Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Nordic Mining Seminar – PDAC 2017
Tuesday March 7
Ken Green, Senior Director, Centre for Natural Resources
The Fraser Institute
Presentation Outline
• Survey background and methodology
• Results of 2016 Survey
• Areas of weakness
• Areas of strength
• Individual policy areas
• Conclusion
Survey Background
• Rankings compiled from an anonymous annual survey of exploration, development and mining companies
– Began with North American jurisdictions in 1997
– Current survey includes 104 valid jurisdictions
– Minimum threshold of 10 responses to include results in survey report
The 2016 Survey
• Sent to 2700 executives at exploration, development, and mining consulting companies
– Asked to respond only for jurisdictions which they know
• Responses from 350 executives
• Representing US$2.7 billion in exploration spending in 2016 and US$3.2 billion in 2015
• 104 jurisdictions rated
Survey Methodology
• Survey participants in 15 policy areas
– For example, “Taxation Regime” or “Political Stability”
– Asked whether deters or encourages investment on a scale of 1-5
• Policy Perception Index
– A composite measure of all 15 policy areas that considers responses from all 5 response categories
• Standardized scores are estimated for each jurisdiction on each policy variable and then added up and normalized to a scale of 0 (worst) to 100 (best)
2016 Policy Perception Index
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
100
Norway
Finland Sweden
2016 Survey Results
• Sweden ranked 3rd (PPI 98.2), Finland 4th (PPI 97.6), and Norway 19th (PPI 89.0)
• Republic of Ireland is top-ranked jurisdiction; Saskatchewan is 2nd
• Also in the top 10 are Nevada, Manitoba, Wyoming, New Brunswick, Western Australia, and Northern Ireland
• French Guiana tops Latin America globally at 34th
place
• Botswana tops in Africa at 12th overall.
• The bottom 10: Venezuela, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe, Mongolia, Philippines, Indonesia, Chubut, South Sudan, Mendoza, Ecuador
2016 Results-Finland• Ranked 4th (PPI of 97.6)
• An increase from 5th in 2015– Largely due to the perception of the taxation
regime as a decreasing deterrent (-15%) and minor improvements in other areas, although uncertainty over protected areas was seen as more of an obstacle (+16%)
• Areas of strength include:
– Security environment
– Geological database
– Political stability
2016 Results-Norway• Ranked 19th (PPI of 89.0)
• An decline of 7 spots from 2015
– Caused by greater investment deterrents from labour regulations and employment agreements (+36%), taxation regime (+17%), and uncertainty concerning environmental regulations (+11%)
• Areas of strength include:
– Security environment
– Infrastructure
– Political stability
2016 Results-Sweden• Ranked 3rd (PPI of 98.2)
• Remained in the same spot as 2015
– Sweden had less deterrent to investment in the legal system (-18%), but worse perception of the taxation regime (+12%)
• Areas of strength include:
– Security environment
– Political stability
– Infrastructure
Relative Rank 2016
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
2012/13 2013 2014 2015 2016
Finland
Norway
Sweden
PPI 2012/13-2016
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
100
2012/13 2013 2014 2015 2016
Finland Sweden Norway
Mineral Potential
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Encourages Investment Not a Deterrent
64th
21st 12th
Global Top 10
Individual Policy Areas
Here we look at “detriments” to mining.
So lower scores indicate
mining friendly policy.
Uncertainty over which Areas will be Protected2016
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Finland Norway Sweden
Would not Invest
Strong Deterrent
Mild Deterrent
Uncertainty Concerning Environmental Regulations2016
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Finland Norway Sweden
Would not Invest
Strong Deterrent
Mild Deterrent
Uncertainty concerning disputed land claims2016
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Finland Norway Sweden
Would not Invest
Strong Deterrent
Mild Deterrent
Taxation Regime2016
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Finland Norway Sweden
Would not Invest
Strong Deterrent
Mild Deterrent
Conclusion
• The three Nordic countries continue to have some of the most attractive policies in the world for mining investment
• Key areas for improvement are:
– Uncertainty from protected areas
– Uncertainty concerning environmental regulations
– Uncertainty concerning disputed land claims
– Taxation regime
All research available at no charge at:
www.fraserinstitute.orgThank You!
Taylor Jackson
