Latest News

In recognition of World Tuberculosis (TB) Day, Businesses for Health Papua New Guinea (B4H) visited Cricket Papua New Guinea (CPNG) for an informative, interactive session and fielded lots of questions dedicated to the National Men’s and Women’s Cricket Teams and the Cricket PNG Staff. In a different kind of training session for the Baramundis, Lewas and Siales, B4H aimed to empower the country’s sporting heroes as role models in the fight against TB, a disease that disproportionately affects young, working-age individuals in PNG. “Despite their elite status, our athletes are not immune to TB,” said Margaret Sibona, Cricket PNG’s Senior Manager for Special Projects. During the session many players acknowledged losses of family, friends and players to the disease. “The rates of TB in the big villages are so high. Our players can play a part in raising awareness about TB, HIV and childhood vaccinations,” Sibona said. “Our focus is on the importance of early TB case finding, and the need to change societal mindsets regarding coughs and respiratory health. With TB rates remaining alarmingly high in the NCD (National Capital District), even the healthiest among us can be affected,” said Teresa Koratsi TB HEO with B4H. Dr Ann Clarke, director of Businesses for Health PNG, said: “On this World TB Day, we are so pleased to take a step towards ending TB by equipping our sporting icons with the knowledge they need to lead and support early case finding.” “By encouraging everyone to check every cough for TB, we can work together towards a healthier sports community and a healthier PNG.” Nursing officers Lowen Sihare and Sharlo Lung provided the players with information and answers about TB prevention, free treatment, the importance of early detection, and ways to support those affected by the disease. B4H and CPNG look forward to exploring how together they can leverage their unique platforms to inspire change and promote health awareness among their fans, workplaces and communities. For more information about the event or to schedule interviews with key speakers from CPNG or B4H please contact Dr Clarke at annmclarke@businesses4health.com.

Papua New Guinea has a New Mining Minister, as Prime Minister James Marape announced on 25 March the appointment of the member for Finchaffen, Hon. Rainbo Paita, to the position. Marape made the announcement before departing for an official visit to New Zealand. He confirmed that Paita would assume responsibility for the Mining Ministry following a Cabinet reshuffle prompted by the resignation of Namatanai MP Walter Schnaubelt, who stepped down to contest the vacant New Ireland governor’s seat. As part of the reshuffle, the Prime Minister reassigned outgoing Mining Minister Hon. Wake Goi to oversee the Transport and Civil Aviation Ministry. Marape outlined key priorities for both ministers, emphasizing the importance of continuity and progress in their respective portfolios. "I have tasked Minister Goi to ensure the completion of key airport and terminal projects at Boram, Tokua, and Buka, as well as ongoing works at Wapenamanda, Kerema, and Daru airports," he said. Marape also underscored the significance of finalizing the Community Development Agreement (CDA) for major mining projects, particularly the Porgera and Wafi Golpu mines in PNG. He stated that Minister Paita would play a crucial role in facilitating these agreements and ensuring the smooth operation of the mining sector. Paita has been a Member of Parliament for the Finschhafen Open seat since 2017. He is the leader of the Papua and Niugini Union Party (PANGU) and has held various ministerial portfolios, including Minister for National Planning and Monitoring, Minister for Finance and Implementation, and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister. Paita has been a key figure in Papua New Guinean politics, and his party has played a significant role in supporting the government. In 2024, he led his party back to the government, citing the need for national unity and stability. As Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, Paita has been working closely with Marape to advance the country's goals and introduce alternative policies to stabilize the economy.

Parliament recently (12.03.25) passed two laws for the establishment and operation of the National Petroleum Authority (NPA), a new body that will take over as the regulator of the petroleum sector in the country. The National Petroleum Bill 2025 was voted 84 to 0 into law, while the Oil and Gas Act Amendment Bill 2025 was passed on voices. Both bills were presented to Parliament by Minister for Petroleum, Hon. Jimmy Maladina. These Acts of Parliament now pave the way for the set-up and operation of NPA, which will take over from the Department of Petroleum and Energy as the administering arm of the petroleum sector under the Oil and Gas Act 1998. Prime Minister Hon. James Marape, in a press conference after Parliament ses-sion, highlighted the importance in the role NPA would play in underpinning the country’s petroleum sector. “The National Petroleum Authority will be the regulator of this big sector that contributes over 50 percent of the country’s GDP and economy. “Petroleum is an important sector, but the Oil and Gas Act has carried us for the last 20 years, and so it is timely that we change to keep up with a bigger economy and a more robust hydrocarbon industry, petroleum, and gas pro-jects. “Under this new framework and structure, regulations, licensing, administration of our petroleum and gas sector will be governed. This will give us a platform for us to move into hybrid production-sharing regime that has Papua New Guinean characteristics,” said Prime Minister Marape. The Prime Minister gave the assurance that investors have nothing to fear but to have the confidence that their investments would be better protected un-der the revised mechanism. “This work will include protecting the return on investors so that they too are making money at the same time but that we are clear on PNG’s entitlements in taxes, royalty, equity, levies and so on. “So I give assurance to our industry stakeholders out there. The restructure hap-pening is not to diminish their presence or their value, but to ensure that we operate in clarity of regulation and the environment, and that their interest – in as far as return on investment is concerned – is secured. “This authority will make it easier for all of us,” said PM Marape. The Prime Minister said this work to set up NPA will continue into the country’s 50th year which begins on 16 September until 15 September 2026.

Prime Minister Hon. James Marape has recently (11.12.24) announced his government’s decision to partially privatise PNG Power Ltd amidst Government’s further decision to open up other parts of the country to independent power suppliers. Prime Minister Marape told the PNG CORE Investment Week in Sydney that Cabinet has approved the decision in one of its final meetings this year the partial privatization of the State-owned enterprise to improve its operations and efficiency of power supply to Papua New Guinea. The partial privatization means the State will continue to maintain its interest in PNGPL with the investor taking over management of the enterprise and equity - assets worth over K4 billion in the company. This will be the second decision Cabinet has made on PNGPL, where an earlier decision was made to look at the company’s power generation, retail and distribution status. The Prime Minister urged investors to keep an eye out for Expressions of Interest soon to be advertised, pointing out the advantage in PNG Power’s “first right to supply power” monopoly in Papua New Guinea. “Power supply is a strategic asset and investment, and PNG Power has two important assets. It has asset that is K4 billion in total, and more importantly it has monopoly in first right of supplying power with its community service obli-gation that it still holds,” said the Prime Minister. Prime Minister Marape said reforms in the energy sector have begun with the government ministry responsible ready to issue licenses to investors willing to partner his government to take power supply to parts of PNG that are out of reach of PNGPL, as up to 70 percent of the country still remains without elec-tricity supply. The Prime Minister also highlighted Government’s long-term decision to move into clean, green energy in the next 20 years, while pointing out PNG’s numer-ous clean energy potential in hydro, thermal, wind and solar sources. He urged investors to seriously consider this space and to look further down the line to selling power over the borders to Indonesia and Australia. “We want to unlock power in our country by bringing cheaper reliable and cleaner power to our people at the earliest. We have more than enough sources of clean energy where hydro remains the biggest available source. “I encourage investors to think big and take up these opportunities that are available in our country,” said PM Marape.

Prime Minister Hon. James Marape has thanked the New Zealand Government for the engage-ment of Papua New Guineans, who are currently working and living in Blenheim, New Zealand. Prime Minister Marape expressed his appreciation to the Government of New Zealand and the employers especially Hortus Ltd for employing Papua New Guineans through the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE), a labour mobility scheme that allows New Zealand employers in the horticulture industry to re- cruit seasonal workers from Pacific Island nations like Papua New Guinea. Speaking at the Hortus Ltd facilities today (26/03/25), Prime Minister said he was pleased to see PNG employees satisfied with what they have been taught and trained whilst employed at the facilities. Prime Minister Marape also encouraged the employees to use the opportunity to improve their lives and become better men and women in the future. “I am pleased to see all my sons who could have been back at home in PNG but are here, trying to find their way to survive. So, I want to appreciate you all and also thank Hortus Ltd for your engagement. “We are pleased to see our people finding a safe haven in which they can progress in their lives,” he said. The Prime Minister further encouraged the employees to use the opportunity to better their lives and continue to use the facilities to re-educate themselves for self-improvement. “In the future, we want to use this batch not only for work under the seasonal workforce arrangement but also for them to gain education in New Zealand. So, we encourage the PNG High Commission to take stock of the progress of our RSE workers and through our High Commission, the PNG Government can interface and overlay skill-based education or higher education for their qual- ifications,” he said. Prime Minister Marape said that from then on, the employers could reemploy them into skill-based employment in New Zealand, or they could return to PNG with their skills and knowledge to benefit them. There is intention by the PNG Government to work with New Zealand in the future to open up trade and university study pathways for Grade 12 school leavers on the scheme to receive trade training or university education for the option for full employment in New Zealand or back in PNG, he said.

The Green Finance Summit 2025 marked a strong set of commitments and partnerships, reinforcing the country’s green finance agenda and accelerating its position as a leader in sustainable finance across the Pacific region. This summit was hosted by the Green Finance Centre (GFC), under the auspicious of the Central Bank of Papua New Guinea (BPNG), brought together senior government officials from the Treasury, Energy, Agriculture, Labor, Forestry, and Environment Ministries in PNG, along with leaders from Agence Française de Développement (AFD), Asia Development Bank (ADB), International Finance Corporation (IFC) member of the World Bank Group, International Monetary Fund (IMF), New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT), United National Development Program (UNDP), United Nations Capital Development Fund (UNCDF), Alliance for Financial Inclusion (AFI), and the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI), and Bank South Pacific (BSP), Kina Bank, ANZ PNG, MiBank, Mama Bank and more. Significant announcements and agreements were made throughout the day, as AFD committed to supporting the development of green finance instruments, such as the Green Refinancing Facility (GRF) and Green Guarantee Facility (GGF) to mobilize capital and de-risk green investments. The commitment was strengthened by an agreement from ADB to inject USD 20 million into both facilities while working with AFD, UNCDF, GFC, and BPNG. These partners will connect with local financial institutions to co-develop a pipeline of green and blue loans, forming the backbone of blended green finance and unlocking finance for Micro Small, and Medium-Sized Enterprises (MSME) in PNG. BPNG Governor Ms. Elizabeth Genia (middle) pictured with BPNG Chairman Mr. David Toua (left) and Honorable Minister for Energy Mr. Thomas Opa (right) at the Green Finance Summit held in Port Moresby.

Four out of five tourists who visited Papua New Guinea in 2024 were satisfied and are willing to return to the country and would recommend it to other tourists, according to the annual PNG International Visitor Survey (IVS) Report released this month. About 86 percent of the survey respondents recommended PNG and 89 percent said they were willing to come back, the Pacific Tourism Organisation (SPTO) said of the study. It was made through SPTO’s Pacific Tourism Data Initiative (PTDI) and in collaboration with the Papua New Guinea Tourism Promotion Authority (TPA). Visitors rated hospitality, tours, handicrafts, accommodation, and activities highly, the report said. Areas for improvement included safety, travel costs, domestic flights, infrastructure, cleanliness, and security. The survey ran from January to December 2024, analyzing 3,701 responses from 3,775 collected, with a 24% response rate. Nearly half or 42% of respondents were first-time visitors, with an average household income of USD 86,074 (about 366,000 kina). As expected, PNG’s next-door neighbor Australia recorded the highest visitor arrivals at 39%, followed by tourists from Asia at 35%, and Europe at 8%. The dominant age group was 40-59 years old, as 48% traveled to PNG for business, 23% traveled for leisure, and 18% went to the country to visit friends and relatives, the report added. Key attractions for tourists included nature, cultural heritage, business opportunities, and family visits. World War II heritage sites were a major draw for historical tourism, the report said. Visitors appreciated the warmth and hospitality of the local people. The survey also noted that the average prepaid visitor spending was USD 2,613 (10,750 kina), with 65% (USD 1,699 or 6,990 kina) benefiting the local economy. In-country spending averaged USD 1,385 (about 5,700 kina) per trip, with an average stay of 10.2 nights. Visitors contributed USD 309 million (1.27 billion kina) to PNG’s economy, a 9% increase from the previous year, the IVS added. The IVS findings will support evidence-based planning and enhance PNG’s tourism offerings to align with evolving visitor expectations, the report proponents said. SPTO Chief Executive Officer Christopher Cocker highlighted the significance of the PTDI in shaping sustainable tourism growth across the Pacific. He said SPTO remains committed to working closely with TPA and other member countries to ensure the PTDI continues to deliver meaningful insights that drive sustainable tourism development across the Pacific. “As the leading hub for Pacific tourism research, SPTO is committed to equipping our member countries, including PNG, with reliable data to inform strategic decisions. The PTDI is a vital resource that enables governments and industry stakeholders to make informed choices that strengthen regional tourism development,” he said. TPA CEO Eric Mossman Uvovo acknowledged the value of the IVS findings, as the country seeks to improve visitor experiences and position PNG as a competitive destination. “These insights are instrumental in shaping the future of tourism in PNG. We appreciate SPTO’s collaboration in delivering these reports, which will guide our strategies for sustainable tourism growth,” said Uvovo. Since transitioning to SPTO’s management in October 2023, the PTDI continues to serve as an essential resource for tourism data across the Pacific. Funded by the New Zealand Government, the PTDI supports ten Pacific Island nations—Cook Islands, Niue, PNG, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Tonga, Kiribati, Timor Leste, and FSM-Yap—in evidence-based planning and decision-making. The initiative produces the bi-annual IVS, an annual Business Confidence Index (BCI), and an annual Community Attitude Survey (CAS) report to strengthen regional tourism strategies.

 Michael McWalter picks up his prior discussions of petroleum sector reform (Issue No. 3 2024) and describes in more detail exactly what a Production Sharing Contract, or what a PSC, is all about. In my commentary of PNG Business News, Issue 2, 2023 entitled: Petroleum Sector Reform for Papua New Guinea, I wrote about the need to apply better governance to the sector to achieve optimal outcomes for the State. In particular, I spoke of the need for the petroleum revenues arising from petroleum resource development to be deployed wisely for the benefit of the people of PNG on capital formation activities like: education, health, social welfare, infrastructure, etc. – all of which should promote the National economy to grow, and thus improve livelihoods.  This translation of the value of resources with appropriate management into sustainable development is often called the value chain, and each aspect of the chain needs most serious and competent management.   There is little point in mobilising one’s natural resources to make an income for the State, if that money is not put to good purpose, but rather wasted one way or another by folly or malady.  Those resources may only be produced once, and not again; they are finite and have value now at such time as that kind of resource is sought after in global markets. We must remember that there may come a day when oil and gas are no longer consumed with such avid demand as today. This might eventuate as more investments are poured into the development of renewables sources of energy and advancements are made with cleaner nuclear fission and sustainable thermonuclear fusion. Oil and gas might become a quixotic, antiquated and outmoded source of energy, and thus attract considerably less value.  So, if a government is going to foster investment in petroleum exploration and development, it needs to embrace such grave and important responsibility to ensure that the Nation’s petroleum business is conducted most professionally and with total accountability. Government must ensure that the resultant revenues from subsequent production are appropriate, reasonable and respected as being derived from the overall patrimony of the people of the Nation.  This requires investment by the State in professional excellence to manage, moderate, administrate and regulate the sector and its operations firmly and fairly.  The oft cited National Petroleum Authority (NPA), which was first defined in the Government’s 1976 White Paper on Petroleum Policy and Legislation by two of our greatest leaders, Sir Michael Somare and Sir Julius Chan, has been repeatedly conceived, only to be still born. Into that vacuum, Kumul Petroleum Holdings Ltd, PNG’s de facto National Oil Company (NOC) has steadily and bravely taken the lead and embraced National development in the oil and gas sector, and all that it entails. Meantime, the Department of Petroleum and Energy has valiantly tried to keep up with ever increasing core and essential petroleum sector functions, like licensing, operational approvals, and data collection, whilst otherwise becoming absorbed, and perhaps overwhelmed, in the peripheral though, absolutely essential tasks of dealing with project area landowners, their benefit claims and their many other concerns and worries. Plans for a NPA have been formulated in great detail several times over in the last few decades, only to be forsaken, lost, sidestepped, and derailed time and time again. The whole notion of the NPA was to bring together a cadre of PNG excellence to lead the petroleum sector as the guardian of PNG’s petroleum resources. The members of that cadre were to have been well-paid for their experience and important responsibility, and as an Authority of the Government, the NPA might have been able to retain and attract some of PNG’s finest graduates in such exciting and challenging work.   I also discussed the vital need for the commerciality of petroleum developments without which investment by the industry in field development would be withheld.  I discussed how the 2020 amendments to the Oil and Gas Act imposed a test on a proposed petroleum development project that the applicant’s proposals should reflect a minimum expected return to the State over the life of any recovery of petroleum. However, that minimum expected return to the State is not specified in law and is only examined and determined by the Petroleum Advisory Board (PAB), and then considered by the Minister at the time of application for a development licence.  This leaves investors with great uncertainty and unnecessary risk throughout the period of exploration, appraisal, development planning and the application phase of petroleum resource development.  There is thus now no absolute certainty of development if a discovery of commercial extent is made. Either the PAB or the Minister may set a threshold minimum expected return to the State during the consideration of an application for development. This is at a very late stage in the cycle of petroleum resource development investment and comes just before the investing companies have to elect to develop their discovered petroleum accumulation, or not. If a field development is marginally economic, the setting of such a minimum expected return to the State might in some circumstances make corporate consideration of development uncommercial, and as a consequence the field might be left undeveloped. In any normal distribution of petroleum accumulations, there are a few large fields, a fair number of medium size fields and many smaller fields. It would not be wise to disadvantage the development of smaller and often smaller marginally economic fields, which tend to be developed after the larger fields have been found and produced, and which can readily sustain a domestic petroleum industry populated by smaller, and likely, local companies with smaller investments.  Oddly, as I said in 2023, the potential introduction of Production Sharing Contracts (PSCs) would obviate such a risky situation because the terms of development are normally locked into a PSC when originally negotiated and agreed between the State and the investing companies as contractors to the State at the outset. Being a contract, any capricious demand by the State for unexpected returns on petroleum development pursuant to a PSC would end up with the contract being the substance of legal proceedings.  I now want to pick up on my themes of a year ago and discuss optimal and necessary arrangements for petroleum development in the light of some creeping petroleum policy change in recent years, and a keen desire by the Government to change the PNG petroleum regime and to adopt the use of PSCs. I particularly wish to demystify PSCs. Figure 2: Much has been written on PSCs. Celebrated analyst, Daniel Johnston, is prominent with his simplified mapping of fiscal and commercial regimes. King & Spalding, an American multinational corporate law firm, has also written a most comprehensive book on the topic, ex libris McWalter.   WHAT ARE PRODUCTION SHARING CONTRACTS?   The notion of a Government sharing the production of oil and gas arising from the development of a successful petroleum exploration campaign by companies as part of a commercial venture was first developed and employed in Bolivia in the 1950s. A Production Sharing Contract (PSC) is an arrangement between a host Government and an international oil and gas company (IOC) for the division and allocation of the oil and gas produced between those two parties under a contract which provides for the exploration for and the development and production of petroleum resources. The allocation of a share of the production to the IOC serves to recompense the IOC for its investment and to provide a reasonable reward for its success. The Government, as owner of the resources, also provides a mechanism called a cost recovery allowance to the contractor for its work, but keeps the rest of the petroleum produced. The PSC was introduced in Indonesia in 1966, and PSCs of this kind or variants of the same are used extensively to agree the arrangements for oil and gas exploration, development, and production with oil and gas companies. PSCs of one kind or another are used in over 40 countries, throughout the world.   The PSC is not the only manner by which a government may grant oil and gas exploration, development and production rights to commercial investors and gain a share in the value of successful petroleum production.  Prior to the development of the PSC, exploration and production of oil and gas was typically governed by way of a licence or a concession agreement, and such regimes still remain in effect in many different places around the world. In many developing nations, the PSC is now the most common means by which a government allows corporate investment in the oil and gas industry. It provides a company or consortium of companies the right to explore and produce oil and gas.  In many jurisdictions, there are political or nationalistic reasons for the adoption of PSCs as they perceptibly provide the Government with greater and more direct control over its resources and the ability to exert National sovereignty over the industry more readily.   After gaining independence in 1945, Indonesian’s concessions regime came under attack by certain nationalist groups leading to the nationalisation of Royal Dutch Shell’s assets. Indonesian Law 44/60 abolished the old concessionary system and specified that: “Oil and gas mining shall only be carried out by the State and implemented by State enterprises,” and further that, “the Minister may appoint other parties as contractors of the State enterprises.” Alas, a decline in foreign investment in Indonesia’s oil and gas sector inevitably ensued. To mitigate this decline, the government eventually negotiated and agreed in 1962 with the Pan American Indonesia Oil Corporation, a subsidiary of Standard Oil of Indiana (later to become Amoco), a new contract based on legislation that was much more favourable to the Government.  The other large foreign petroleum investors, Caltex (a venture of Chevron and Texaco), Shell, and Stanvac (a venture of Socony [Standard Oil of New York] and Vacuum Oil and Standard Oil of New Jersey, later to become Exxon) followed by signing Contracts of Work in September 1963. These early PSCs were widely considered to be less controversial than the previous concessions system, as they enabled the government to maintain formal ownership of the resources until sold, while permitting the IOCs to exploit them for and on behalf of the Government. These contracts provided for the recovery of the costs of the contractor up to an agreed percentage of overall production plus an agreed, but often scaled, share of the produced oil and gas as a reward for its investment. Although often cited as the example of the use of PSCs, in 2017, in a somewhat odd twist, the Indonesian Government established a new form of PSC called the Gross Split PSC. This completely abolished cost recovery systems pioneered in the classic PSCs of the 1960s. Instead, this new arrangement simply relies on an agreed split of the actual production between the Government and the IOCs, typically 43% to the contractor for oil and 48% to the contractor for gas production, with the balance of production going to the Government. Due to a loss of faith in Pertamina (Indonesia’s national oil company) in the late 1990s (an audit had shown that Pertamina had allegedly lost about US$6.1 billion from inefficiency and corruption in 1997 and 1998) the Indonesian Government took steps to rein in control of the industry at the Ministry level, but they had no financial ability to manage the proceeds of the sale of oil and gas which were remitted to the revenue account of the National government.  Without any retained funds, this then entailed the Ministry having to seek parliamentary appropriations to pay the cost recovery allowances to the IOCs, but then the Indonesian Parliament questioned these payments. This brings home the need to think through the implications of changes in regime and the management of any given regime, especially if one is contemplating changing from a licence or concessionary regime to a contractor-based one. What is a PSC? In a PSC, a government makes a contract with an IOC to provide the necessary and requisite financial, technical, management, environmental, social, planning and logistical skills in order to explore for, and hopefully, if successful in finding oil and gas accumulations, to produce the oil and gas. The host State (that throughout most of the world, normally owns the subterranean resources) will usually be represented by the Government or a Government Petroleum Ministry, Department, Authority or quite often some other type of agency of the State, such as its National Oil Company (NOC), which will take delivery of the State’s share of production and generally manage the commercial aspects of the PSC. The IOC is typically granted an exclusive time-limited right to explore for petroleum accumulations, appraise any discovery, plan and execute development and produce oil and gas within a defined area, generally known as the contract area. Under the PSC arrangement, the IOC bears the entire risk of the project, both technical and financial. If a commercial discovery is declared, the IOC becomes entitled to a portion of any subsequent petroleum produced as an effective payment for its efforts, in addition to recouping all its costs from the production. Conversely, if no discoveries are made, the IOC receives nothing. The Government retains ownership of all the oil and gas produced, save for what oil and gas is allocated to the IOC as cost recovery petroleum, or is the subject of sharing between the IOC and the NOC as profit petroleum. This causes the Government to be involved in selling its share of the produced oil and gas.  In some jurisdictions, the IOC is allowed to keep the physical oil for itself, and the IOC makes just cash payments only to the NOC, based on the sale of the NOC’s petroleum entitlements; in others, physical oil and gas allocations are used to reward the IOC. The extent to which the NOC is involved with the exploration, development and production process varies from country to country with some NOCs seeking to take a significant lead in the business other than a just managing the PSC, whilst other NOCs take only a small participating interest in the commercial venture, so as to be within the operating consortium and to learn from it. There are commonly four key financial aspects to a PSC: royalty, cost recovery petroleum, and profit petroleum, though many other relevant matters are agreed in the PSC. Figure 3: Contents of a PSC: A sample from Equatorial Guinea, after the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, 2006    Royalty Most often and foremost, the IOC is typically expected to pay a prescribed or agreed royalty as a percentage of the gross value of oil and gas production to the State as valued at the point of export from the contract area. The royalty is often, at the State’s option, taken as a physical share of production, or alternatively by way of a payment by the IOC equivalent to the sale price of the State’s royalty share of production. Sometimes, the percentage rate of royalty may be the subject of bids for a contract area by competing oil and gas companies when bidding for the same or similar areas.  Royalty is a payment made in kind or related to produced volumes and price without regard to the profitability of the business. Therefore, in times of low petroleum commodity prices it has the effect of digging deep into profitability.  However, for a host Government, royalty is an assured payment regardless of profitability, but proportionate to the value of the produced oil and gas. Cost Recovery Petroleum Following payment of any royalty, the IOC is normally entitled to a pre-determined maximum percentage of gross production from which it may recover all its genuine costs, with any costs not recovered being carried forward to the next accounting year. Such production is known as cost oil and cost gas, and again may be taken in cash or kind. Obviously, the IOC attempts to maximise cost recovery early in the cycle of production up to the agreed maximum percentage limit, so as to recoup its expenses soonest, and likewise the Government will scrutinise the costs submitted to it for recovery as to their genuine eligibility. That scrutiny involves approval of all procurements and sub-contracts of the IOC, and represents an enormous accounting burden for the Government.   Profit Oil The oil and gas remaining after the payment of royalty to the Government and the cost recovery allowance to the IOC by the host Government is known as profit oil and profit gas, and it is generally divided between the IOC and the Government in accordance with the production sharing provisions agreed and defined in the PSC. Quite often the Government’s share of profit oil and profit gas increases as the production rates increase. Income tax Finally, the IOC is quite often required to pay income tax on its share of net benefits which should strictly amount only to profit oil, as cost oil and cost gas represent only a recoupment and recovery of costs. However, the application of income tax varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and in some cases the IOC’s notional income tax due is often paid by the NOC, or the State on behalf of the IOC, such that there is no financial impact on the IOC, there being just a journal entry between different parts of the Government. An income tax superposed on the PSC regime without appropriate tax deductions can rapidly make a fair PSC regime become a very hostile one.  In the calculation of the net take to the State under a PSC, one has to include the results of any Corporate Income Tax and all and any other taxes, levies or imposts that affect the outcome of the overall PSC.  In some PSCs, there is simply no tax, and the royalty, cost oil and gas, and production share are deemed to be final fiscal devices. Figure 4: It must be noted that the production or profit oil split is not the same as the overall net take to each party, after Daniel Johnston in International Petroleum Fiscal Regimes and Production Sharing Contracts      Government Involvement The objectives of the parties when negotiating a PSC and its terms will generally be diametrically opposed.  An IOC will strive to negotiate for itself as much independence and control as possible over operations, and it will want any State intervention in the running of the project to be kept to a minimum. Naturally, it will be keen to keep its costs low, by negotiating the highest cost recovery allowance and the largest production share it can, and it will seek the full recovery of all its costs. The Government will wish to have an overall say in the development of its resources in an orderly and systematic manner that creates synergies for future development. The Government will also wish to make as much money as possible, reduce cost recovery allowances, and have access to an IOC’s resources and relevant expertise, without spending much time and money. The Government may also have economic priorities for domestic petroleum supply to its economy to mitigate energy import requirements and obviate foreign exchange requirements. Throughout the contract from exploration to development to production, the Government will want to ensure that the IOC is undertaking a technically appropriate exploration work programme with appropriate levels of investment and that the exclusive right to access land or the offshore area is being used efficiently. In addition, the Government will typically be concerned to secure as many rights and benefits for the people and local businesses, including affected local communities, as possible.  This is generally accomplished by the optimisation of jobs and training for local workers through requirements to use local goods, services and contractor and subcontractor services as far is feasible and practical – this is what is typically called local content. Figure 5: The main elements of a PSC, after Hassan Harraz, Tanta University, Egypt, 20106   Why the PSC Model? The obvious advantage of the PSC model for a government is the minimal risk on its part throughout the value chain of the enterprise. It is thus able to reap the benefits of its natural resources without having to spend its own time and money even for development. This is not to say that the State does not pay. It inevitably pays for its share of all and any costs of exploration, development and production through the cost recovery process payable to the Contractor. In most cases, the Government will not have the technology needed to explore for and produce oil and gas, and so contracting the help of an IOC that has the appropriate skills, capacities and technology is usually necessary in order for the Government to exploit its natural resources optimally, especially in the offshore areas. The same is, however, also true for licence and concessionary arrangements where even if the host Government has an equity option to take up a participating interest in a petroleum development project it will still pay for at least its pro rata percentage share of sunk and past exploration, appraisal and development planning costs up to the point of the establishment of facilities for development and the commencement of the recovery of the petroleum. As and when exploration proves to be successful, the Government can secure long-term supplies and/or exports of oil and gas in a PSC regime, which it can trade as it sees fit. The long-term nature of a PSC enables the Government to predict future levels of oil and gas for domestic use, export and to make provisions in the national budget accordingly. Alternatively, the PSC model can be most lucrative for the State, if it takes the option of taking its share of production as a cash payment, rather than in kind. It is also very common for PSCs to contain provisions that as the production rate increases, the proportion of the production attributable to the Government may also increase, meaning that a significant and increasing proportion of the value of profit oil is paid to the host Government and its representative entity defined in the PSC. In all cases, at the initial stage of petroleum resource development, the IOC bears substantially all the financial risk. If, and only if, exploration proves successful and the discovered oil and/or gas accumulations are developed and produced, the IOC may be able to recover its costs through cost oil and/or cost gas and an agreed share in the profits of the remaining quantity of oil and gas. As to whether the PSC model is more favourable to the State than to IOCs in contrast to the licence or concessionary system, ultimately depends on the rates used for the various fiscal and commercial parameters in each system. In a concessionary regime, costs are only recovered slowly as depreciation allowances against assessable income. The speed of the recovery of costs depends entirely on the terms set by law and those allowed to be negotiated in the framework of a PSC. It may or may not be possible for an IOC to negotiate the terms of a PSC with more, or less financially and commercially attractive terms for petroleum development than a licence or concession arrangement might otherwise have offered under a prior regime. It is all about the terms of the selected regime, whichever is applied. Figure 6: Some terms of the petroleum regime may still be contained in legislation whilst others will be negotiable depending on the particular regime, after Daniel Johnston in International Petroleum Fiscal Regime and Production Sharing Contracts.     One possible negative aspect of the PSC model is that it is an agreed and contractual arrangement, and not the product of binding and enforceable legislation. Thus, any breach of the PSC by either party will constitute a breach of contract for which civil relief may be obtained.  Pursuant to the PSC model, the State always remains the owner of the resources, with the contract establishing the applicable compensation arrangements and level of NOC or Government involvement in the asset. The negotiation of a PSC is up front before any investment is made in exploration by the IOC, so the terms are locked in.  PSCs tend to afford IOCs less freedom to run an asset, with Contractors being subject to restrictions and required approvals in addition to those contained in the applicable legislation and regulation. Commonly Used Alternatives to the PSC There are several substantial alternatives to the PSC model. The differences in these alternatives are mainly in relation to the level of control granted to the IOC, the level of involvement of the NOC, and the compensatory arrangements for the investment made. Licences Generally, under a licence arrangement, there is normally little scope for an IOC to negotiate specific fiscal or commercial terms in relation to its exploration and production rights. Licensing regimes and their terms and conditions are typically standardised and embedded in legislation, such that the terms of each licence are near identical. This regime is most common in developed countries, e.g. UK, Norway, the Netherlands, and Australia. The terms of licences may change from time to time as the Government seeks to restrain or encourage sector investment.  The IOC is typically granted complete control over the contract area and complete ownership over any oil and gas that it successfully produces. Unlike PSCs, where ownership of the resources always remains with the State, in licence regimes ownership generally passes to the IOC at the wellhead, with the IOC’s profits from the sale of the oil and gas produced being the subject to general tax legislation, or specific petroleum taxation legislation. Like in PSCs, if the IOC fails to find commercially producible oil and gas within the limited terms and periods of their licence, they go home empty handed.  In some jurisdictions, the Government has an entitlement to join in at the development stage when the risks of finding oil or gas have been mitigated and it may either chose to pay its proportionate share of costs of exploration and development and participate alongside the IOCs, or be carried in some form or another. This can be a very profitable feature for the Government, but it essentially takes a slice of the venture away from the IOC venture at the proportionate sunk costs only, without any regard or compensation for the commercial value of any oil and gas discovered by the IOC. Concessions A concession arrangement is generally subject to a greater level of negotiation than a licence. The IOC is typically granted proprietary rights over the contract area and complete ownership over any oil and gas that it successfully produces, subject to the payment of a royalty and income tax, each of which may vary in rate depending on the level of production as negotiated and agreed. There may be specific taxes like the Additional Profits Tax (APT) which progressively applies further amounts of tax, the greater the rate of return of the production project. In some jurisdictions, licences have become more concession-like as the terms and conditions of the licences have increasingly become the subject of Agreements with the Government defining those agreed terms which are supplementary to or adjust the current and applicable legislation as sought by and agreed by both the Government and/or the IOCs. Service Contracts Under a service contract, the IOC provides its technical services to the State to explore and develop oil and gas resources, and therefore in so many ways, it is similar to a PSC. However, remuneration to the IOC is usually by way of a service fee or payments based on the value of oil produced in US$ per barrel for oil and other hydrocarbon liquids, or per million British Thermal Units (BTU) of energy for natural gas. The term of a service contract is often very short, leaving an IOC with considerable risk and no guarantee of a long production period Services contracts are common in Iran, Iraq and Kuwait and have also been used from time to time in Indonesia and the Philippines. The Overall Picture By and large, about half the world’s petroleum prospective Nations use licence/concessional systems and about half use PSC arrangements, though many of each of these are strictly hybrids involving features of one regime and the other. No particular petroleum regime is superior to any other and much depends on the degree to which the host Nation wishes to promote or reduce exploration investment according to the terms applied. Sometimes, the IOC will tolerate a slightly tougher regime, if they know that it will be stable and well-implemented in a professional and organised manner. Good subsurface prospectivity and a consequent high chance of finding accumulations of oil and gas can often be spoilt by self-imposed surface risks. Factors that may induce surface risk are Governments that: successively make petroleum regime changes, politically drive or make unqualified determination of fiscal and commercial terms without regard to the ultimate take to each party in the case of success, and the poor governance of the sector in general leading to untimely and late decision making. Indeed, a good regime whether it be a PSC-type or a licence/concessional one, will depend on the enforcement of its terms and conditions and the values agreed for those terms and conditions that determine economic outcomes.  The great difference between PSCs and other arrangements is that PSCs keep control over the produced oil and gas and its sale and disposal with the State, whereas licences and concessions leave such matters and the fate of the industry more to the will and imperatives of the corporates.  The intrinsic control of a contractor by the NOC under a PSC means the Government has to be better equipped, more efficient and more knowledgeable to operate such a regime than under a licence or concessionary regime. The State or its representative (usually its NOC) needs to make the PSC work in its favour as it is the manager of the entire enterprise and needs to lead the way. Any failure to step up to such challenges will result in a poorly planned development of the industry with delays, unrealised synergies leading to lost production, and overall loss of value from the resources. No matter what regime is applied to the development of petroleum resources, there is no doubt that resolute and appropriate petroleum policy formulation and firm and fair administration of the sector will pay dividends for any host Government willing to invest in such. The definition of a petroleum regime is not a new game; it has been done many times across the world by many Governments and there is very sound collective advice on the subject which is relatively inexpensive to access compared to the enormity of the task and the value of managing a Nation’s petroleum resources optimally. Figure 7: The IMF has some excellent specialists in its Fiscal Affairs Department who advise Governments on resource regimes and it has often commissioned books and studies on such matters as in the excellent handbook on Administering Fiscal Regimes for Resource Industries by Jack Calder, formerly of the Oil Taxation Office of the UK, ex libris McWalter.    

Nominations are now open for the prestigious Westpac Outstanding Women (WOW) Awards, Papua New Guinea’s leading platform for celebrating the remarkable contributions of women across various sectors. Returning after five years, the WOW Awards continue to honour women who are leading change in business, leadership, sustainability, and the creative industries. Westpac Pacific Managing Director Emma Low called on individuals, businesses and communities to submit nominations for exceptional women leaders. “The WOW Awards provide a platform to celebrate and elevate the voices of women who are driving change across Papua New Guinea. Whether they are leading businesses, championing sustainability or making strides in sports and the arts, these women deserve recognition. We encourage everyone to take this time to nominate an inspiring woman today”, said Ms. Low. Award Categories & Criteria Nominations are open in the following categories: • Private Sector Award – Awarded to a woman demonstrating strong leadership and influence in the corporate or business sector. • Public Sector Award – Recognising a woman excelling in leadership within government or public administration. • Young Achiever Award – Recognising an inspiring young woman (aged 18-35) excelling in her career or community. • Entrepreneur Award – Celebrating a female entrepreneur who has built a successful business that contributes to economic growth. • Sustainability Award – Honouring a woman making a significant impact in environmental sustainability, conservation, or community development. • Not-for-Profit Award – Recognising a leader in the NGO or non-profit sector driving meaningful change. • Sports & Arts Advocate Award – Celebrating a woman who has made significant contributions in sports, arts, or cultural advocacy. The overall winner gets the Westpac Outstanding Woman of the Year, which is the highest honour, awarded to a woman who has demonstrated exceptional leadership and impact in her field. Each nomination will be assessed based on leadership, impact, innovation, and contributions to advancing women’s roles in PNG. Former WOW Award recipient Janet Sios highlighted the importance of recognising women’s achievements. "The WOW Awards shine a spotlight on women who are making real change in their communities and industries. Being part of this recognition is empowering, and I encourage everyone to take the time to nominate a woman who is creating positive change," said Ms. Sios. How to Nominate Nominations can be submitted online via the Westpac Outstanding Women’s Awards webpage Westpac Outstanding Women Awards For those outside of Port Moresby, physical nominations can also be delivered to regional Westpac branches. Please collect your nomination forms at any of our regional branches. You can also scan the QR code available on all WOW Awards collaterals in branch to submit your nomination. The deadline for nominations is 30 May 2025.

The Papua New Guinea Chamber of Resources and Energy (PNG CORE) is proud to announce its Highly Commended Recognition in the Best Use of Technology (500+ category) at the 2024 EventsAir Innovation Awards. This year’s awards saw a record number of high-quality submissions, making the judging process highly competitive. Despite the strong field, PNG CORE stood out for its exceptional use of the EventsAir platform, which has greatly enhanced event management and engagement across its operations. “We are grateful to receive this recognition,” said Mrs. Pansy Taueni-Sialis, Chief Operating Officer of PNG CORE. “This award highlights our commitment to leveraging technology to connect stakeholders and in streamlining our operations. The events Air platform has been integral in delivering more efficient, engaging, and impactful events that drive growth and innovation in Papua New Guinea’s mining, oil and gas sectors.” “The platform has played an enabling role in organizing and managing successful conferences, workshops, and seminars, enhancing communication, data management, and real-time engagement for more dynamic events.” “We thank the Innovation Awards organizers, our dedicated team led by Manager Events Sheryl Peter, and partners who continue to drive our digital transformation,” Taueni-Sialis added. “This recognition encourages us to keep adopting new technologies to strengthen the resources and energy sectors and contribute to the sustainable development of Papua New Guinea.” “PNG CORE remains committed to advancing the industry and promoting innovation and collaboration in the nation’s resources and energy sectors.”