13 A Critical Intertemporal Analysis of Uganda’s Fiscal Regime …
417
89%
81%
80%
80%
80%
90%
81%
81%
80%
80%
103%
84%
83%
82%
82%
84%
81%
83%
85%
87%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
$ 30/bbl
$60/bbl
$90/bbl
$120/bbl
$150/bbl
AETR
Buliisa Project - Total Government Revenue at different Oil Prices
EA1 2004
EA3A 2004
EA1A 2012
R-Factor
Fig. 13.4 AETR generated by the different fiscal regimes at varying oil prices
from the Buliisa project
$120 per bbl, the theoretical R-factor regime generates higher revenue
for the Government than the DROP PSA regimes. At US $30 a barrel,
the DROP PSAs were cited for imposing a higher AETR on the Buliisa
project. The 2012 EA1A PSA was cited for imposing the highest AETR
of 103%, the 2004 EA3A imposes an AETR of 90% and the EA1 PSA
imposes an AETR of 89% on the Buliisa project.
Figure 13.5 presents the AETR generated by the different fiscal
regimes from the Kingfisher development at varying Oil prices. At US
$30 per bbl, the fiscal regimes were cited to generate AETRs ranging
from 93 to 103% with the EA1A 2012 PSA generating the highest
AETR of 103%. From the US $60 per barrel, the theoretical regime was
cited to generate a higher AETR from the KF-KT development than the
DROP PSAs rising from 80% at $60 per barrel to 87% at $150 per
dollars. The DROP PSAs generated AETRs ranging from 77 to 74% at
US $60 per barrel developing to 75 to 72% at US $150 per barrel.