Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Nordic Mining Seminar – PDAC
2018
Tuesday March 7
Ken Green, Senior Director, Centre for
Natural Resources
The Fraser Institute
Presentation Outline
• Survey background and methodology
• Results of 2017 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 91 valid jurisdictions
– Minimum threshold of 5 responses to include
results in survey report
The 2017 Survey
• Sent to 2700 executives at exploration,
development, and mining consulting
companies
– Asked to respond only for jurisdictions which
they know
• Responses from 360 executives
• Representing US$2.3 billion in exploration
spending in 2017 and US$1.9 billion in 2016
• 91 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)
2017 Policy Perception Index
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Norway
28th
Finland
2nd
Sweden
4th
2017 Survey Results
• Finland ranked 2nd (PPI 98.84), Sweden 4th (PPI 91.11), and Norway 28th (PPI 77.75)
• Republic of Ireland is top-ranked jurisdiction
• Also in the top 10 are Saskatchewan, Nevada, Northern Ireland, Michigan, Wyoming, Quebec, and Newfoundland and Labrador.
• Chile tops Latin America at 25th place
• Botswana tops in Africa at 21st overall.
• The bottom 10: Venezuela, Chubut, Zimbabwe, Guatemala, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), China, Philippines, Indonesia, Bolivia, and Ecuador.
2017 Results-Finland• Ranked 2nd (PPI of 98.84)
• An increase from 4th in 2016
– Largely due to decreased concern over
uncertainty regarding existing regulations (-17%)
disputed land claims (-15%) and regulatory
duplication and inconsistencies (-13%)
• Areas of strength include:
– Security environment
– Geological database
– Political stability
2017 Results-Norway• Ranked 28th (PPI of 77.75)
• An decline of 9 spots from 2016
– Caused by greater concern over regulatory
duplication and inconsistencies (+35),
uncertainty concerning existing regulations
(+27%), and uncertainty concerning
environmental regulations (+25%)
• Areas of strength include:
– Security environment
– Infrastructure
– Political stability
2017 Results-Sweden• Ranked 4rd (PPI of 91.11)
• Dropped one spot since 2016
– Investors expressed improvement in the
taxation regime (-12%), but worse perceptions
of regulatory duplication and inconsistencies
(+10%)
• Areas of strength include:
– Security environment
– Geological database
– Political stability
Relative Rank 2017
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Finland
Norway
Sweden
PPI 2013-2017
75
80
85
90
95
100
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Finland Sweden Norway
Mineral Potential
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Encourages Investment Not a Deterrent
61st
32nd
6th
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 Protected
2017
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Finland Norway Sweden
Would not Invest
Strong Deterrent
Mild Deterrent
Uncertainty Concerning Environmental Regulations
2016
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Finland Norway Sweden
Would not Invest
Strong Deterrent
Mild Deterrent
Uncertainty concerning disputed land claims
2017
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Finland Norway Sweden
Would not Invest
Strong Deterrent
Mild Deterrent
Taxation Regime
2017
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.org
Thank You!
Ken Green
Ashley Stedman
