Introduction and Consultation on the Indonesia's Oil and Gas Sharing Contract at CNG Co.

Authors

  • Prayang Sunny Yulia Petroleum Engineering Department, Faculty of Earth Technology and Energy, Universitas Trisakti, Jakarta Barat, DKI Jakarta 11440, Indonesia.
  • R. Hari Karyadi Oetomo Petroleum Engineering Department, Faculty of Earth Technology and Energy, Universitas Trisakti, Jakarta Barat, DKI Jakarta 11440, Indonesia.
  • Arinda Ristawati Petroleum Engineering Department, Faculty of Earth Technology and Energy, Universitas Trisakti, Jakarta Barat, DKI Jakarta 11440, Indonesia.
  • Aqlyna Fattahanisa Petroleum Engineering Department, Faculty of Earth Technology and Energy, Universitas Trisakti, Jakarta Barat, DKI Jakarta 11440, Indonesia.
  • Riskaviana Kurniawati Mining Engineering Department, Faculty of Earth Technology and Energy, Universitas Trisakti, Jakarta Barat, DKI Jakarta 11440, Indonesia.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51601/ijcs.v4i4.812

Abstract

Indonesia's oil and gas sector has traditionally employed Production Sharing Contracts (PSCs) to regulate the sharing of revenues between the government and contractors. Two key PSC models are used: PSC Cost Recovery and PSC Gross Split. The PSC Cost Recovery model allows contractors to recover their exploration and production costs before profits are shared, providing financial protection but reducing long-term profitability. Conversely, the PSC Gross Split model, introduced in 2017, offers a simpler revenue-sharing mechanism, eliminating cost recovery and directly splitting gross revenue between the government and contractors. This study analyzes the financial implications of both models using economic simulations, focusing on key indicators like net cash flow, net present value (NPV), pay-out time, and discounted cash flow (DCF) rate of return. Results show that the Gross Split model generates significantly higher gross revenue ($420.908 million) than Cost Recovery ($46.362 million), but at the cost of greater financial risks for contractors due to higher upfront investments and operating costs. The Gross Split model also provides higher long-term returns, with a net cash flow of $67.138 million compared to $8.252 million in Cost Recovery. However, the pay-out time is longer, and the DCF rate of return is slightly lower (29.95% vs. 31.8%). Ultimately, PSC Gross Split is more suited for contractors with higher risk tolerance and capital resources, while PSC Cost Recovery may be preferable for smaller contractors seeking to minimize financial risks. Both models offer distinct advantages depending on the contractor’s financial capacity and risk appetite.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Anjani, B. R., & Baihaqi, I. (2018). Comparative analysis of financial Production Sharing Contract (PSC) cost recovery with PSC gross split: Case study in one of the contractor SKK Migas. Journal of Administrative and Business Studies, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.20474/jabs-4.2.2

Fiqri, A., & Irham, S. (2016). Analisa Keekonomian PSC No Cost Recovery dan Pengaruh Penggunaan Sliding Scale Share Before Tax pada Pengembangan Lapangan CBM ‘Z’ di Cekungan Kutai. Seminar Nasional Cendekiawan 2015, 539–547. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.25105/semnas.v0i0.274

Giranza, M. J., & Bergmann, A. (2018). Indonesia’s New Gross Split PSC: Is It More Superior Than the Previous Standard PSC? Journal of Economics, Business and Management, 6(2).

Irham, S., & Julyus, P. (2018). The new energy management policy: Indonesian PSC-gross-split applied on steam flooding project. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 106, 012109. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/106/1/012109

Irham, S., Sibuea, S. N., & Danu, A. (2018). The New Management Policy: Indonesian PSC-Gross Split Applied on CO2 Flooding Project. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 106(1). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/106/1/

Pramadika, H., & Satiyawira, B. (2018). Pengaruh Harga Gas dan Komponen Variabel Terhadap Keuntungan Kontraktor pada Gross Split. Jurnal Petro  Desember, 7(3). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.25105/petro.v7i3.3817

Pratama, I. Y., Satiyawira, B., & Yulia, P. S. (2023). Implementation of PSC Cost Recovery and PSC Gross Split Contracts in the IYP Field. Petro Jurnal Ilmiah Teknik Perminyakan, 12(2), 80–88.

Sidqi, A. N., Irham, S., & Yulia, P. S. (2022). Evaluasi Perbandingan Keekonomian 30 Sumur Skema PSC Cost Recovery dan Gross Split Lapangan A. PETRO: Jurnal Ilmiah Teknik Perminyakan, 11(4), 191–195.

Timpal, G. B. J., Irham, S., & Yulia, P. S. (2023). The economic feasibility approach of the development of geothermal power plant 2 x 20 MW. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1239(1), 012020. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1239/1/012020

Yulia, P. S., Sidqi, A. N., Irham, S., Maulani, M., & Wijayanti, P. (2023). Comparative Study of Economic Evaluation of PSC Cost Recovery and PSC Gross Split Scheme for Expiry Block, Case Study Field A in Sumatera. Journal of Earth Energy Engineering, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.25299/jeee.2023.12530 .

Downloads

Published

2024-11-30

How to Cite

Sunny Yulia, P. ., Hari Karyadi Oetomo, R. ., Ristawati, A., Fattahanisa, A., & Kurniawati, R. (2024). Introduction and Consultation on the Indonesia’s Oil and Gas Sharing Contract at CNG Co. International Journal Of Community Service, 4(4), 353–356. https://doi.org/10.51601/ijcs.v4i4.812

Most read articles by the same author(s)