Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
I do think that the outcome was fine, but the timing was entirely ideological. Frankly, I'm not convinced that if they were to get into power next election that we wouldn't see a "windfall tax" or something of that ilk from them as well. They showed no propensity to "read the room" last time around, so I can only assume that this time would be no different.
And yeah, it could be argued that there is never a good time, but there are bad times and that was obviously one of them. I think that it was pretty obvious that the oil markets were in upheaval by the time they were elected, yet they did it anyway.
|
So they did something that had an objectively good outcome, when they said they would do it, and you think this is a bad thing?
Seriously what is the issue?
It wasn't out of the blue, it was one of their election promises (Remember "Fair share"?).
What exactly do you take issue with?
You would have preferred delaying or not doing a review that resulted in a better royalty structure?
What benefit would there have been to delay implementing a better system?
If you think the timing was the only issue, then when would you prefer it have been done, and why?
I would argue that during a time of upheaval is the best time to make changes like they did.
The industry was being hit hard, and sure I'll concede that the uncertainty of a royalty review caused some short term hesitance for investment, but what came out of it was a royalty structure that helped the industry recover.