Petroleum Industry Report
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Mauritius Annual Report 2014.Pdf
Who we are 3 Our Vision 4 Our Values 5 Chairman’s Message 6 Managing Director’s Report 7 Review of Operations 9 Aviation 9 Marine 9 Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) 10 Retail 10 Contents Commercial 11 Lubricants 12 Customer Service Centre 12 Product Supplies and Distribution 13 Human Resources 15 Corporate Social Responsibility 15 Health, Safety, Security and Environment 16 History of Vivo Energy in Mauritius 18 Directors’ Report 24 Secretary’s Report 27 Corporate Governance Report 28 Statement of Compliance 53 Independent Auditor’s Report 54 Income Statement 55 Statement of Comprehensive Income 55 Statement of Financial Position 56 Statement of Changes In Equity 57 Statement of Cash Flows 58 Notes to the Financial Statements 59 Vivo Energy Mauritius Limited Annual Report 2014 1 A strong and growing presence in 16 countries across Africa Who we are - Vivo Energy is the company behind the Shell brand in Africa and is jointly owned by Vitol, Helios Investment Partners and Shell. The company has a strong and growing presence in 16 countries across Africa. It sources, distributes, markets and supplies Shell’s high-quality fuels and lubricants to retail and commercial customers across the continent. Vivo Energy was established on 01 December 2011 to distribute and market Shell-branded fuels and lubricants. Vitol and Helios each own 40% of Vivo Energy, with Shell holding the remaining 20%. Shell and Vivo Lubricants is 50% owned by Shell and 50% owned by Vitol and Helios Investment Partners. Vivo Energy operates in Retail, Commercial Fuels, Marine, Aviation (in partnership with Vitol Aviation), Liquefied Petroleum Gas and Lubricants in Mauritius. -
2016 EITI Report
Contents List of Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................6 Executive Summary........................................................................................................................8 1. EITI in Iraq .............................................................................................................................. 14 1.1. About the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) ................................... 14 1.2. EITI Implementation in Iraq .................................................................................................. 14 1.3. EITI Governance and leadership in Iraq (Requirement 1.1 – 1.3) ................................ 16 1.4. MSG Governance (Requirement 1.4) .................................................................................. 17 1.5. MSG Workplan (Requirement 1.5) ....................................................................................... 18 2. Legal Framework and Fiscal Regime for the Extractive Industries (Requirement 2.1) . 20 2.1. National Governance Structures ......................................................................................... 20 2.2. Overview of the regulations applicable to extractive industries ................................. 21 2.2.1. Extractive sector regulations in federal Iraq ........................................................................ 21 2.2.2. Overview of the corporate income tax and withholding tax regimes applicable -
Parker Review
Ethnic Diversity Enriching Business Leadership An update report from The Parker Review Sir John Parker The Parker Review Committee 5 February 2020 Principal Sponsor Members of the Steering Committee Chair: Sir John Parker GBE, FREng Co-Chair: David Tyler Contents Members: Dr Doyin Atewologun Sanjay Bhandari Helen Mahy CBE Foreword by Sir John Parker 2 Sir Kenneth Olisa OBE Foreword by the Secretary of State 6 Trevor Phillips OBE Message from EY 8 Tom Shropshire Vision and Mission Statement 10 Yvonne Thompson CBE Professor Susan Vinnicombe CBE Current Profile of FTSE 350 Boards 14 Matthew Percival FRC/Cranfield Research on Ethnic Diversity Reporting 36 Arun Batra OBE Parker Review Recommendations 58 Bilal Raja Kirstie Wright Company Success Stories 62 Closing Word from Sir Jon Thompson 65 Observers Biographies 66 Sanu de Lima, Itiola Durojaiye, Katie Leinweber Appendix — The Directors’ Resource Toolkit 72 Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy Thanks to our contributors during the year and to this report Oliver Cover Alex Diggins Neil Golborne Orla Pettigrew Sonam Patel Zaheer Ahmad MBE Rachel Sadka Simon Feeke Key advisors and contributors to this report: Simon Manterfield Dr Manjari Prashar Dr Fatima Tresh Latika Shah ® At the heart of our success lies the performance 2. Recognising the changes and growing talent of our many great companies, many of them listed pool of ethnically diverse candidates in our in the FTSE 100 and FTSE 250. There is no doubt home and overseas markets which will influence that one reason we have been able to punch recruitment patterns for years to come above our weight as a medium-sized country is the talent and inventiveness of our business leaders Whilst we have made great strides in bringing and our skilled people. -
KPMG Equity Capital Markets Review H1 2018
Equity Capital Markets Half Year Review H1 2018 kpmg.com/uk/equitycapitalmarkets 1 Equity Capital Markets review – H1 2018 H1 2018: Equity Capital Markets review H1 2018 snapshot The first half of 2018 ended strongly generating positive momentum in equity issuance especially in the UK where volumes were up. Overall, however, global ECM volumes were slightly lower versus H2 2017, continuing a trend seen since H1 2017 Overall, global equity issuance was slightly lower in H1 2018 versus H2 2017 Global Europe UK Funds raised Funds raised Funds raised (£000m) (£000m) (£000m) 25 400 125 20 issuance 100 300 15 75 200 10 50 100 5 25 0 Total ECM 0 0 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 2016 2016 2017 2017 2018 2016 2016 2017 2017 2018 2016 2016 2017 2017 2018 IPOs Right Issues Placings Germany and the UK lead European ECM in H1 Largest 3 European and UK IPOs £20.1bn Siemens Healthineers AG £3.7bn highlights DWS Group GmbH £19.2bn & Co. KGaA £1.2bn Adyen BV European ECM European ECM £4.4bn £834m A very active half year for AIM IPOs beating H1 2017 and offsetting lower Main Market volumes Main Market AIM Funds raised Funds raised (£000m) No. deals (£000m) No. deals 41 IPOs 8 40 1.5 50 16% decrease on H1 2017 6 30 1.2 40 0.9 30 4 20 0.6 20 2 10 0.3 10 £4.3bn Funds Raised 0 0 0.0 0 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 H1 H2 H1 H2 H1 44% decrease on H1 2017 2016 2016 2017 2017 2018 2016 2016 2017 2017 2018 Deal value Focus # Deals IPO UK IPO Key sectors Strong aftermarket performance of UK IPOs in H1 2018 Financial Services Main Market AIM £1,409m raised (13 deals) -
Towards a Policy Framework for Iraq's Petroleum Industry and An
Towards a Policy Framework for Iraq’s Petroleum Industry and an Integrated Federal Energy Strategy Submitted by Luay Jawad al-Khatteeb To the University of Exeter As a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Middle East Politics In January 2017 The thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgment. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. Signature ......................................................... i Abstract: The “Policy Framework for Iraq’s Petroleum Industry” is a logical structure that establishes the rules to guide decisions and manage processes to achieve economically efficient outcomes within the energy sector. It divides policy applications between regulatory and regulated practices, and defines the governance of the public sector across the petroleum industry and relevant energy portfolios. In many “Rentier States” where countries depend on a single source of income such as oil revenues, overlapping powers of authority within the public sector between policy makers and operators has led to significant conflicts of interest that have resulted in the mismanagement of resources and revenues, corruption, failed strategies and the ultimate failure of the system. Some countries have succeeded in identifying areas for progressive reform, whilst others failed due to various reasons discussed in this thesis. Iraq fits into the category of a country that has failed to implement reform and has become a classic case of a rentier state. -
Unique UK's Licensing Policy Favours the State Than
1216-2574 / USD 20.00 ACTA JURIDICA HUNGARICA © 2013 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 54, No 2, pp. 200–204 (2013) DOI: 10.1556/AJur.54.2013.2.6 MARY SABINA PETERS*−MANU KUMAR** Unique UK’s Licensing Policy Favours the State than the Industry: Contradicting Conventional Wisdom Introduction The world petroleum industry is globally interdependent. International oil companies tend to compare investment opportunities worldwide and pursue global strategies: investment opportunities compete with each other and fashion tends to possess world’s oil companies.1 Under such circumstances the role of the state acting as the regulator is of paramount importance especially where the oil and gas industry is a countries key industry.2 In the United Kingdom the government has proprietary rights to the petroleum reserves but they lack capacity to carry out technical tasks as drilling wells and laying pipelines.3 Consequently, the Governments is compelled to turn to private companies who hold most of the fi nancial and technical means needed for the exploration and exploitation of petroleum resources.4 In the United Kingdom, this symbiotic relationship is given effect through the petroleum licensing mechanism. This paper brings to light the various features of the UK licensing regime consequently bringing to light how this regime is favourable to the state than the industries, by laying emphasis on the proprietary rights to the petroleum revenue which vest in the UK through its governing legislations. Legislation The legislative framework for oil and gas exploration and production activities in the North Sea is as originally established by the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 for onshore activities, subsequently extended to the UK continental shelf by the Continental Shelf Act 1964 and ultimately consolidated by Part I of the Petroleum Act 1998. -
Transparency DIRECTORATE NATIONAL
Public Disclosure Authorized Major Lessons from My Career By Farouk Al-Kasim Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized 1. Why Not Work Together? 2. The Importance of Resource Assessment 3. Input to Norway’s Approach 4. Sector Organization 5. Institutional Integrity 6. Developing Competencies and Capacity 7. Win-win Approach to Resource Management 8. Joint Research to Reduce Risk 9. Transparency 10. Revenue Management 11. Petroleum Linkage to Total Governance 1 Why Not Work Together? 2 Why not work together? >> After graduation in 1957, I joined the Iraq Petroleum Company 1(IPC), which was the operator for an incorporated consortium comprising BP, Royal Dutch Shell, ExxonMobil, Total, and Partex. >> From 1957 to 1972, I followed the bitter negotiations between the Iraqi government and the IPC. I wondered why they could not agree. I was convinced they needed each other, but they simply could not find the way to work together. >> This made me wonder if there was a way for oil companies and governments to work together, rather than waste so much time and energy in conflict. There must be a way! 3 Norway offered a unique opportunity >> On the very first day I arrived in Norway in 1968, I walked to the Ministry of 2Industry in Oslo. I desperately needed a job, and the ministry needed somebody who knew how to assess exploration results. In 1965, Norway had licensed 78 blocks in the North Sea. The government made it clear that international oil companies (IOCs) were needed in Norway. >> Norwegians, however, were skeptical about petroleum operations in the North Sea. -
Statoil: a Case Study
THE JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY RICE UNIVERSITY STATOIL: A STUDY IN POLITICAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP BY RICHARD GORDON GORDON ENERGY SOLUTIONS THOMAS STENVOLL HESS ENERGY TRADING COMPANY PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ENERGY STUDY SPONSORED BY THE JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY AND JAPAN PETROLEUM ENERGY CENTER RICE UNIVERSITY – MARCH 2007 THIS PAPER WAS WRITTEN BY A RESEARCHER (OR RESEARCHERS) WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE JOINT BAKER INSTITUTE/JAPAN PETROLEUM ENERGY CENTER POLICY REPORT, THE CHANGING ROLE OF NATIONAL OIL COMPANIES IN INTERNATIONAL ENERGY MARKETS. WHEREVER FEASIBLE, THIS PAPER HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY OUTSIDE EXPERTS BEFORE RELEASE. HOWEVER, THE RESEARCH AND THE VIEWS EXPRESSED WITHIN ARE THOSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL RESEARCHER(S) AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF THE JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY NOR THOSE OF THE JAPAN PETROLEUM ENERGY CENTER. © 2007 BY THE JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY OF RICE UNIVERSITY THIS MATERIAL MAY BE QUOTED OR REPRODUCED WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION, PROVIDED APPROPRIATE CREDIT IS GIVEN TO THE AUTHOR AND THE JAMES A. BAKER III INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY ABOUT THE POLICY REPORT THE CHANGING ROLE OF NATIONAL OIL COMPANIES IN INTERNATIONAL ENERGY MARKETS Of world proven oil reserves of 1,148 billion barrels, approximately 77% of these resources are under the control of national oil companies (NOCs) with no equity participation by foreign, international oil companies. The Western international oil companies now control less than 10% of the world’s oil and gas resource base. In terms of current world oil production, NOCs also dominate. -
Production Licensing on the UK Continental Shelf: Ministerial Powers and Controls
LSU Journal of Energy Law and Resources Volume 4 Issue 1 Fall 2015 11-1-2015 Production Licensing on the UK Continental Shelf: Ministerial Powers and Controls Greg W. Gordon Repository Citation Greg W. Gordon, Production Licensing on the UK Continental Shelf: Ministerial Powers and Controls, 4 LSU J. of Energy L. & Resources (2015) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/jelr/vol4/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Journal of Energy Law and Resources by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Production Licensing on the UK Continental Shelf: Ministerial Powers and Controls Greg W. Gordon INTRODUCTION This article examines the conditions present in the oil production licenses granted for work on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf (UKCS) from the perspective of the powers given to the state in order to influence or control operational matters—a perspective of particular importance at the moment. Since Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative governments of the 1970s and 1980s implemented the progressive phasing out of direct state participation in the British oil business, the United Kingdom’s approach has been one of “light-handed” regulation.1 This model places the state in the largely passive role of a permitting authority assessing specific proposals brought to it by the licensees of particular blocks. Assumption of that role does not imply -
FTSE Russell Publications
2 FTSE Russell Publications 19 August 2021 FTSE 250 Indicative Index Weight Data as at Closing on 30 June 2021 Index weight Index weight Index weight Constituent Country Constituent Country Constituent Country (%) (%) (%) 3i Infrastructure 0.43 UNITED Bytes Technology Group 0.23 UNITED Edinburgh Investment Trust 0.25 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM 4imprint Group 0.18 UNITED C&C Group 0.23 UNITED Edinburgh Worldwide Inv Tst 0.35 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM 888 Holdings 0.25 UNITED Cairn Energy 0.17 UNITED Electrocomponents 1.18 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Aberforth Smaller Companies Tst 0.33 UNITED Caledonia Investments 0.25 UNITED Elementis 0.21 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Aggreko 0.51 UNITED Capita 0.15 UNITED Energean 0.21 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Airtel Africa 0.19 UNITED Capital & Counties Properties 0.29 UNITED Essentra 0.23 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM AJ Bell 0.31 UNITED Carnival 0.54 UNITED Euromoney Institutional Investor 0.26 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Alliance Trust 0.77 UNITED Centamin 0.27 UNITED European Opportunities Trust 0.19 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Allianz Technology Trust 0.31 UNITED Centrica 0.74 UNITED F&C Investment Trust 1.1 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM AO World 0.18 UNITED Chemring Group 0.2 UNITED FDM Group Holdings 0.21 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Apax Global Alpha 0.17 UNITED Chrysalis Investments 0.33 UNITED Ferrexpo 0.3 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Ascential 0.4 UNITED Cineworld Group 0.19 UNITED Fidelity China Special Situations 0.35 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Ashmore -
TILENGA PROJECT CONSOLIDATED RAP 3A REPORT.Pdf
RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN 3a (RAP 3a) for the proposed North Eastern Components Prepared by ATACAMA CONSULTING Plot 22B, Lower Naguru East Road, Naguru, Kampala, Uganda FEBRUARY 2021 DOCUMENT CONTROL Document Title: Tilenga Project: Resettlement Action Plan (RAP 3a) for the proposed North-Eastern Components of the Tilenga Project Document SRS_CA1&LA2_TP_RAP3a_01 ID/Reference Number: Version Number: 01 Date of Version February 2021 Number: Current Revision 00 Level: Client: Prepared by: ATACAMA CONSULTING DISCLAIMER This report was commissioned on terms specifically limiting the liability of the authors. The authors have prepared this report with all reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the contract with the project. Our conclusions are the results of the exercise of our professional judgment based in part upon materials and information provided by the project and others. We disclaim any responsibility and liability to the project and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of the work. No part of this document may be reproduced without the prior written approval of the project operators and the Government of Uganda. TILENGA PROJECT – RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLAN 3a Page i Atacama Consulting TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... II LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................... X LIST OF TABLES -
Vivo-Energy-Plc-Prospectus-4-May
ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION DISCLAIMER STRICTLY NOT TO BE FORWARDED TO ANY OTHER PERSONS IMPORTANT: You must read the following disclaimer before continuing. This electronic transmission applies to the attached document and you are therefore advised to read this disclaimer carefully before reading, accessing or making any other use of the attached prospectus (the “Prospectus”) relating to Vivo Energy plc (the “Company”) dated 4 May 2018 accessed from this page or otherwise received as a result of such access and you are therefore advised to read this disclaimer carefully before reading, accessing or making any other use of the attached Prospectus. In accessing the attached Prospectus, you agree to be bound by the following terms and conditions, including any modifications to them from time to time, each time you receive any information from us as a result of such access. You acknowledge that this electronic transmission and the delivery of the attached Prospectus is confidential and intended for you only and you agree you will not forward, reproduce or publish this electronic transmission or the attached Prospectus to any other person. The Prospectus has been prepared solely in connection with the proposed offer to certain institutional and professional investors (the “Offer”) of ordinary shares (the “Shares”) of the Company. The Prospectus has been published in connection with the admission of the Shares to the premium listing segment of the Official List of the UK Financial Conduct Authority (the “FCA”) and to trading on London Stock Exchange plc’s main market for listed securities (together, “Admission”) and the Main Board of the JSE Limited (“JSE”) by way of secondary inward listing (“JSE Admission”).