Author
Listed:
- Arief L. Hakim
(Bandung Institute of Technology (SBM ITB), Indonesia)
- Yos Sunitiyoso
(Bandung Institute of Technology (SBM ITB), Indonesia)
Abstract
This research study about the evolution of contract scheme type in Indonesia’s oil and gas industry started in the early 19th century using concession contract agreement change to contract of work and the current well-known existing production sharing contract with cost recovery scheme model. In 2017, the government introduced a new scheme of gross split as an alternative for expired blocks, block extensions, and new block offerings to the contractors. There are various pros and cons of feedback from stakeholders on the new scheme; in order to accommodate the responses, revisions to the regulation were done several times to ensure its attractiveness compared to the existing cost recovery. Since then, when selecting the best-production-sharing contract between the two scheme models based on a comparison of the economic value of the block, there have not been many explanations for the principle of both scheme models’ works. Researchers assess the decision analysis to select the best scheme model using the system thinking model of causal loop diagram through the methodology of qualitative analysis of interviews with the stakeholders to understand the current condition of both scheme models, determine the critical variables that influence decision-making and explore relationships and the value of the critical variables through the feedback loops analysis. Comparison analysis was carried out to decide the best scheme model through the four areas of interest within a block: producing fields, new field development, discovery area, and prospects and leads. The case study of the Panca block evaluates and shows the gross split as the best option for the existing producing fields while cost recovery for the other three areas of interest.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:epw:ejbmr0:v:9:y:2024:i:6:id:52493. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Support Team (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://eu-opensci.org/index.php/ejbmr .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.