Technical and Legislative Risks Associated With Arctic Development Case Study - Russia and Norway
- Riverson Oppong (Gubkin Russian State University of Oil and Gas) | Amina Talipova (Gubkin Russian State University of Oil and Gas) | Benson Lamidi Abdul-Latif (Saint Petersburg Mining University)
- Document ID
- Offshore Technology Conference
- Arctic Technology Conference, 24-26 October, St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
- Publication Date
- Document Type
- Conference Paper
- 2016. Offshore Technology Conference
- 7.2.1 Risk, Uncertainty and Risk Assessment, 7.2 Risk Management and Decision-Making, 7 Management and Information
- 0 in the last 30 days
- 75 since 2007
- Show more detail
- View rights & permissions
Arctic territory, today, is one of the most prospective territories for oil and gas companies. Development of the Arctic Region completely requires new technological advancement, and thus calls for intense attention and support from experienced institutions and research centers. Following the USGC research made in 2008, more than 80% of perspective Arctic rersources are located in offshore. This inevitably conveys technical and legislative risks that are not experienced onshore or in conventional offshore fields. Technical risks are associated with severe climatic conditions, sensitive ecological situations and lack of field development experience from arctic territories, as legislative risks vary within the arctic countries in question.
This present paper consists of two main parts - analysis of technical risks, and legislative risks influence (including taxation system) on field developments in the Russian Barents Sea and Norwegian Barents Sea. In the frame of technical analysis, risk classification system according to different Arctic Sea conditions are presented. Probability for each technical risk was assessed and included in the field development project evaluation. In order to achieve synergetic effect, valuation model of field development with technical risks were then incorporated into economic model, which includes legislative restriction and taxation. These conditions differ from territory to territory; for that matter Russian and Norway.
|File Size||1 MB||Number of Pages||14|
Heininen L., Sergunin A., Yarovoy G. (2014). Russian strategies in the Arctic: avoiding a new Cold War. Moscow: Valdai International Discussion Club. Available at: http://www.uarctic.org/media/857300/arctic_eng.pdf
Henderson, J. and Loe, J. (2014). The Prospects and Challenges for Arctic Oil Development. OIES Paper: WPW 54, Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. Available at: http://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/wpm-56.pdf
Jensen, L.C. and Skedsmo, P.W. (2010). Approaching the North: Norwegian and Russian foreign policy discourses on the European Arctic. Polar Research, 29: 439-450. Available at: http://www.polarresearch.net/index.php/polar/article/view/6073/6752
USGS World Assessment Team, 2000, U.S. Geological Survey World Petroleum Assessment 2000-Description and Results: U.S. Geological Survey Digital Data Series - DDS60 [http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-060/].
WEC (World Energy Council). 2007. Survey of energy resources 2007. http://www.worldenergy.org/publications/survey_of_energy_resources_2007/default.asp