When Politics and Economics Collide: Policy Implications for Reforming Oil and Gas Royalties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rising oil and gas prices have encouraged governments to increase their take from oil and gas development. In the last seven years, both Alaska and Alberta updated their fiscal regimes to ensure they received their 'fair share' from petroleum projects. The fiscal changes implemented in both jurisdictions have proven to be extremely controversial and provoked a strong debate over the best royalty design. In North America, the debate over fiscal regimes is often too politically charged to take account of the economics behind achieving the most efficient regime. This paper will argue that the political debate over oil and gas fiscal regimes does not reflect the economics of efficient oil and gas taxation. To make this case, this paper will examine the economics of oil and gas royalties and the politics surrounding the fiscal changes in Alaska and Alberta. The political experience in both jurisdictions is illuminating as they share many similarities and offer excellent case studies for how royalty changes occur. This paper will conclude by providing some insight into how politics and economics have collided to produce less than efficient results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".