Any special requirements:? All work should be submitted on the Student Portal.
? Work to be submitted in a professional manner, and as directed by the Module Leader.
Word Limit:
2,000 words (with 10% plus or minus leeway)
Deadline date for submission:
Thursday, 4th August 2016
Learning outcomes to be examined in this assessment
? Discuss the financial, commercial and contractual activities used in the management worldwide oil and gas industry
Percentage of marks awarded for module:
This assignment is worth 50% of the total marks for the module
Page 2 of 5
Assessment criteria
Explanatory comments on the assessment criteria
Maximum marks for each section
Knowledge and Research (content, relevance, and originality)
Clear demonstration of rigorous research from recognised authoritative sources. Audience focus. Meeting the deliverables.
55%
Writing and Presentation (format, references or bibliography, and style)
Rigorous use of the Harvard Methodology for citation and referencing; page numbering; correct display of direct quotations.
10%
Argument and Analysis (critical analysis, evaluation, and application)
Constructive critical analysis, introduction, conclusion. Demonstration of a clear understanding of the issues. Use of academic models. Full articulation of ideas developed. Offering well-argued solutions and/or alternatives if and where appropriate.
35%
Page 3 of 5
Why have Production Sharing Agreements replaced Concession Agreements for Exploration & Production Activity?
Background
The rise of nationalism in oil producing states during the 1960s was brought about from a desire by host governments to regain greater control over their indigenous mineral assets, as well as political motivations to wrest a higher economic rent from American and European oil companies.
The typical Concession Agreements then in force, between host governments and International Oil Companies (IOCs), had generated a great deal of dissatisfaction over governmental returns and finances, and have today been largely superceded by Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs) or Production Sharing Contracts (PSCs).
The major differences between these two contractual systems that determine relationships between host governments and International Oil Companies are the levels of control granted to IOCs, levels of state involvement and intervention and participation, and the financial, or fiscal, system that divides and distributes the economic returns to both the government and IOC.
Assignment Task
Your assignment task is to research the reasons and justification behind host governments moving away from Concessions and replacing with PSAs/PSCs, and why IOCs have accepted such a dramatic change in their own share and profits from Exploration and Production activity in resource-rich countries.
In a 2,000-word Essay you should outline the fundamental differences between the Concession systems and PSA/PSC systems, and the rationale behind producer countries favouring the greater economic rentals they receive through PSAs/PSCs. Discuss why host governments have succeeded in extracting more money from usually IOCs, and why, faced with such a change in finances, IOCs have continued to explore for, and exploit mineral, assets now their financial share of the profits has been seriously reduced.
Your own interpretations and conclusions from your researches are fundamental. Supporting your own arguments in a robust and objective manner will qualify for better marks than a simple re-statement of the data and opinion found in the research. This should be a high-level review; the allowed word count is a deliberate constraint, so make sure you write a “rounded” essay, and do not discuss in too much detail.
Total Marks for Assignment: 100
Page 4 of 5
Marking Criteria for Assessment at Level 5 – BSc (Hons) Programmes
Marks 0-25 (Fail) 26-39 (Fail) 40-49 (3rd) 50-59 (2.2) 60-69 (2.1) 70-85 (1st) 86-100 (1st) Assessment categories Knowledge & Understanding of Subject
Major gaps in knowledge and
understanding of
material at this level.
Significant inaccuracies.
Gaps in knowledge and only superficial
understanding of
the well-established principles of area(s)
of study.
Some inaccuracies.
Threshold level.
Some knowledge and understanding of material, of well- established principles of area(s) of study, and of the way in which those principles have
been developed.
Broad knowledge and understanding
of material, of well-
established principles of area(s)
of study, and of the way in which those principles have been developed.
Very good knowledge and understanding of
material, of well-
established principles of area(s) of study,
and of the way in which those principles have been
developed.
Very good, detailed knowledge and
understanding of
material, main concepts/theories at
this level. Awareness of the limitation of their knowledge, and how this influences
any analyses and interpretations based
on that knowledge.
Exceptional knowledge and understanding of
material, main
concepts/theories at this level. Awareness
of the limitation of their knowledge, and how this influences any analyses and
interpretations based on that knowledge Cognitive/ Intellectual Skills (e.g. analysis and synthesis; logic and argument; analytical reflection; organisation and communication of ideas and evidence)
Unsubstantiated generalizations, made without use of any credible evidence. Lack of logic, leading to unsupportable conclusions or missing conclusions.
Lack of analysis and relevance.
Views/ findings largely irrelevant, illogical or contradictory. Generalisations/ statements made with scant evidence. Conclusions lack relevance and/or validity.
Threshold level.
Awareness of main issues. Structure of argument effective, but with some gaps or weaknesses. Some evidence provided to support findings, but not always consistent. Some relevant conclusions.
Issues identified and critically analysed within given areas. An awareness of different stances and ability to use evidence to support argument. Ability to apply concepts and principles outside context of study context. Generally sound conclusions.
Good level of analysis and synthesis. An awareness of
different stances and
ability to use
evidence convincingly to support argument. Ability to apply concepts/ principles
effectively beyond context of study. Valid conclusions.
Excellent analysis and synthesis. A range of perceptive points made within given area for this level of study. Arguments logically developed, supported by a range of relevant evidence. Explicit acknowledgement of other stances.
Strong conclusions.
Exceptional analysis and synthesis are consistent features. Perceptive, logically connected points made throughout the work within an eloquent, balanced argument. Evidence selected judiciously and thoroughly analysed. Persuasive
conclusions. Use of Research- informed Literature (including referencing, appropriate academic conventions and academic honesty)
No evidence of reading. Views
are unsupported and non- authoritative. Academic
conventions largely ignored.
Evidence of little reading appropriate
for this level and/or indiscriminate use of sources. Academic
conventions used weakly.
Threshold level.
Evidence of reading relevant sources, with some appropriate linking to given text(s). Academic conventions
evident and largely consistent, with
minor weaknesses.
Knowledge and analysis of a range
of literature beyond core text(s). Literature used accurately and
analytically. Academic skills generally sound.
Knowledge of the
field of literature used consistently to
support findings.
Research-informed literature integrated
into the work. Very good use of academic conventions.
Critical engagement with a range of
reading. Knowledge of research-informed literature embedded in the work.
Consistently accurate use of academic conventions.
Exceptionally wide range of relevant
literature evaluated and used critically to inform argument, balance discussion and/or
inform problem-solving. Consistently accurate and assured use of academic conventions.
Page 5 of 5
LEVEL 5 cont… Graduate Skills for Life and Employment (e.g. research- related skills; written, graphical and oral communication skills; group working; problem-solving; practical and professional skills)
Little or no evidence of the
required skills in
any of the areas identified for
assessment at this level.
Limited evidence of skills in the range
identified for
assessment at this level. Significant
weaknesses evident, which suggest that the candidate is not yet
on course to gain skills necessary for graduate-level employment.
Research skills:
Some evidence of ability to collect and interpret
appropriate data/
information and undertake research tasks with limited external guidance. Can communicate in a range of formats, including orally, appropriate to the discipline(s), but with some weaknesses.
Can work with
others as a
member of a group, meeting most obligations to others, modifying responses appropriately.
Can identify key areas of problems
and generally choose appropriate methods for their resolution.
Able to recognise
own strengths and weaknesses
in relation to professional and practical skills, but with limited insight in some areas.
.
Research skills:
Can undertake research-like tasks, drawing on a range of sources, with limited external guidance.
Can communicate
effectively and confidently in a range of formats, including orally, appropriate to the discipline(s).
Can work
effectively with others as a
member of a group, meeting obligations to others, modifying responses appropriately.
Can identify key areas of problems and choose
appropriate methods for their resolution in a considered manner.
Able to evaluate
own strengths and weaknesses
in relation to professional and practical skills, and to develop own evaluation criteria.
Research skills:
Can successfully complete research- like tasks, drawing on a range of sources, with limited external guidance.
Can communicate
well, confidently and consistently in a range of formats, including orally, appropriate to the discipline(s).
Can work very
effectively and confidently with
others as a member
of a group, meeting obligations to others, modifying responses appropriately.
Can identify key areas of problems
and choose, with autonomy, appropriate methods for their resolution in
a considered manner. Able to take initiative in evaluating own strengths and weaknesses in
relation to professional and practical skills identified by others and develop and effectively apply own evaluation criteria.
Research skills:
Can successfully complete research- like tasks, drawing on a range of sources, with a significant degree of autonomy. Can communicate very effectively and confidently in a range of formats, including orally, appropriate to the discipline(s).
Can work very effectively and confidently with others as a member
of a group, showing leadership skills where appropriate, and meet all obligations to others. Can identify key areas of problems confidently and choose, with autonomy and
notable effectiveness, appropriate methods
for their resolution in
a considered manner. Able to show insight and autonomy in evaluating own strengths and weaknesses re
professional and practical skills, showing excellent judgement.
Research skills:
Evidence of exceptional success in undertaking a range of research-like tasks with high degree of autonomy for the level. Can communicate highly effectively, with professionalism, in a range of formats, including orally, appropriate to the discipline(s).
Can work
exceptionally well with others as a key
member of a group, showing leadership skills where appropriate, negotiating and meeting all obligations to others.
Can identify key areas of problems
confidently and
choose, with autonomy and exceptional
effectiveness, appropriate methods for their resolution in a considered manner.
Able to show insight and autonomy in evaluating own strengths and weaknesses, showing
outstanding judgement. Marks for Level 5 0-25 (Fail) 26-39 (Fail) 40-49 (3rd) 50-59 (2.2) 60-69 (2.1) 70-85 (1st) 86-100 (1st)
