> ADB
Pak Machmud itu nulis dipublikasi apa ? Sebaiknya komentar Anda dikirimkan kesana agar berimbang , atau apa sudah ? Si-Abah _____________________________________________________________________ Pakde ADB, > > Yang saya lihat dari moral ceritanya pak Machmud itu sebenarnya adalah: > jangan buruk muka cermin dibelah. Kita itu senang sekali mengubah-ubah > aturan (yang kadang sifatnya situasional). Padahal kita tahu semua yang > menjadi masalah bukan aturannya tapi pelaksanaanya. Kalau para kumpeni ini > masih bisa nyolong, ya pinter-pinternya dia....namanya juga usaha. Tinggal > bagaimana saja BP Migas (dan tentunya kita sebagai orang Indonesia) untuk > ikut mengawasinya. Toh cost recovery hanya dan hanya bisa dilakukan kalau > ada AFE-nya. > > Jadi kalaupun aturannya diubah, aku kok gak yakin itu akan berpengaruh > selama perilakunya tidak ada perubahan. > > > > salam, > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Andang Bachtiar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 10:27:16 PM > Subject: Re: [iagi-net-l] Lagi Lagi Cost Recovery: Perlu Reformasi ?? > > > With all due respect to Mr Machmud, I would like to comment on slight > inaccuracy of data (and interpretation) that he mentioned in his opinion > regarding PSC Contract and Cost Recovery, as follows: > > 1. There was no such a unilateral change of PSC contract, because - > legally - the changes in contract in the form of amandement were agreed > upon > and signed by both parties, i.e.: Pertamina and the Contractor. The > "offset" > mentioned in the writing also indicated that the changes were through > lengthy consideration and negotiation between parties, so that "the lost" > incurred by the PSC due to the reduced split portion could be "balanced" > by > the 100% ceiling of cost-recovery. > > 2. What is perceived as a "standstill exploration & development" during > 1977 > and 1978 was in fact had been the trend since 1971 thru 1975 in the form > of > numbers of contract signed, which averaged 3 contract/year (3 in 1971, 2 > in > 1972, 4 in 1973, 1 in 1974, 5 in 1975). In 1977: 2 contracts were signed, > and in 1978: 4 contracts were signed. So, average during those 2 years > mentioned by the article was 3 contract/year similar to the previous 5 > year > contract rate. It was too tendensious to blame the new terms of PSC for > the > continuing stand-still trend of E&P which already in the trend for the > previous 5 years. > > 3. On the "sanctity-of-contract" issue, my comment is: IF the "sacred" > Undang-Undang Dasar 45 can be ammended (and it was already), WHY should we > always insist to stick on the PSC contract, which level of sanctity is > less > then the UUD?? As long as the changes were properly negotiated and on > mutual-benefit spirit, I think we can always try to offer some changes on > that, especially if external condition dictates (the soaring-up or > plummeting-down of oil prices, international political instability such as > wars, etc). Moreover, if the PSC concerned that their business were > severely > damaged by the changes they could have always brought Pertamina to > international arbitration body as mentioned in the Contract, which they > did > not do in this case (but they did it in other cases: KARAHA BODAS). > > 4. The article described the FTP (First Trench Petroleum) in the late 80's > (August 1988 to be exact) as a levy which comes "off the top" which goes > to > the government before the cost recovery and production split. In fact it > was > not only went to the government but ALSO SHARED BY THE CONTRACTOR > according > to their split portion (15% of the 20% FTP = 3% of production revenue went > right away to the contractor). And it remained like that until 2003, when > the FTP -again- was changed JUST FOR NEW CONTRACTS to become 10% which all > goes to Government. > > 5. The argument raised that the cost recovery does not need fixing because > it has existed for 40 years and accepted and understood by all players is > slightly "unilaterally" judged. First of all, the definition of "players" > seems to be very narrow, especially if we refer to the political situation > within the last 8 years (reformation era) or 6 years (regional otonomy > era). > With the new democratization spirit, which brings up the need of > transparency in all sectors including regulation-business in oil&gas, the > "players" of oil & gas has been including at least: DPR (representing the > people of Indonesia) and also local governments (because they have now > shares of revenues from oil&gas directly). Whether we like it or not, > these > "other players" needs to be considered (and educated) in oil & gas > businesses. If they thought that the cost-recovery scheme was not proper > to > be applied because of their lack of experiences in the businesses & > regulation (which have been there for 40 years), we cannot just say that: > ""NO, guys... we are doing OK, government is doing OK,.. nothing's wrong > with Cost Recovery because both we (PSC) and Government already accepted > and > understood it. So, dont interfere,.... Lets just do business as usual..." > We > have to explain to them with numbers, values, and REAL BENEFITS that they > (the peoples) can get by allowing our 40 years Cost-Recovery scheme > continue > remain as it was. > > 6. In contrary to the popular belief of the investors that the worst flaw > of > the Cost-Recovery is it's over-controlled, the belief of the professionals > working directly in oil&gas bussiness in Indonesia is that the > Cost-Recovery > is loosely-controlled (referred to: discussions in mail-list groups like > KMI, IAGINET,...). > > Best Regards > > Andang Bachtiar > Exploration Think Tank Indonesia > > >> recovery does not need fixing. It has existed for 40 years and is >> accepted and understood by all players. It is a workable system, and >> no serious objections have ever been raised to it. Only in the last >> few years has pressure mounted, demanding increased control > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rovicky Dwi Putrohari" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 3:35 PM > Subject: Re: [iagi-net-l] Lagi Lagi Cost Recovery: Perlu Reformasi ?? > > >> Oil industry cost recovery -- don't fix what's not broken >> >> Opinion and Editorial - January 08, 2007 >> >> T.N. Machmud, Jakarta >> >> There have been reports in newspapers and professional magazines such >> as Petrominer that the government is planning to issue a set of new >> regulations on the oil and gas industry dealing with cost recovery, >> among other issues. >> >> Although the proposed regulations are undoubtedly well-intended, past >> experience has taught us to leave well enough alone. >> >> Cost recovery is dealt with in the Production Sharing Contract (PSC). >> An attachment called Exhibit C determines how and when costs may be >> recovered. This system has been in place and workable since 1967. >> >> A change was made in 1977 due to the perception that oil companies >> were making a windfall. Oil prices had increased sharply as a result >> of the Middle East embargo and the Iran situation. The government >> argued that it should benefit from the windfall more than the >> companies. >> >> Hence the production split, after cost recovery, was unilaterally >> changed from 65/35 to 85/15 in favor of state oil and gas company >> Pertamina. As an offset, the companies were allowed to use all of >> their production to recover their costs, as opposed to the previous 40 >> percent cost-recovery ceiling. >> >> This unilateral change caused a shock wave through the industry and >> brought exploration and development to a standstill throughout 1977 >> and 1978. >> >> There are lessons learned here which seem to have been forgotten. One >> lesson is that, because the sanctity of the contract was violated, >> Indonesia's image suffered a severe setback. Likewise, the oil and gas >> industry suffered a setback. >> >> We got lucky, however, because oil prices continued to rise steadily >> in the late 1970s, which made the economics of the revised contract >> workable, and by end of 1978 both exploration and development had >> resumed. >> >> Oil prices are cyclical in nature, so guess what happened next? You're >> right: Oil prices took a nose dive in the 80s and by 1986 reached an >> all-time low of US$9 per barrel! Can you imagine the pain? At that >> price level it took forever for a company to recover its costs. In all >> new fields, the government had to wait for a long time for its revenue >> share, because of that 1977 cost recovery mechanism. >> >> As a result, in the late 1980s, the government changed the rules >> unilaterally again, this time adopting something it called First >> Tranche Petroleum (FTP), which is simply a royalty. It is a levy which >> comes "off the top" which goes to the government before the cost >> recovery and production split. It is currently set at 10 percent to 15 >> percent of production. Why not just call it a royalty? That term was >> passed over because in certain quarters it smacked of the old colonial >> concession system. >> >> This ignored the fact that Malaysia had applied a 10 percent royalty >> from the outset, so that both its federal government and state >> governments receive an early cut from any production. This is why >> there have been few complaints from the states in Malaysia about how >> the pie gets divided. >> >> Thanks to the royalty -- excuse me, thanks to FTP, our government is >> now guaranteed a share of production "off the top" while cost recovery >> is going on, which greatly helps the government in a low-price >> scenario. This seems unlikely now given the current high-price >> environment, but it is still a possibility worth considering. Again, >> while it was well intended, the introduction of the FTP constituted >> another unilaterally imposed change in PSC terms. >> >> Back to our favorite subject, cost recovery. If past lessons are any >> example we should be very careful in making yet another change in PSC >> terms. Such changes may very well conflict with the existing PSC and >> cause the net economic impact of the PSC on the investor to further >> deteriorate. >> >> Before signing the PSC (or KKS as it is now called), the investor >> built an economic model, calculating his return on investment using >> several scenarios. He negotiated a contract expecting a certain >> minimum net result. If this expected net result no longer holds true >> because the deal was unilaterally changed, or if he is, for example, >> subject to sudden spurious tax levies at the central and local levels, >> he will demand that his economic expectations under the agreed >> contract be restored. If he does not get that, he may pack his bags >> and leave, and/or resort to arbitration. >> >> Admittedly, there will always be a need for some degree of regulation, >> especially in the event of what economists call market failures. But >> the government should step in only when it needs to fix something. As >> the saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. That is the >> prevailing management theory and a fundamental credo of >> microeconomics. >> >> The bottom line here is that, contrary to popular belief, cost >> recovery does not need fixing. It has existed for 40 years and is >> accepted and understood by all players. It is a workable system, and >> no serious objections have ever been raised to it. Only in the last >> few years has pressure mounted, demanding increased control. >> >> It is not perfect. Nothing is. But it is the best we have. If you ask >> the investors about flaws, they will tell you its worst flaw is that >> is already over-controlled. Therefore, the most we should do is a >> little fine-tuning after consultation with our investors. >> >> Petrominer, it its most recent issue, provided an excellent overview >> about why cost appears to be high while production is going down. Any >> oil and gas person can tell you that when you are faced with aging >> fields (like in Indonesia) your maintenance cost goes up. When you >> couple that with decreasing production, your cost per barrel goes up >> (like in Indonesia). >> >> In addition, the cost of goods and services worldwide is increasing. >> It is ridiculous to say that if production goes down, cost must also >> go down. More often it is the other way around. >> >> We hasten to say that the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) has every right >> to look into cost. For that matter, the Development Finance >> Comptroller and Upstream Oil and Gas Regulating Agency have that >> right, and it is exercised frequently. >> >> BPK has legitimate questions which deserve legitimate answers. Those >> answers will be duly provided. Certain individuals have even >> suggested, irresponsibly, that the law enforcement agencies should be >> brought in. But that suggestion seems to be politically motivated. >> >> My feeling is that the companies' books will tell their own story. >> Cost is what it is. In a way it could even be good news when costs go >> up. It could mean that the companies are spending more money on >> exploration and development, finding new production, at which point >> costs become recoverable. We cannot achieve the higher production >> target of 1.3 million barrels per day by 2009 by holding cost down at >> an artificially low level, which seems to be what we are hearing. We >> may have heard wrong, we hope. >> >> Hopefully, when everybody has had his say, the oil and gas industry >> can go back to work and concentrate on what it does: explore and >> develop. This is, after all, what the country needs most. We need to >> create space for them to do so, and not endlessly interfere with >> spurious accusations and still more regulations. Let us learn from >> history not to fix something that isn't broken. >> >> The writer is former President and CEO of ARCO Indonesia. He is a >> lawyer and an observer of the oil and gas industry who teaches in >> several leading business schools. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > siap melancong dan presentasi di Bali pada tahun 2007 ini??? > ayo bersiap untuk PIT Bersama HAGI-IAGI dan asosiasi2 lainnya di Pulau > Dewata!!! > semarakkan dengan makalah-makalah yang berkualitas internasional... > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, send email to: iagi-net-unsubscribe[at]iagi.or.id > To subscribe, send email to: iagi-net-subscribe[at]iagi.or.id > Visit IAGI Website: http://iagi.or.id > Pembayaran iuran anggota ditujukan ke: > Bank Mandiri Cab. Wisma Alia Jakarta > No. Rek: 123 0085005314 > Atas nama: Ikatan Ahli Geologi Indonesia (IAGI) > Bank BCA KCP. Manara Mulia > No. Rekening: 255-1088580 > A/n: Shinta Damayanti > IAGI-net Archive 1: http://www.mail-archive.com/iagi-net%40iagi.or.id/ > IAGI-net Archive 2: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/iagi > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Never Miss an Email > Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started! > http://mobile.yahoo.com/services?promote=mail
