Category: Ahmed Mousa Jiyad

Iraq Business News Expert Blogger, Ahmed Mousa Jiyad, has completed the second volume of his chronicle of the Iraqi oil industry, this time covering 2011.

The first volume, published in October 2021, covers the development in the upstream petroleum in Iraq prior to 2011 and has a subtitle “Grand Opening for Big Push Strategy“.

The subtitle reflects the mood, sentiments, actions and views that prevailed then both inside and outside Iraq, expecting Iraq to be a game changer in the international petroleum scene; that was premised on the concluded service contracts pursuant to the bid rounds, particularly the first and the second, as evidenced by the contents of volume one of the book.

One year later, in 2011, signs of powerful restraints began to emerge and thoughts for revising downwards the unrealistic, unattainable oil production targets were contemplated; many views and opinions covered by volume 2 of the book were explicitly or implicitly advocating such revision.

Hence, the subtitle for this second volume reflects that dramatic shift from high expectations originally formulated after concluding the above mentioned contracts; it is “A Game Changer, No More“.

Click here to read the introduction to the book.

The post Iraq Petroleum Sector Chronicle, Volume 2 – 2011 first appeared on Iraq Business News.

By Ahmed Mousa Jiyad.

Any opinions expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Iraq Business News.

Iraq Revenue Forecasting Model — A Critical Assessment

INTRODUCTION

This review was prepared upon request from known international organization (XXX) regarding two documents prepared by a consultant (CCC) on Iraq Revenue Forecasting Model, and it comprises the following items: Background, which provides brief information on the deadline and the two documents; the Review Objective Criteria, which guides the assessment of the two documents by using six criterion; the Details of the Review comprises two parts corresponding to the two documents and finally the Review Assessment Matrix, which explains and calculate the final score rate for the two documents.

BACKGROUND

After a few email exchanges (XXX) posted two documents on 3 May 2021 and requested the peer review to be delivered by COB on 11 May. The first document entitled “EXPLANATORY NOTE OF IRAQ REVENUE FORECASTING MODEL” is in MS Word; hereinafter referred to as “EXPNOTE”, while the other is in MS Excel Sheet; hereinafter referred to as “EXLSHEET”.

The “EXLSHEET” comprises 22 Sheets and they differ in contents, length and size; they are referred to by their coded-names that appear in the bottom margin of the “EXLSHEET”.

(XXX) email mentions, “The model is currently being reviewed by partners before being shared with the Iraq entity (EEE) and its stakeholders in the Ministry of Oil and international oil companies.”

My assessment was delivered before the deadline and I suggested to share it with the consultant for further consideration, and requested permission to publish my assessment. (XXX) promised to share it with the consultant and asked me to wait for a couple of months before publishing it; it is today 14 December or more than seven months.

For ethical norms and considerations the names of the international organization (XXX), the consultant (CCC), the Iraq entity (EEE) and relevant entities (PPPPPPPPP) in Iraq are not disclosed.

Peer Review Objective Criteria

To conduct the peer review for the “EXPNOTE” and all 22 sheets in the “EXLSHEET” I formulated and was guided by the following criteria:

1. The conformity and adherence of the two documents to an acceptable standard for consultancy service regarding topics related to upstream petroleum; such standard relates to style, format, substance and research and consulting service ethics;
2. The qualitative aspects of the consultant methodology, strength of arguments, analysis consistency and coherence; the accuracy, validity, relevance of inputs, particularly used data; quality control of the computation, charts and contents of the “EXLSHEET”;
3. The “add-value/ knowledge impact” for the intended client, particularly the usefulness of the entire consulting assignment to relevant entities (PPPPPPPPP) in Iraq;
4. The consultant work is basically relating to 11 oil projects, hence, the work and findings of the consultant was assessed according to the contractual provisions of the related signed contracts; and also since the above mentioned Iraqi entities and IOCs are the direct parties to these contracts.
5. Also the consultant dwelled heavily on export price and revenues, thus the analysis and finding will be assessed comparative to SOMO’s price setting mechanisms, markets configuration and marketing modalities. Such comparative assessment complies with verification and evidence-based consulting and research methodology;
6. The test of reality vs. expectation. Experience with modelling and forecasting indicates that reality seldom coincides with expectation. Hence, the consultant’ “forecasting the past” will be tested against actual, historical official data regarding oil production, oil export, oil prices and oil export revenues. The outcome of reality vs. expectation test has implications for assessing the usefulness and reliability of forecasting the future by the same proposed model.

DETAILS OF THE PEER REVIEW

Part one:

EXPLANATORY NOTE OF IRAQ REVENUE FORECASTING MODEL- “EXPNOTE”

The Following remarks are made after deep and thorough examination of “EXPNOTE” text:

1. This document is by definition an explanatory note, but where is the main report for this assignment? Usually, consulting assignment of quantitative nature comprises a main report, annexes, explanatory note and references. Hence, something was missing and neither the explanatory note nor annexes, in this case the “EXLSHEET”, replaces the main report!!. The consultant seems to apply “trust me” this is a model for forecasting Iraq’s revenue even without specifying, at the outset, what type of revenue!!
2. “EXPNOTE” says, “The model is built according to the FAST standard of financial modelling”. But what FAST stand for, what are its standard of financial modelling and are the standard peculiar to upstream petroleum or for general purpose!! Does FAST has mathematical, statistical specific format or it is just a computation process using Excel facilities? Is there any reference to FAST and evidence supportive to its usefulness for upstream petroleum projects? Hence, the Model is not provided and FAST modelling is unknown; this is methodological flaw.
3. One of the model two purposes is to “forecast the past”!!! This is both surprising and erroneous since detailed data on oil production, oil exports and oil production is available on monthly bases since mid-2007! so what is the need to forecast the past??; this not only manifests lack of information on the part of the consultant, but also seems the consultant had committed serious error of judgement, as might be interpreted to reflects arrogance, pompousness mentality thinking, “we know it better than you”!!!!!Further discussion on the validity, reliability and test of “forecast the past” is provided in Part Two below.
4. “EXPNOTE” states, “although SOMO publishes export sales, these figures are before the recovery of costs and payment of fees to the operating companies”. There are many flaws in such invalid statement: first; SOMO is oil marketing company while cost recovery and payment of fees to IOCs are the responsibility of other entities within the Ministry of Oil-MoO and they are paid in accordance with the related service contracts; second, SOMO export reports are monthly, while payment to IOCs are on quarterly base after auditing and verification of invoices presented in the previous quarter; third, most payment to IOCs are made in kind as per contract provision and oil lifting protocol that is elaborated in each oilfield related service contract (in Addendums two and four). It appears the consultant is not familiar with the technicalities and contractual provisions relating to SOMO’ export reporting and MoO payment to IOCs;
5. The consultant uses long and tedious calculations to “estimate production which is not exported.” On this I have the following remarks: first, data on oil production and allocation between export and domestic demand has been available for years and they are published on monthly bases. Therefore, there is absolutely no need to estimate what is already available. Second, the approach of “factor the field-level synthesised estimates of production against recorded exports” is conceptually and methodologically incorrect and third, as we shall see and prove that the consultant computation and estimate of production not exported was totally wrong and based on inaccurate understanding (see item 11 in Part Two below). Hence, the consultant argument for “estimate production which is not exported” is not valid and misleading and the computation model is wrong. For example the consultant model estimates 32% of production in February 2021 was for domestic consumption, while actual formal data shows only 12.21% during same month, indicating a margin of error in the consultant model of 148.32%; unusual high error margin in testing the model estimation against actual reality. Therefore, all what is written in “Estimating Production: synthesised field-level production estimates” fail the test of accuracy, validity and relevance.
6. In “Estimating Price”, the consultant refers to “discounts for Iraqi crudes”. Data and SOMO monthly price setting mechanism disapprove such assertion. SOMO uses different «price formulas” each has its own qualitative variables API, Sulphur content, destination and Marker crude; discounts and premiums are dependent on marketing conditions, in addition to special formula for Jordan, and almost two shipment a month, 2mb each, sold on spot platform that gives “extra price” compared to the usual “term contract” for that particular month. It appears the consultant knows very little about SOMOs oil price setting modalities. Further remarks will be provided later when comparing consultant price estimation to SOMO’s export price (See items 3, 5, 9 and 10 in Part Two below)
7. The model estimation reported under, “Current Results”, are all wrong because the estimated export sales for 2020 were much higher than actual official export revenues (see further details on the Dashboard Sheet in in Part Two below). Again, the model estimation fails under the test of comparison with actual data: i.e., reality.
8. The consultant argument regarding “Basra-Ceyhan differentials” is weak, vague. irrelevant and not convincing for the following reasons: first it is not specific whether the consultant argument is related to volume or value of export; second, due to pipeline problem Iraq export through Ceyhan have been very limited (according to final official export data for the first quarter this year 96.239% of Iraqi oil was exported from Basra, generating 96.341% of total oil export revenues); third, State Budget Law 2021 obliges KRG to deliver, at SOMO export price, 250000 per day. Hence the consultant is apparently unaware of these facts!!!
9. The information and argument presented by the consultant regarding the “R-factor” are also inconsistent, misleading and inaccurate; first, the consultant says “details of the terms of the R-factor are not available”: this is not true as articles addressing this issue and computation of its impact were available on the public domain since 2010!!. Second, disregarding R-factor reduces government take and thus, increases the disparity between actual government take and “net to the government” as called by the consultant; third, the reference to “Faihaa field” is misleading and disingenuous since the field was offered under BR4 (exploration blocks) and it is at very early stage of development and, thus, its contribution to total oil production is very insignificant to have an impact: in the meantime the consultant ignores other important sources of revenues (see next items 10, 11 and 12). Finally, the claim that the analysis “shows a potential margin of error of a maximum of 1.63%” is baseless and deceptive (see item 8 regarding “Analysis Sheet” in Part Two below)
10. The assignment did not attempt to estimate government revenues from domestically consumed oil!! No reason was provided!! Why, then, the consultant used time and efforts to “synthesized production” when related data are already available on the public domain?? Finally why and in what way domestic revenues impact “Margins of Uncertainty” in the model computation??
11. Both documents exclude oil production from field managed by National Effort, especially those not contracted to IOCs under the four bid rounds. Also they did not cover two oilfields offered under BR2. It is not clear why the consultant excludes these oilfields and did not say a word about them?? Ignoring oilfields managed by national efforts has significant role in underestimating government revenues and thus, such exclusion is serious flaw.
12. Also both documents do not include production and export revenues for LPG, NGL, Naphtha and Fuel oil. Why these are out of the consultant scope is unclear, though data on these items is available on the public domain. Again, ignoring them is additional shortcoming of the two documents.
13. Throughout the two documents data selection and referencing them raises further concerns. Professionally and methodologically it is vital to differentiate between convenient “selectivity” and “thoroughness“. Briefly, when data are available on the public domain but are not used or referred to by the consultant that reflects serious professional weakness, unethical, and manifest lake of thoroughness; i.e., the consultant should have searched thoroughly for the related and relevant data. When data are available on the public domain but are not used by the consultant, instead the consultant “synthesised” or “forecast the past” based on wrong premises and inaccurate understanding of the basic issues, that resembles serious infringement of methodological, professional and research ethics. When the consultant present limited selective referencing to data (mostly in the “EXLSHEET” document) that only reflect convenience for the consultant. Moreover, when that selective referencing is not related to the computed item (e.g. WQ1 “EXLSHEET”: Row 35 vs. Row 59) causes confusion for the intended client or user!!
14. “EXPNOTE” asserts,”The model is designed to be updated”. But all hundreds, if not thousands, cells in the “EXLSHEET” that contains computable values are codified pursuant to MS Excel program, e.g. all cells in WQ1 “EXLSHEET”: Row 66 to Row 72. To update the model these cells should be changed and, thus, the intended client and user must have good and professional experience with MS Excel; this is highly unlikely. If the clients (e.g., PPPPPPPPP) have good and professional specialists with MS Excel, they could use their model, since there is nothing intrinsic about “EXPNOTE” and “EXLSHEET”. For example the clients specialists can use the “Formulas” offered by MS Excel program and the good data they do have already; they could, then, arrive at more valuable, consistent, tested and acceptable results, much better than “EXPNOTE” and “EXLSHEET” offer!.
15. All above mentioned remarks, shed serious doubt on the entire work of this consultant, and, hence, limits its value or add knowledge to the intended clients. This view is further enhanced by more remarks on the “EXLSHEET” as summarised in the following part two.

Part Two: Reviewing “EXLSHEET”

“EXLSHEET” comprises 22 Sheets and they differ in contents, length and size; they are  referred to by their coded-names that appear in the bottom margin of the “EXLSHEET” document.

By going through all of them prompted me to register large number of notes, remarks and questions; the more I read and check, the more I became concerned about the contents of the spreadsheets. Thorough and complete review and checking is daunting task and requires much longer time than (XXX) deadline permits. Hence, the following is very condensed peer review of “EXLSHEET”.

1- Excel Sheet “SynthProd” provide a chart titled “Iraq: synthesized field production profile”. The following remarks are made on this sheet: A- there is no “Missan” field; what is there (according to first bid round- BR1) three oilfields in Missan province that were contracted under one contract while they have different profiles and locations (the consultant provides no note on this and thus gives the impression as if it is one field); B- it ignores oilfields developed and managed by National Efforts”; C- it excludes two fields offered under BR2!!! D- as shall be discovered later (see item 11 in part two below) all such synthesized field production profiles were based on wrong premised computations, and this raises serious research and consulting ethical questions and standard.

2- Excel Sheet “RP- Brent”. Many observations are register on this sheet: A- chart titles are missing; B- “Y & X” axis titles and their unites of measurement are missing; C- one chart hast two trend lines and equations without specifying which is which; D- R² values for the two equations are very low, indicating weak statistical significance. E- Moreover, the table has no title, no unit of measurement and what “Y” and the other two columns represent???? F- These are simple trend-line equations that are computed instantly/automatically by Excel sheet, but the consultant provides absolutely no explanation or notes on the usefulness of these equations and used them regardless; G- the intended client and user have to wonder what these charts and table are about!! Hence, this is serious professional flaw and the sheet has zero value for the client!!

3- Excel Sheet “Brent vs. realised “. Questions on this sheet are: A- which “Brent” was it: dated, futures or spot ( such as the monthly EIA’ STOE or S&P Platts or Argus etc.)?; B- what is the source for the data?; C- for “SOMO weighted realized price” what is/ are the used “weights”, why and what is the source for the used “weights”?; D- how the “SOMO weighted realized price” is different from “SOMO published export prices”?; E- finally what about “Brent” was it also weighted, by what weight or no and why!!!

4- Excel Sheet “Production”. Remarks on this sheet are: A- unit of measurement is missing; B- what is the consultant explanation of an illogical contradiction that SOMO exports were higher than the “Synthesized Production” prior to 01.01.2012, as this shed serious doubt on the consultant calculation??; C- what is the consultant explanation of the odd event as per 01.01.2015 when SOMO Export up while EIA production down compared with previous year??; D- also the consultant fails to explain why  the “Synthesized Production” was higher than EIA production during 2014!!

All that reflect the mechanical manner in preparing the synthesized production without considering well-known major events that impacted Iraq’ production and export!!

5- Excel Sheet “Revenues” calls for the following remarks and questions: A- chart title is ambiguous: does it refer to “total” or “oil export” or “oil sector” revenues; B- the details of IMF and EITI references are missing; C-  was it IEITI or EITI ????; D- the consultant did not explain the pattern of all three data sets: why “EITI” data are higher than both IMF and SOMO during 2010-13, then it turns lower than both during 2014-16, then goes above both after 2016, when IEITI revenue data are provided by SOMO!! Can this be explained by the mixing up, by the consultant, of the usual differences between the “preliminary” and “final” SOMO’s monthly data??!!

6- Excel Sheet “Time-Esc”: this seems to be a templet Sheet for calculations. But comments and clarifications are missing, no definition of terms and acronyms are provided and some components such as discount rate, discount type, inflation rate and index are not used or referred to in other excel sheets; so what is the justification for having and computing them in abstract!! Ironically, some of these rates were computed up to 1 November 2025 (e.g., Rows: 61 and 62 on “inflation index” without specifying whether this applies to “cost recovery” or “oil price” or both; Rows: 71 and 72 on “Discounting rate” without specifying to which cash flow this applies)

The “Timing” rows (from day one of the month to last day) is repeated many times in this sheet and also in all other sheets: this format is totally unnecessary (it could be replaced easily by the name of the month) and, together with other components in this “Time-Esc” could overwhelm the user or the intended client with too many inputs, too much computations and extremely large number of codified cells.

This templet sheet manifests and could also explain the mechanical application of MS Excel by the consultant!!

7- Oilfield Excel Sheets. Most of the remarks mentioned above are generated from the Excel Sheets for the 11 covered oilfields. A comprehensive peer review of each of these sheets takes much longer time. But a quick checking reveals many flaws and shortcomings that shed serious doubt on the accuracy of the entire work.

For example Excel Sheet for Zubair’ Row 136 it was written “”Rumaila daily production”; what Rumaila has to do with Zubair oil production!!!!???? Moreover, “daily production” and “incremental production” Rows: 136, 137 and 139 were assumed to be constant for two years: from 01.01.2020 to 31.12.2022; this is totally against a declared policy by the Ministry of Oil-MoO. The inserted data in Row 148 relates to “IOC Remuneration fee”; it is totally wrong; the consultant was not informed about the changes in the Zubair consortium composition!! Moreover, why the values change when both, “daily production” and “incremental production” were assumed constant!!?? Also what is the difference between “SOC payment to Treasury” (Row 162 which has “45%” of what? but no values inserted in the row) and “SOC Transfer to Treasury” (Row 163, which shows fluctuating values during the entire period despite constant “daily production” and “incremental production”!!! Finally, the consultant provides no further notes on the fiscal system for Zubair oilfields that reflects the situation as on 2020.

The case for Majnoon oilfield is even more disturbing. In addition to all remarks I made above regarding Zubair oilfield are also valid here, the consultant seems unaware that Majnoon oilfield has been relinquished since 2018 and is now developed under the national efforts. This means no cost recovery and remuneration fee to IOC and thus all calculations are invalid and have absolutely zero value. This manifests the mechanical use of MS Excel by the consultant without full, updated and correct understanding of the fiscal system of the upstream petroleum under Iraq’ long term service contracts.

8- Excel Sheet “Analysis”. This is the core sheet for the entire calculations, and it is the largest sheet with column number reaches (FJ) and 554 rows. Thus it deserves careful attention and requires much more time to go through it thoroughly, but based on the below remarks, this sheet causes much concern and raises too many questions and remarks.

The sheet begins with confusion: in Row 1 written “RUMAILA”, but the remaining rows are not confined to Rumaila oilfield!!!.

All data for rows 10 to 20 are or could be wrong; they cannot be in “mbpd”!!!!!!????;

All oilfields offered under first bid round- BR1 were producing on 1.01.2010; therefore the data for 2010 for those oilfields are wrong because each of those fields has “baseline production”, which the consultant excluded them;

Data for rows 10 to 20 are labeled “Historical production”, while data for rows 38 to 49 are labeled “Synthesised production”, but the data are exactly the same to the last digit!! So what is the difference between the two sets of data??? As this causes confusion and also generates and replication consequences on the entire work, calculation and the chart in the consultant Excel spreadsheet;

All data in row 62 are or could be wrong; they cannot be in “mbpd”, and most likely the individual who prepared this Excel spreadsheet is not careful in selecting the “unit of measurement” or inconsistent in using defined acronyms and in using number format for Excel spreadsheet (i.e., a difference between “1066 and 1,066 since 1.066 is not permitted).

A major problem with this Excel Sheet “Analysis” is that it replicates or recycles all type of flaws that are identified in all the 22 Excel Sheets, particularly those related to specific oilfields, oil prices and oil production.

The magnitude of flaws, ambiguities, inaccuracies and absence of explanations in this core spread sheet manifest alarming poor quality control of the entire work under review!!

9- Oil price in Oilfield Excel Sheet. For example “Missan” data on oil “Price” of the related oilfield: rows 103, 104 and 105 and on “Fiscal Regime” (a misconception of revenues!!!! in row 110 (another confused data unit of measurement).

All oilfields covered by their related Excel Sheet have exactly the same oil prices; this “all fields same price” is absolutely not possible, and thus seriously wrong, since these oil fields produce crudes that are qualitatively different  in terms of gravity (API), Sulphur contents and other particulars. The implications of this wrong price estimation should cause serious concerns because the contractual deemed revenues-DR depends largely on the quality of the crude and DR decides the cost recovery. Moreover, DR is, again contractually, is measured at the “delivery point” on the boarder of the oilfield not at the export terminal. Hence, the consultant approach to use unified set of oil price for all oilfields and for the covered period was not only wrong but also leads to higher amount of cost recovery; this is very serious flaw with damaging implications.

10- Another flaw is related to Basra oil price: in Excel Sheet “Mth Inputs” Row 15 the consultant uses “Basra oil price” and in Row 27 uses “Basra light”; but both price sets are identical. From oil marketing this is also wrong and not possible. In reality Iraq markets three qualitatively different crudes from the southern exports outlet: Basra Light, Basra Medium and Basra Heavy, and each have different prices whether that through the usual “Term Contract” or through the monthly limited direct/spot sales.

Finally, the differentials between “Basra light” prices and “all fields same price” was very thin and in five months it was even negative, i.e., “Basra light” prices was lower than “all fields same price”; this almost impossible oil marketing scenario adds more doubt on the professional competence and quality of the consulting work.

11- All calculations relating to the “Incremental production”, (Row 137) in the Excel Sheets for Halfaya, for Gharraf, WQ2, Badra and Majnoon (under BR2), Faihaa (BR4) and Ahdab (converted contract prior to BR1), are wrong since they contravene the related contracts, which has no incremental production. Moreover, the computation equations for the cells in the said row are wrong technically and geologically since it assumes a lasting initial production, i.e. no natural decline!!! As for Rumaila, WQ1, Zubair and the 3 Missan fields (under BR1) all are also wrong since they contravene the related contractual provisions; which has annual natural decline rate of the base-line (initial) production!!!

These wrong calculations lead, logically and practically, to underestimation of fields development efforts and their production, to wrong estimation of cost recovery and remuneration fee for all covered oilfields; what was premised on wrong understanding produces wrong results and, thus, should be disregarded.

12- The “Dashboard” Sheet contains selected charts from other sheets; thus all remarks made on these sheets are valid here. In other words, this “Dashboard” Sheet replicates all flaws, wrong calculations, misconceptions and inaccuracies (The reader is highly advised to see the comments made on Excel Sheets that are reproduced in this “Dashboard” Sheet).

In addition, the following remarks are made on this “Dashboard” Sheet: the “table” referred to in G6 was not provided!!; “Brent Futures Price Scenario” was not explained; the table (on Rows18 to 34) has no unit of measurement; the estimated export sales for 2020 is much higher than actual export oil revenues officially announced by SOMO/MoO by 22.4%. When estimation against actual (historical) data results in such margin of error, that margin of error could be even higher in forecasting the future!!!

Moreover, the cells in Rows 51 to 55 look mysterious with absolutely no explanation or clarifications:

Finally, as was the case with “Analysis” sheet, “Dashboard” sheet replicates or recycles all type of flaws that are identified on the reproduced charts.

13- Operating cost was not mentioned in the two documents “EXPNOTE” and “EXLSHEET”. Not a single row in any of the field’ related sheets mentions the operating cost for oil produced in the related field. The consultant provides no explanation for excluding this significant cost item from estimating government revenues.

Ignoring operating cost is a major and additional flaw that reduces further the soundness and usefulness of “EXPNOTE” and “EXLSHEET”.

14- All Excel sheets and their components could overwhelm (intimidate) the user or the intended client with too many inputs, too much repetition, too much computations and extremely large number of codified cells. One cannot speculate whether that was intentional or due to professional deficiency on the part of the consultant; but, it is highly likely that the current version of “EXPNOTE” and “EXLSHEET” has very limited value, if any, to the user or the intended clients in Iraq.

The Review Assessment Matrix

This final part intends to summarise the result of assessing both documents, “EXPNOTE” and “EXLSHEET” that were presented by the consultant. The following matrix was premised on the six objective criteria mentioned earlier and the evaluation score for each criterion.

The score ranges from (1), which means “bad”, through (3), which means “acceptable but not satisfactory” to (5), which means “very good”.

The six criteria have equall values, and each score was decided in the light of the above details in this peer review:

Total score under the six criteria ranges from total minimum 6 to total maximum 30 and final score rate (%) is the total gained score to maximum score:

Score rate under 50% means unfavourable assessment of the two documents, which means rejecting the consultant work and should not share it with the user or the intended clients;

Score rate at 50% means the work is acceptable but should be revised to address satisfactorily all what the peer review says before sharing it with the user or the intended clients;

Finally, score over 50% means accepting consultant work and recommends sharing it with the intended user or the intended clients.

Criteria/ Score Matrix

 

Peer Review Objective Criteria/ Score	1	2	3	4	5
Conformity with acceptable standard for consultancy service		2
The qualitative aspects of the consultant methodology		2
The “add-value/ knowledge impact” for the intended client		2
The contractual provisions relating to the 11 projects	1
SOMO’s price setting mechanisms and marketing modalities.	1
The test of reality vs. expectation	1
Total Score	3	6	0	0	0
Final Score Rate	((3+6)/30)=30%

The final score rate is 30%, which corresponds to 1.5 on the scale from 1 to 5.

Regretfully, this overall low score indicates that the standard, quality and usefulness of the consultant work are much less than acceptable level.

In an extensive communication with well-respected oil professional and two times oil minister, I learned that the Ministry of Oil has good Ashtar program, which seems to be by far more superior and well-functioning than this “EXLSHEET”; with the presence of Ashtar, the consultancy and its two documents, “EXPNOTE” and “EXLSHEET”, become redundant for the clients in Iraq.

 

Mr Jiyad is an independent development consultant, scholar and Associate with the former Centre for Global Energy Studies (CGES), London. He was formerly a senior economist with the Iraq National Oil Company and Iraq’s Ministry of Oil, Chief Expert for the Council of Ministers, Director at the Ministry of Trade, and International Specialist with UN organizations in Uganda, Sudan and Jordan. He is now based in Norway (Email: mou-jiya(at)online.no, Skype ID: Ahmed Mousa Jiyad). Read more of Mr Jiyad’s biography here.

The post Iraq Oil Revenue Forecasting Model — A Critical Assessment first appeared on Iraq Business News.

By Ahmed Mousa Jiyad.

Any opinions expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Iraq Business News.

The Iraqi economy structure is lopsided with heavy dependency on export of natural raw material, i.e., crude oil. The modest unbalanced growth that was accumulated by the end of 1970s began eroding and all economic accomplishments had washed-away, gradually, since then. Four decades of wars, sever sanctions, political tyranny and America-led occupation pushed the country into the brinks of a failed state.

The post occupation sectarian political sharing system, known in Iraq al-muhasasa, brought the most devastating manifestation of “resource curse” in the form of formalized legalized high level corruption, or Kleptocracy. When upstream petroleum became, once again but more urgently, the only sector capable for funding annual state budget for social welfare, reconstruction and development, it became the target for the corruptors, the Kleptocrats and domestic politics abuse.

Also, under the then prevailed political order, upstream petroleum redevelopment and development were sought through active and substantive participation of the international oil companies- IOCs; this brings to the fore of debate the complex issues of the political economy of such participation.

The essence of the international political economy of petroleum relationship between the IOCs and a developing economy, e.g., Iraq, is the relative comparative strength of both parties to maximize their interest through any formalized relationship; this is premised on two basic issues: sovereignty and petroleum rent.

Sovereignty relates to ownership of petroleum (both reserves and production) or claim of title on them on one side and the decision making structure and mechanism of that relationship on the other.

Distribution of petroleum (resource) rent is decided formally through the type and terms of the contracting modality on one side and, empirically, through actual management of such contracting modality on the other. “Government take” is the clearest manifestation of rent distribution; the higher is the government take the better it is for the host country, but what matters, in the final analysis, is the actual distribution more than the formal and contractual. This highlights the importance of the effective and efficient contract management, at all levels, during the entire life-cycle of the related contract.

Needless to say that host government and IOCs petroleum relationship are not, always, exclusive to them only, as the subject matter has other geopolitical and geostrategic considerations that go beyond the two parties; this implies the comparative strength of the host government on one side and the IOCs together with the geopolitics of their home-country government on the other has a lot to impact the petroleum relationship and their contractual modalities. More often than not geopolitical pressure and leverage are used to promote, enhance or even guarantee the interest of the IOCs through different ways and means and, when competition is transparent and tense the intervention becomes more intrusive an coercive. Those who failed winning in competitive bidding say that outcome reflects the dark side of transparency!!

One year after the invasion, Iraq pursued in 2004, what seems analytically and proven factually, a Grand Opining Big Push Policy in its petroleum sector by offering IOCs and foreign investors unprecedented opportunities to having access to and expansion in, particularly, upstream petroleum sub-sector.

Between 2004 to end 2008, the Ministry of Oil- MoO concluded over 40 memoranda of understanding/cooperation (MoU/Cs) with IOCs from 23 countries, with overwhelming dominance of the US (9); Japan and Norway (4 each); China, UAE, UK and Canada (2 each) and one company from each of other 16 countries.

For IOCs, MoU/Cs represent invaluable direct contact with Iraqi staff and professionals at all layers of responsibility and provide them access to most archives and database relating to upstream petroleum; that helped IOCs exploring where and what they could do to chart their way towards business in Iraq’s upstream petroleum and beyond.

These MoU/Cs contributed in formulating and development of a model contract, and by the time they were terminated MoO succeeded, through direct government-to-government talks (with China), in converting Al-ahdab oilfield from production sharing to service contract.

The first bid round, for producing (brown) oilfields, was held end June 2009, followed by the second bid round for discovered but not commercially developed (green) fields on December 2009 and a third one for free-gas fields in October 2010.

120 IOCs participated in the qualification process for the bid rounds, 55 from 27 countries were qualified: Japan (9); USA (7); Russia (5); China and UK (4 each); Australia, India and Italy (2 each), and 19 other countries with one company each.

The outcome of the three bid rounds and Al-ahdab are: 14 oilfields contracted to 15 IOCs from 12 countries; total contracted/ targeted plateau production was 12.3mbd and their total proven reserves ca. 67 billion barrels (58% of the country’s proven reserves at that time). Three gas fields were contracted to 3 IOCs from 3 countries with total plateau production of 820 mcfd and proven reserves of 11.2tcf.

Moreover, the period prior to end 2010 witnessed developments relating to other important issues particularly the proposed federal oil and gas law-FOGL and INOC Law; promulgated private investment in refinery law and proposing many new modern refineries for foreign investors; conclude HoA that led, latter, to establishing Basra Gas Company joint venture with Royal Shell and Mitsubishi among others

Also during those years, the upstream petroleum in the country was a magnet of attention by the occupying countries, the IOCs, international legal and consulting firms and business and  media sources and alike; the number, frequency and substance of what was published internationally on Iraq is a manifestation of that attention. That could be explained by or attributed to a “Newness factor” as the country was reopened for the outside world after almost half a century of restricted access; to the “Invasion factor” that made accessing the country easy after 2003 occupation since the invasion was “all about oil”; to the “Business factor” for IOCs and petroleum service companies to have a share in exploiting the vastness of petroleum in the country; the last frontiers for least cost petroleum. Much of the attention and preference of the occupying forces, IOCs and pro-IOCs entities was for Production Sharing Agreements/Contracts-PSA/C.

On the other side, most Iraqi oil professionals and experts inside the country, particularly from the South Oil Company, and those residing outside the country demonstrated vibrant engagement and strong keenness by calling, individually or collectively, for protecting the country petroleum wealth through sovereign national efforts and opposing any form of PSA/C; they premised their stand on still valid important laws and the 2005 Constitution.

Obviously, the course of events prior to end 2010 highlights different pathways for upstream petroleum contracting modalities; long term service contract emerged as the preferable choice.

One of the International Compact with Iraq-ICI offspring’s was the formalization, for the first time in modern Iraq, of transparency principles and working modalities in Iraq petroleum sector. On 10 February 2010, Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) Board accepted Iraq as an EITI Candidate country; a new component in the governance of national upstream petroleum began in earnest with continuity and promising expectations, but time will tell!

Not surprisingly therefore that the period ended by December 2010 witnessed the most concerted efforts and vigorous debate among Iraqis relating to what could have been very significant milestones in the development of Iraq petroleum sector. Hence, the choice of end-2010 is the appropriate demarcation time-frame for this volume.

Over the last twenty years I have been compiling various, but related and relevant, documents, reports, studies, data and statistics and, accordingly, I have now very large, well organised, structured thematically and updated regularly, at least weekly, Database. Moreover, I developed and maintained relatively large network of contacts comprising senior government officials at different levels, parliamentarians, professionals, scholars, research institutions, academics, civil society organisation and media among others; such networking proved to be invaluable source of relevant insights, confidential materials and views from “inside the box”.

My Database includes separate annual reports, exclusively, on the oil sector the first covers 2010 and earlier years and the latest is for 2021; these annual reports are the core of the archival efforts comprising well referenced, accurate, and verifiable data and sources. While archiving each annual report I read, commented and make different remarks on each item included in each annual report. Contents of parts two and three of this book are extracted from the annual report for 2010 and earlier years, but without incorporating my comments and remarks made on them then; I do not want to influence the readers’ understanding of these items with my own views.

Also, my Database comprises significant statistical data and time-series on different aspects of petroleum sector, which I compile, regularly, from formal and credible sources, both Iraqi and non-Iraqi.

In the same way I followed closely the related development in the country and had my own contributions through various research work, analyses, publications, presentations, consulting assignments and commentaries among others.

I found it opportune to launch major research and publication project aiming at documenting, professionally and objectively, the development of the petroleum sector in the country by presenting different informed thoughts, views and insights that impacted the debate, policies and course of events.

The project comprises many volumes and begins with this recently published book, the details of which are summarized as follows:

Book title: Iraq Petroleum Sector Chronicle

Book Sub-title: Grand Opening for Big Push Strategy, Volume 1, 2010 & earlier

Author: Ahmed Mousa Jiyad

Publisher: Lambert Scientific Publication

ISBN-13: 978-620-4-20851-0; ISBN-10:6204208519; EAN:9786204208510

Pages: 434

Price: 98.90 € (Euro)

My prime purpose for preparing this book is to make it convenient reference for those interested in Iraqi petroleum sector, to understand the complexity of related issues and the discourse that prevailed in 2010 and positions taken by different parties; what, when by whom and, probably, why!!

This book is “Volume 1” and I intend, hopefully, to publishing further volumes covering years 2011 onward, since I have done already the basic research and have the needed documents and statistics in my Database. 

The book provides different perspectives on Iraqi petroleum issues that prevailed during the period covered by the book: my own, other Iraqis, international views and statistics; it was structured according to these perspectives respectively in its four parts. Hence, the book is premised on “evidence-based research” that was thoroughly done, mostly during 2010 but also covers a couple of earlier years.

For those years prior to 2011, as was the case since then and as mentioned above, I compiled and documented my own Database, the oil annual reports and numerous thematic, i.e., issue specific, folders.

Part one of the book comprises a selection of my own essays and research work.

Each of my “Essays..” has its own methodology, structure, assumptions, analysis, discussion and consulted references; information on each essay was provide, when and where it was published and the web-link to access it, if that is permissible by the related websites.

Part two of the book comprises views of and positions taken by some selected well-known Iraqi oil professionals, senior government officials and others aiming at presenting a balance of wide spectrum of different, and sometimes opposing, views positions and affiliations; these are presented in a form of own articles, interviews and collective statements. They reflect the richness and diversity of opinion that shaped the discourse among Iraqis at that time and, consequently, enriched the value of this book. Official views, expressed, through detailed interviews and statements, by senior government officials and decision makers reflect the political vision and economic aspiration of the dominant political parties, groups, religious/ politicized individuals and different associations and gatherings of professionals, notably oil experts and professionals inside and outside the country.

Part three comprises outside foreign and international standpoints and contributions to the debate about Iraq’s petroleum and its prospect; a large number of items compiled from many and different external sources includes reports, studies, articles and media reporting among others, most if not  all, were written by non-Iraqis.

This part adds the third perspective of the book; how the outside world looked to Iraqi petroleum matters, what was their preoccupation, how did they understand or failed to understand, analyse, debate the issues and foresee the implications. It is really amazing to revisit the then prevailed insights and wisdom!!

Part four provides the statistical perspective through many annexes which are extracted from my Database; these include the most important statistical data (without further statistical analysis) pertaining to petroleum sector for 2010. The purpose is to supplement the expressed views with the “material evidence” in the form of data and statistics.

I would like to make the following remarks and caveats

Methodologically, the book is chronicle/archival of some of what was written, debated and published in 2010 and, a few belongs to, earlier years. Hence all items included in parts one, two and three are reproduced “as is/was”, i.e., exactly as they were published in 2010, except the necessary editing to unify the text of the book to comply with publisher guidelines and requirements.

Therefore, it is vital to emphasise that the book is NOT about 2010 written from 2021 perspectives or in retrospective; rather it is on 2010 as was written in 2010 or earlier.

Each and every item included in parts two and three of the book has its source, the web-link, date of publication and the date I accessed it and compiled it in my Database. Sources, for the tables of part four of the book, are also provided. This is vital for verification, acknowledgement of copy right and helpful for further research on Iraqi petroleum.

A note of caution is due regarding websites availability; some websites do not exists anymore, some are changed to other identification, others are not accessible, for whatever reason, and some require subscription or fee for access.

Intentionally and for logistical reasons, I excluded items written in Arabic.

The book is a fruition of almost two decades of constant follow-up, research, direct involvement, networking and archiving. I encountered too many challenges during the course of those years, but with patient and determination I managed to overcome them; this book is the testimony for perseverance!

I would like to sincerely and wholeheartedly thank Tariq Shafiq for his kind “Preface” of the book; much appreciated Akhi Abu Ehsan.

Mr Jiyad is an independent development consultant, scholar and Associate with the former Centre for Global Energy Studies (CGES), London. He was formerly a senior economist with the Iraq National Oil Company and Iraq’s Ministry of Oil, Chief Expert for the Council of Ministers, Director at the Ministry of Trade, and International Specialist with UN organizations in Uganda, Sudan and Jordan. He is now based in Norway (Email: mou-jiya(at)online.no, Skype ID: Ahmed Mousa Jiyad). Read more of Mr Jiyad’s biography here.

The post Iraq Petroleum Sector Chronicle first appeared on Iraq Business News.

By Ahmed Mousa Jiyad.

Any opinions expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Iraq Business News.

ORCID identifier is: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0946-9898

Upstream petroleum (Oil, Gas and Condensates) sector occupies very critical position and, accordingly, has influential impacts on the national economies of Iraq, some Middle East and North America- MENA countries, as well as many other developing countries that are endowed with such natural resources.

This importance is manifested through many significant economic parameters at macro-economy level, including balance of payments, trade balance, State budget (covering both investment and recurrent allocations), current account, it’s share in GDP among others. Foreign exchange and revenues generated through this sector are the main fiscal determinants for financing socio-economic development plans.

Moreover, ownership of petroleum resources is, mostly, vested to the people through legal instruments such as constitutions.

The development of petroleum resources requires, in most cases, different forms of cooperation with and the  involvement of the international oil companies-IOCs through variety of  legal means and instruments such as contracts, agreements, memoranda of cooperation or understanding, protocols and alike. The involvement of IOCs (regardless of their ‘home country’ and associated geostrategic and geopolitical implications) is thus regulated and, accordingly, impacted by different components of the “Fiscal System” that are highlighted in or premised on many host-country national laws, regulations, directives among others and then translated into specific provisions, i.e., articles, and inserted into and comprised in these binding documents, mostly named contracts or agreements, with an IOC or a consortium of IOCs.

Analysing and professionally understanding upstream petroleum fiscal systems is a prerequisite qualification for all those who are involved directly in the development of petroleum resources in any country, particularly the related authorities and entities. Also, the comparative assessments of different fiscal systems is critically vital for national decision makers to be conversant with prior to deciding which system and what components of that system serve better their national aspirations in developing the upstream petroleum.

As a matter of practical and implementation purpose, understanding upstream petroleum fiscal system, of a concluded contract or agreement, is not and should not be confined only to those who are involved directly; reasonable familiarity with the components of the fiscal system of the concluded contracts is surely needed for many more others of officials at different branches of government as well as experts, research and consulting centres, academics, media, civil society organisation, economists, petroleum professionals and political leaders among others.

There is a wide range of reference books, publications, models and specialised consulting firms alike that cover variety of upstream petroleum fiscal regimes used in the global upstream petroleum industry.

Among the most important and relevant references is the book reviewed here.*

This is an excellent book, well written, carefully structured, articulate in debating the issues objectively- pros and cons, and follows good and constant methodology for each chapter; it is, therefore, a valuable addition to the library and knowledge of petroleum resource development and helps in formulating prudent management of these natural resources.

The book comprises three parts (not four, p. 13) and between them they have a combined total of sixteen chapters, in addition to Glossary and Bibliography. Part one, the shortest among the three and includes the first two chapters, presents the topics for the book, explains some terminology used, introduces fiscal systems in terms of what functions they have, their different forms and the process of licensing petroleum and outlines the structure of the book.

This part refers to the distinctions that sometimes made regarding the categories of fiscal systems such as concessionary, royalty/tax and contract-based systems and reviews four broad alternatives forms of petroleum licensing; these are:  Concessions (also called leases, licenses or extraction permits); Production sharing agreements/ contracts-PSA/C; Service agreements/ contracts  (including risk service contracts) and other agreements/contracts (mostly tax-based).

The second part addresses various Fiscal Instruments, i.e., the core and main pillars of petroleum fiscal system, and has chapters 3 to and including chapter 11.

Each chapter follows the same methodology: it begins with Definition and purpose, followed by thorough review and elaborated discussion of the topics covered in that chapter, a summary and ends with notes. The nine chapters of this part provide insights on and cover all important fiscal instruments by different governing modalities in upstream petroleum contracts and agreements. Fiscal instruments and issues covered in this part include: Levy on production (Royalty, severance tax, and revenue sharing); Production sharing; Remuneration for service;  Bonuses, lease sales and area fees; Privileged state participation; Tax on corporate income and distributed profits; Petroleum resource taxes; Taxes related to inputs and externalities; Business obligations in the national interests.

A significant and very helpful sub-section on the “Economic characteristics….” of the above mentioned instruments enriches the quality and usefulness of the book and expands the debates around these fiscal instruments. Also, this part addresses, rather eloquently and at length, with quantitative comparative analysis four main “trigger parameters” for “sharing of profit petroleum” or for fee payment that are in use in different contracts.

By this way the authors facilitate the understanding of the applications of these trigger parameters in the latter chapters of part three. These four triggers are: Rate of Return (ROR); R-Factor; Daily Rate of Production (DROP) and Cumulative Production (CP).

Examples on related contractual provisions drawn from many different countries are used or referred to throughout this part.

This part of the book is a must-read for those involved in upstream petroleum development through involving IOCs in such development, particularly professionals, ministry officials, legislating authorities and executive decision makers among others.

The third part focuses on Applications and comprises chapters 13 to 16. It aims at providing integrated perspective on the implication and implementation of the fiscal systems and their instruments. It begins with issues relating to fiscal valuation, particularly those connected to international tax issues then addresses some economic characteristics of petroleum operations and links fiscal analysis to some important economic features of the business.

Important feature of this part is the review of computer modelling, providing helpful insights on some available models, and uses its own fiscal model, Petrosharing, which was developed to support the analysis in this book. The last chapter proposes a step-by-step framework or a roadmap to design petroleum fiscal system, premised on the fiscal instruments that are discussed throughout the book.

This part presents many charts, uses simulations and modeling, and discuses thoroughly critical issues and development scenarios using data drawn from, mostly, Norwegian upstream fields.

The Glossary lists explanation of the main terms and concepts mentioned in the book and the book has Bibliography but has no Index, brief bios and photos of the authors are provided twice.

The authors’ academic and professional backgrounds, an economist and legal profession, stand probably behind the impressive quality of this unique book as manifested by the depth and objectivity when analysing various economic and legal matters.

The book helps, to a great extent, in making a clear distinction between petroleum fiscal systems (and their different instruments on one side) and other macro-economy issues such as revenue management, oil policy and national development plans or programmes (on the other) to mention a few. Issues that are, more often than not, mixed up by commentators and result in confusion, unnecessarily, and spread inaccurate interpretation (this is much evidenced through debating such issues in Iraq over the last ten years). A contract relates to a specific oilfield project falls within the sphere of micro-economics analysis, while oil policy or revenue management and utilization and national development are of macro-economic nature. But surely, many fiscal instruments (such as taxation, state partner share, type of contract among others) are of macro-nationwide applications and implications, and thus, have direct bearings on upstream petroleum projects. Hence, there are dual attributions of or organic linkages between three levels of analysis; micro, sector-wide and macro level, which entails very careful and proper understanding and distinction.

The essence of and why there is petroleum fiscal systems, according to the authors, is sharing the resource rent between the host country and the resource firms, i.e., IOCs. But, the book asserts, “Calculating the resource rent is not straightforward, and is rarely done explicitly. It is an economic term discussed on a conceptual level, seldom found in Excel spreadsheets.” (P. 4) and “rarely calculated as a precise value.” (P. 457). Yet, there are, throughout the book, numerous examples on “resource rent tax” that are applied by many countries and jurisdictions. When a tax, which is important and significant petroleum fiscal instrument, is premised on or justified by the resource rent, then it is an empirical and material manifestation of a quantified/ quantifiable resource rent. Moreover, the “Project economics” spreadsheet (Excel or others) comprises a “precise value” of the resource rent tax as highlighted in Table 14.2, (P. 348). Is there some inconsistency here!

There is a strong link between resource rent and sovereignty, particularly in most developing countries. But the book refers twice to sovereignty: with regards to “Stabilization clauses” (P. 43) and a citation on the, “[R]enewed interest in such [risk service] agreements since the 1990s, largely due to national concerns with sovereignty over their petroleum.” (P. 125).  The book, surprisingly, did not discuss or highlight the issue of state permanent sovereignty over its natural (in this case) petroleum, which is significant nation’s right issue and has been recognized under international law for decades.[1]

Also, there is a sense of generalization in considering sharing resource rent between host country and the resource firms under all petroleum fiscal systems, but this is not necessarily the case. If “remuneration fee” is included in production cost, as it should be, then the whole resource rent is acquired by the host country under service contracts, such as the one adopted by Iraq’ federal ministry of oil, and this is vital feature of this type of petroleum fiscal system.

The issue of “gold plating”, the tendency that the contractor will be economically motivated to spend money unnecessarily,(P. 134) and thus “benefitting,…, due to distortions caused by the fiscal regime, (p. 405), attracted good attention by the authors, as evidenced by the frequency of the term in the book. It was discussed, at depth using its Petrosharing Model, with respect to “Saving index” (Pp. 380-90), with regards to the issue of “Neutrality” of fiscal system (Pp. 393-405 ) and with regard to Iraq, among others.

When it comes to service contracts adopted by Iraq, the book focus on “gold plating” relies on two references relating to Rumaila oilfield: Ghandi and Lin Lowell (2016) (p. 134) and Van Meurs (2009) (p. 136). Both studies give the impression that “gold plating” is peculiar to and intrinsic of service contracts; it is not. Moreover, both studies seems to premise their analysis on a “draft” model contract not on a “signed” contract; Rumaila is a brown oilfield that has been producing since mid-1950s and, thus, it is unreasonable to offer its re-habilitation under production sharing contract, as suggested by the two studies; the authors of the two studies seemed unaware of the measure to combat “gold plating” that were introduced in service contracts for the second bid round, due to a learning-curve, and finally, economic efficiency and cost effectiveness are, practically, impacted by both the “text” of the contract and the “monitoring and management” of the contact through various decision-making chain from the bottom at the field’ joint management committee up to Energy Committee at the Council of Ministers.

That said, there are growing number of high profiled cases indicating to serious fraud and corruption in the Iraqi petroleum upstream projects, the impact of which could very well dwarf “gold plating” effects associated with Service contracts. Similarly, corruption in the KRG’ production sharing contracts has been even more detrimental.

This brings to the discussion the importance and impacts of vital political economy factors and geopolitical considerations on these projects, since petroleum fiscal system is formulated upon or functions within the environment dictated by these factors and considerations.

The book uses the term “resource firms” instead of the widely used term IOCs; the authors’ argument for adopting this term are not very convincing (Pp. 6/7) and they only add one more term to the existing ones: IOCs, Oil Majors; Big Oil; transnationals; multinationals.

Also the book mentions Middle East Gulf-MEG (P. 308; P. 416), probably referring to the known Arabian Gulf or Persian Gulf (depending where one stands) but hardly MEG!!

A few typing errors and sometimes numbers do not add up corresponding to what the narratives lead to; this could be due to either typing errors or to rounding effects. Some charts, particularly in part three are not clear due to scanning.

To sum up, this is invaluable highly informative and thus recommended book for oil professionals, contracts formulation and negotiation, and for authorities entrusted with upstream petroleum development. Moreover, from my own experience, this book is excellent source for designing and delivering human capacity development activities such as workshops and training on petroleum fiscal systems.

 

* Petroleum Fiscal Systems,

Erik T. Jarlsby and Eduardo G. Pereira (2019)

Publisher: PennWell Corporation. Oklahoma, USA,

ISBN: 978-1-59370-480-3 (hbc); 471 pages

Price: $101.15

 

My edited review article of the above book was published on:  Journal of Contemporary Iraq & the Arab World, Volume 14, Number 3, 1 September 2020, pp. 261-265(5)

[1] Brownlie, Ian (1995), Basic Documents in International Law, Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK, 4^th Edition, Part Five.

 

Mr Jiyad is an independent development consultant, scholar and Associate with the former Centre for Global Energy Studies (CGES), London. He was formerly a senior economist with the Iraq National Oil Company and Iraq’s Ministry of Oil, Chief Expert for the Council of Ministers, Director at the Ministry of Trade, and International Specialist with UN organizations in Uganda, Sudan and Jordan. He is now based in Norway (Email: mou-jiya(at)online.no, Skype ID: Ahmed Mousa Jiyad). Read more of Mr Jiyad’s biography here.

The post Analyzing and Understanding Petroleum Fiscal Systems first appeared on Iraq Business News.