
Author(s):  
Adityawarman Adityawarman ◽  
Faridh Afdhal Aziz ◽  
Prasandi Abdul Aziz ◽  
Purnomo Yusgiantoro ◽  
Steven Chandra

There are currently two fiscal regimes designated for resource allocation in Indonesia’s upstream oil and gas industry, the Production Sharing Contract Cost Recovery (PSC) and Gross Split. The Gross Split in the form of additional percentage split is designed to encourage contractors to implement Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) in mature fields. Low Salinity Water Injection (LSWI) is an emerging EOR technique in which the salinity of the injected water is controlled. It has been proven to be relatively cheaper and has simpler implementations than other EOR options in several countries. This study evaluates the LSWI project’s economy using PSC and Gross Split and then to be compared to conventional waterflooding (WF) project’s economy. There are four cases on Field X that are simulated using a commercial simulator for 5 years. The cases are evaluated under PSC and Gross Split to calculate the project’s economy. The economic indicators that will be evaluated are the Net Present Value (NPV) and sensitivity analysis is also conducted to observe the change of NPV. The parameters for sensitivity analysis are Capital Expenditure (CAPEX), Operating Expenditure (OPEX), Oil Production, and Oil Price. It is found that LSWI implementation using Gross Split is more profitable than PSC. The parameters that affects NPV the most in all PSC cases are the oil production and oil price. On the other hand, in Gross Split cases, the oil production is the parameter that affects NPV the most, followed by oil price. The novelty of this study is in the comparison of project’s economy between WF and LSWI using two different fiscal regimes to see whether Gross Split is more profitable than PSC on EOR implementation, specifically the LSWI at Field X.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando Nunez ◽  
Christian Alan Ramirez ◽  
Jose Luis Bashbush ◽  
Oswaldo Espinola
Keyword(s):  

2006 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 95-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andon J. Blake ◽  
Mark C. Roberts

1996 ◽  
Author(s):  
M.W. Ekelund ◽  
J.E. Faltinson ◽  
M.A. Taher ◽  
D.L. Dittaro

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document