Quote:
Originally Posted by Frequitude
You call new projects "expansions" within the same royalty ring fence of an old project that is approaching payout. It basically piles a bunch more capital into the "to be paid off column" and keeps that original project in pre-payout for much longer.
It's a bit of a grey area, but for the most part I agree with Harry Lime. New projects should be their own ring fence and the scope of old projects should largely be frozen for royalty purposes. However companies should still be allowed to include true ongoing sustaining capital in the scope of the original ring fence.
|
So should expansions not be subject to payout then? Basically you are saying we should provide no incentive for companies to improve upon old or existing technologies, or to expand any projects; and instead strive to create entirely new systems or simply abandon and walk away from lowly profitable ventures. Is it better to have higher royalties and lose investment?
You can't have a portion of a project in paid out status and another portion in non-paid out...?