Nordic Mining Seminar – PDAC 2016
Monday March 7
Ken Green, Senior Director, Centre for Natural Resources
The Fraser Institute
Presentation Outline
• Survey background and methodology
• Results of 2015 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 109 valid jurisdictions – Minimum threshold of 10 responses to include
results in survey report
The 2015 Survey
• Sent to 3800 executives at exploration, development, and mining consulting
companies
– Asked to respond only for jurisdictions which they know
• Responses from 449 executives
• Representing US$2.2 billion in exploration spending in 2015 and US$2.5 billion in 2014
• 109 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)
2015 Policy Perception Index
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Norway Finland Sweden
2015 Survey Results
• Sweden ranked 3rd (PPI 96.5), Finland 5th (PPI 94.8), and Norway 12th (PPI 89.2)
• Ireland is top-ranked jurisdiction; Wyoming is 2nd
• Also in the top 10 are Saskatchewan, Nevada, Alberta, Western Australia, New Brunswick, and Portugal
• Chile tops Latin America globally at 26th place
• Botswana tops in Africa at 14th overall.
• The bottom 10: Honduras, Rio Negro, Kyrgyzstan, Niger, Neuquen, Chubut, Zimbabwe, La Rioja,
Myanmar, and Venezuela
2015 Results-Finland
• Ranked 5
th(PPI of 94.8)
• A decline from 2
ndin 2014
– Saw declines due to higher levels of uncertainty regarding the administration, interpretation, or enforcement of existing regulations (-19 points) and uncertainty concerning environmental
regulations (-7 points)
• Areas of strength include:
– Security environment (89%) – Geological database (78%) – Political Stability (71%)
2015 Results-Norway
• Ranked 12
th(PPI of 89.2)
• An improvement of 6 spots from 2014
– Caused by better performance on
socioeconomic agreements/community development conditions (+20 points), the
geological database (+18 points), and trade barriers (+15 points)
• Areas of strength include:
– Security environment (92%) – Political stability (67%)
– Geological database (58%)
2015 Results-Sweden
• Ranked 3
rd(PPI of 96.5)
• An improvement of 1 spot over 2014
– Sweden had better performance on labour availability and skills (+22 points) and the taxation regime (+19 points)
• Areas of strength include:
– Security environment (89%) – Geological database (78%)
– Availability of labour and skills (67%)
Relative Rank 2015
75%
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
2011/12 2012/13 2013 2014 2015
Finland Norway Sweden
PPI 2011/12-2015
70 75 80 85 90 95 100
2011/12 2012/13 2013 2014 2015
Finland Sweden Norway
Mineral Potential
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Encourages Investment Not a Deterrent
Global Top 10
Individual Policy Areas
Here we look at “detriments” to mining.
So lower scores indicate
mining friendly policy.
Uncertainty Concerning Environmental Regulations 2015
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Finland Norway Sweden
Would not Invest Strong Deterrent Mild Deterrent
Regulatory Duplication and Inconsistencies 2015
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Finland Norway Sweden
Would not Invest Strong Deterrent Mild Deterrent
Uncertainty over which Areas will be Protected 2015
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
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 environmental regulations – Regulatory duplication and inconsistencies – Uncertainty from protected areas
All research available at no charge at:
www.fraserinstitute.org
Thank You!
Ken Green
[email protected] Taylor Jackson
