Back Matter
  • 1 https://isni.org/isni/0000000404811396, International Monetary Fund
  • | 2 https://isni.org/isni/0000000404811396, International Monetary Fund
  • | 3 https://isni.org/isni/0000000404811396, International Monetary Fund
  • | 4 https://isni.org/isni/0000000404811396, International Monetary Fund
  • | 5 https://isni.org/isni/0000000404811396, International Monetary Fund

Appendix A. Details of Fiscal Systems in the Sample Jurisdictions

Table A1.

North American Regimes

article image
Source. IMF FARI Database, EY 2016, countries’ tax legislation;Notes. SL: Straight line (depreciation); LCF: loss carryforward; IDC: intangible drilling costs; a rate varies with commodity price; a rate varies with commodity price and well productivity.
Table A2.

Non-North American Regimes

article image
Source. IMF FARI Database; EY 2016, countries’ tax legislationNotes. LCF: loss carryforward; CNY: Chinese Yuan;a rate varies with production; b rate varies with profitability ratio.

Appendix B. Further Details on Representative Projects for Fiscal Regime Analysis

Production aims to maintain a plateau (though this may not necessarily be true for shale gas in the US). For Canadian regimes, where fiscal parameters depend on depth, reservoirs are taken to be at 3000 meters.39 Associated liquids, so called “wet gas” (e.g., ethane, butane) are included in shale production.40

Several other assumptions deserve mention. Tax regimes are taken to apply throughout the project life with taxes paid by one entity, the “investor”, and this entity receives all cash flows before paying taxes and interest.41 70 percent of development expenses are financed through debt, while the rest of project costs are paid from investor equity, reflecting an assumption that investors are not able to borrow to fund exploration and prefer to avoid excessive leverage (capitalization in line with prevailing debt-to-equity tax ratios). Inflation and interest rates are assumed to be constant throughout the project and, based on long-term forecasts published in the April 2016 World Economic Outlook, petroleum prices are in constant 2016 real dollars, meaning they annually adjust for inflation.42

References

  • Adgate, J. L., B.D. Goldstein, and L.M. McKenzie, 2014. “Potential Public Health Hazards, Exposures and Health Effects from Unconventional Natural Gas Development.” Environmental Science and Technology 48:8,307-8,320.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Allen, D. T., V.M. Torres, J. Thomas, D.W. Sullivan, M. Harrison, A. Hendler, S.C. Herndon, C.E. Kolb, M.P. Fraser, A.D. Hill, B.K. Lamb, J. Miskimins, R.F. Sawyer, J.H. Seinfeld. 2013. “Measurements of methane emissions at natural gas production sites in the United States.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110:17,768–17,7773.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Becker, Gary S., 1968. “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach.” Journal of Political Economy 76: 169217.

  • Boyd, James, 2001. “Financial Assurance Rules and Natural Resource Damage Liability: A Working Marriage?Discussion paper 01–11, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brandt, A. R., G. A. Heath, E. A. Kort, F. O’Sullivan, G. Petron, S. M. Jordaan, P. Tans, J. Wilcox, A. M. Gopstein, D. Arent, S. Wofsy, N. J. Brown, R. Bradley, G. D. Stucky, D. Eardley, and R. Harriss. 2014. “Methane Leaks from North American Natural Gas Systems.” Science 343: 733735.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brandt, A. R., G. A. Heath, E. A. Kort, F. O’Sullivan, G. Petron, S. M. Jordaan, P. Tans, J. Wilcox, A. M. Gopstein, D. Arent, S. Wofsy, N. J. Brown, R. Bradley, G. D. Stucky, D. Eardley, and R. Harriss. 2014. “Methane Leaks from North American Natural Gas Systems.” Science 343: 733735.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brehm, Paul. 2015. “Natural Gas Prices, Electric Generation Investment, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Working Paper, University of Michigan,

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brown, Stephen P.A., and Alan J. Krupnick. 2010. “Abundant Shale Gas Resources: Long-Term Implications for U.S. Natural Gas Markets.” Discussion Paper 10–41, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Brown, Stephen P.A., Alan J. Krupnick, and Margaret A. Walls, 2009. “Natural Gas: A Bridge to a Low-Carbon Future?” Policy Brief, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Burton, G. Allen, Knute J. Nadelhoer, and Kathleen Presley. 2013. “Environment/Ecology Technical Report.” Graham Sustainability Institute Integrated Assessment Report Series, 2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Calder, Jack, 2015. “Administration of a US Carbon Tax.” In I. Parry, A. Morris and R. Williams (eds.), Implementing a US Carbon Tax: Challenges and Debates, Routledge, London.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • CCG, 2017. “2016 Oil and Gas Taxation Comparison for the State of Idaho: Analysis of Severance, production and Ad Valorem Taxes”, Idaho Department of Lands, Covenant Consulting Group, Bismarck, ND. Available at: https://www.idl.idaho.gov/oil-gas/2016-oil-gas-taxation-comparison_rev.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cull en, Joseph A., and Erin T. Mansur. 2014. “Inferring Carbon Abatement Costs in Electricity Markets: A Revealed Preference Approach using the Shale Revolution.” Working Paper, Washington University.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Daniel, Philip, Charles McPherson, and Michael Keen, 2010. The Taxation of Petroleum and Minerals: Principles, Problems and Practice. International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Daniel, Philip, Charles McPherson, Michael Keen, Artur Swistak, and Victor Thuronyi, 2017. International Taxation and the Extractive Industries. Routledge, New York, NY.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • EDF, 2014. Economic Analysis of Methane Emission Reduction Opportunities in the U.S. Onshore Oil and Natural Gas Industries. Environmental Defense Fund., New York City, NY.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • EIA, 2013. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Coefficients. Energy Information Administration, US Department of Energy, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/co2_vol_mass.cfm.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • EIA, 2016. Trends in U.S. Oil and Natural Gas Upstream Costs. Energy Information Administration, US Department of Energy, Washington, DC. Available at: https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/drilling/pdf/upstream.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • EY, 2016. Global oil and gas tax guide. EY, August 2016. Available at: http://www.ev.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY-2016-Global-oil-and-gas-tax-guide/$FILE/EY-2016-Global-oil-and-gas-tax-guide.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fitzgerald, Timothy, 2013. “Frackonomics: Some Economics of Hydraulic Fracturing.” Case Western Reserve Law Review 63: 13371362.

  • Hausman, Catherine and Ryan Kellogg, 2015. “Welfare and Distributional Implications of Shale Gas.” Working paper 21,115, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Headwaters Economics, 2013. Unconventional Oil and Natural Gas Production Tax Rates: How Does Oklahoma Compare to Peers? Oklahoma Policy Institute

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • IMF, 2012. “Fiscal Regimes for Extractive Industries: Design and Implementation.” International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC. Available at: www.imforg/external/np/pp/eng/2012/081512.pdf

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • IOPC Funds, 2016. “The International Regime for Compensations for Oil Pollution Damage.” International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds, London, UK. Available at: www.iopcfunds.org/fileadmin/IOPC_Upload/Downloads/English/explanatory_note.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • IPCC, 2001. Good Practice Guidance and Uncertainty Management in National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.

  • Jackson, Robert B., Avner Vengosh, J. William Carey, Richard J. Davies, Thomas H. Darrah, Francis O’Sullivan, and Gabrielle Petron. 2014. “The Environmental Costs and Benefits of Fracking.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 39: 327362.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kepes J., B. Rodgers, and P. Van Meurs, 2011. “Gas prices, other Factors Indicate Changes in North American/Shale Play Fiscal Systems.” Oil and Gas Journal 5666.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Krupnick, Alan J. 2013. “Managing the Risks of Shale Gas: Key Findings and Further Research.” Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Krupnick, Alan J., Zhongmin Wang, and Yushuang Wang. 2013. “Sector Effects of the Shale Gas Revolution in the United States.” Discussion Paper 13–20, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Krupnick, Alan J., and Zhongmin Wang, 2014. “Lessons from the U.S. Shale Gas Boom.” Paper presented at a conference Energy Tax and Regulatory Policies in Europe: Reform Priorities and Research Needs, Munich, Germany, November 2014.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kurth, Thomas E., Michael J. Mazzone, Mary S. Mendoza, and Christopher S. Kulander, 2013. American Law and Jurisprudence on Fracking- 2012. Haynes and Boone, LLP.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kuwayama, Y., Sheila A. Olmstead, A. Krupnick, 2013. “Water Resources and Unconventional Fossil Fuel Development: Linking Physical Impacts to Social Costs.” Discussion Paper 13–34, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Linn, Joshua, Lucija Muehlenbachs, and Yushuang Wang, 2014. “How Do Natural Gas Prices Affect Electricity Consumers and the Environment?Working Paper 14–19, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Luca, Oana and Diego Mesa Puyo, 2016. “Fiscal Analysis of Resource Industries (FARI) Methodology.” Technical Notes and Manuals 16/01. International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mason, C, Lucija Muehlenbachs, and Sheila Olmstead, 2014. “The Economics of Shale Gas DevelopmentAnnual Review of Resource Economics, forthcoming.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Metcalf, Gilbert E. and David Weisbach, 2009. “The Design of a Carbon Tax.” Harvard Environmental Law Review 3: 499556.

  • Mielke, Erik, Laura Diaz Anadon and Venkatesh Narayanamurti, 2010. “Water Consumption of Energy Resource Extraction, Processing and Conversion.” Discussion Paper 2010–15, Energy Technology Innovation Policy Discussion Paper Series, Belfer Center, Harvard University.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Moore, Christopher W., Barbara Zielinska, Gabrielle Petron, and Robert B. Jackson, 2014. “Air Impacts of Increased Natural Gas Acquisition, Processing, and Use: A Critical Review.” Environmental Science and Technology 48: 8,349-8,359.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Muelenbachs, Lucija and Alan Krupnick. 2013. “Shale gas development linked to traffic accidents in Pennsylvania.” Common Resources, Resources for the Future, 27 September 2013. Available at: http://common-resources.ors/2013/shale-gas-development-linked-to-trafficaccidents-in-pennsvlvania.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Newell, Richard G., and Daniel Raimi, 2014. “Implications of Shale Gas Development for Climate Change.” Environmental Science and Technology 48: 13,036-13,044.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • NRC, 2009. Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use. National Research Council, National Academies, Washington DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • OECD, 2012. Mortality Risk Valuation in Environment, Health and Transport Policies. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Olmstead, Sheila A., Lucija A. Muehlenbachs, Jhih-Shyang Shih, Ziyan Chu, and Alan J. Krupnick, 2013. “Shale Gas Development: Impacts on Surface water Quality in Pennsylvania.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 110, 4, 962-4, 967.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Olmstead, Sheila A., Lucija A. Muehlenbachs, Jhih-Shyang Shih, Ziyan Chu, Alan J. Krupnick, and Nathan Richardson, 2014. “Managing the Risks for Shale Gas Development Using Innovative legal and Regulatory Approaches.” Discussion paper, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Osborn, S. G., Vengosh, A., Warner, N. R., and Jackson, R. B. 2011. “Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108: 8,172-8,176.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Parry, Ian W. H., Dirk Heine, Shanjun Li, and Eliza Lis, 2014. Getting Energy Prices Right: From Principle to Practice. International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Parry, Ian W. H., Dirk Heine, Shanjun Li, and Eliza Lis, and Victor Mylonas, 2017. “Policies for Implementing the Paris Agreement: An Assessment for G20 Countries.” Unpublished manuscript.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Schon, S. C, 2011. “Hydraulic fracturing not responsible for methane migration.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108: E664E664.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Shavell, Steven, 1984. “A Model of the optimal use of Liability and Safety Regulation.” RAND Journal of Economics 15: 271280.

  • Slonecker, E. T., L.E. Milheim, CM. Roig-Silva, A.R. Malizia, D.A. Marr, and G.B. Fisher. 2012. “Landscape Consequences of Natural Gas Extraction in Bradford and Washington Counties, Pennsylvania, 2004–2010.” US Geological Survey Open-File Report 20121154.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Small, Mitchell J., Paul C. Stern, Elizabeth Bomberg, Susan M. Christopherson, Bernard D. Goldstein, Andrei L. Israel, Robert B. Jackson, Alan Krupnick, Meagan S. Mauter, Jennifer Nash, D. Warner North, Sheila M. Olmstead, Aseem Prakash, Barry Rabe, Nathan Richardson, Susan Tierney, Thomas Webler, Gabrielle Wong-Parodi, and Barbara Zielinska, 2014. “Risks and Risk Governance in Unconventional Shale Gas.” Environmental Science and Technology 48: 8,289-8,297.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tian, Lei, Zhongmin Wang, Alan Krupnick, and Xiaoli Liu, 2014. “Stimulating Shale Gas Development in China. A Comparison with the US Experience.” Resources for the Future, Discussion Paper 1418.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • US Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 2015. “Oil and Gas; Hydraulic Fracturing on Federal and Indian Lands: Final Rule.” Federal Register 80, Number 58.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2012. “Oil and Natural Gas Sector: New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Reviews: Final Rule.” Federal Register 11, Number 159.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2013. Earthquake Swarm Continues in Central Oklahoma. Available at: www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3710&from=rss#.UmluMhD6O9U.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2014. Minimizing and Managing Potential Impacts of Injection-Induced Seismicity from Class II Disposal Wells: Practical Approaches. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2016a. Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking Water Resources in the United States (Final Report). US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-16/236F.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2016b. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990–2014. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Viscusi, W. Kip and Richard J. Zeckhauser, 2011. “Deterring and Compensating Oil-Spill Catastrophes: The Need for Strict and Two-Tier Liability.” Vanderbilt Law Review 64: 17171765.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • White, Michelle J. and Donald Wittman, 1983. “A Comparison of Taxes, Regulation, and Liability Rules Under Imperfect Information.” Journal of Legal Studies 12: 413425.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • WHO, 2014. Public Health, Environmental and Social Determinants of Health. World Health Organization, available at: www.who.int/phe/health_topics/outdoorair/databases/en/.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
1

We are grateful to Michael Keen for helpful comments and suggestions on earlier versions of the paper.

2

See, for example, Hausman and Kellog (2015) and Mason and others (2015) for introductions to the literature. Impacts on energy markets are discussed in Brehm (2015), Brown and Krupnick (2010), Cullen and Mansur (2014), Krupnick and others (2013), and Linn and others (2014). Fitzgerald (2013) discusses technological aspects of fracking. Literature on environmental impacts is discussed below.

4

Sieminski (2014), Hausman and Kellogg (2015), Figure 1. Hausman and Kellogg (2015) estimate that US shale gas production increased economic welfare (leaving aside environmental impacts) by $48 billion per year between 2007 and 2013.

6

Around 3–5 million gallons for development of a well (Mielke and others 2010).

7

US EPA (2016b), Table 3.5.

9

US EPA (2016b), Table ES 1.

11

And (from a global perspective) the displaced coal is not exported elsewhere, though Newell and Raimi (2014) suggest this effect is small.

12

Under the 2016 ‘Three Amigos Agreement’ the United States, Canada, and Mexico agreed to cut methane emissions by 45 percent by 2025, though the current US Administration is halting work on methane regulations. US methane emissions from all sources were estimated at 731 million tons in CO2 equivalent in 2014 (12 percent of total greenhouse gases) with about a quarter of the emissions coming from (conventional and unconventional) gas systems (US EPA 2016, Table ES2).

13

See, for example, Aldgate and others (2014), Moore and others (2014).

14

For example, WHO (2014). Air pollution causes other damages (e.g., morbidity, impaired visibility, crop damage, building corrosion) but, even combined, these effects tend to be modest relative to mortality effects (e.g., NRC 2009, Ch 2).

17

For example, Muelenbachs and Krupnick (2013) estimate that extra truck traffic results in 9 extra road fatalities, and 12 extra (serious but non-fatal) injuries, in Pennsylvania counties with shale gas development.

18

These can be significant: for example, Muelenbachs and Krupnick (2013) find that values for ground-water dependent properties fall by 16 percent as they become closer to shale wells, while values for properties with piped water access rise by 10 percent.

20

Top down technologies include satellites, aircraft, and drones while bottom up technologies include remote sensing (e.g., from vehicles).

21

For both CO2 and methane, ideally the tax levels would be set in line with countries emissions mitigation pledges for the 2015 Paris Agreement. Parry and Mylonas (2017) develop a spreadsheet tool for roughly gauging these prices.

22

The focus here is on ‘strict’ liability, where firms are responsible for damages, regardless of whether they tried to avoid them. Under ‘negligence’ liability firms are only responsible if it is found that they did not exercise an accepted standard of care, but this can be difficult to prove.

24

See, for example, Boyd (2001).

25

For example, the US Oil Pollution Act of 1990, enacted in the wake of the Exxon Valdez spill, increased the likelihood of vicarious liability for oil companies, thereby reversing the trend toward contracting out shipping services seen over the previous two decades (e.g., Brooks 2002).

27

See Viscusi and Zeckhauser (2011) for further discussion on two-tier liability and compulsory insurance regimes to deal with extreme damage risks.

28

See for example Shavell (1984) for further discussion on instrument choice issues.

29

Even within jurisdictions multiple regimes co-exist (for example, Kepes and others 2011 found 188 different fiscal systems within ten Canadian Provinces and 25 US States), though these differences are beyond our scope.

30

Section 57–51 of North Dakota Tax Law and Regulations.

31

Section 7a.6.1 of the Polish Act of March 2, 2012 on Certain Minerals Extraction Tax.

34

Ring-fencing can also occur at the contract area, sector, or company level (e.g., Oklahoma has a reduced royalty rate applied to production from eligible wells in their first four years of production or until costs are recovered). For these cases, our analysis disaggregates projects into well production and costs by year and then applies the corresponding fiscal regime. Of the modeled jurisdictions, the United Kingdom has CIT and Supplementary Charge ring-fencing around the upstream sector, Algeria has CIT and APT ring-fencing around a contract area, and the United States, Canada, China and Poland have no ring-fencing provision, meaning that the CIT calculation considers all company activities generating income and deductions. The special hydrocarbon tax in Poland is however ring-fenced at a sector level, i.e. only hydrocarbon operations of a given company enter the tax account and other streams of revenue (and cost) are ignored.

35

Of the modeled jurisdictions, the UK has CIT and Supplementary Charge ring-fencing around the upstream sector, Algeria has CIT and APT ring-fencing around a contract area, and the US, Canada, China and Poland have no ring-fencing provision, meaning that the CIT calculation considers all company activities that generate income and deductions.

36

For example, until 2015 Oklahoma had a reduced royalty rate for wells in their first four years of production or until costs are recovered. The reduced rate is applied to production from eligible wells; not the first four years of the entire project’s production.

37

Parameters are based on IHS data, IMF’s TA experience in petroleum project evaluation, and judgement.

38

The discounted AETR is excluded from this graph as it does not provide meaningful results due to the slightly negative pre-tax net cash flow, which it the denominator in AETR.

39

Additional simulations for Saskatchewan indicate that a well depth of 2,000 meters, rather than 1,500 meters, causes the pre-tax IRR to decrease by 0.4 percentage points due to the rise in costs. However, since a relatively large portion of oil becomes eligible for a lower royalty rate at the greater depth for the unconventional regime, the investor’s post-tax return increases while the effective royalty rate sharply falls under the 2,000 meters scenario. A less significant impact is seen for the conventional regime due to the lower portion of petroleum eligible for the lower royalty rate.

40

There is some substitutability between oil and gas flows which becomes important when gas prices decline sharply relative to those for oil. This feature is ignored in the analysis and a fixed ratio of 1 barrel of oil for every 20 Mcf of natural gas is assumed.

41

An exception is when there is state participation, meaning that the national oil company (NOC) has an equity stake in the project. Specifically, in the case of state participation within the Algerian and Chinese regimes, the NOC has its share of exploration costs “carried”, or paid for, by the investor and thereafter covers its share of costs, including the repayment of carried costs, with cash.

42

Prices are US $2.86/MMBtu and $48.00/bbl for North American gas and oil, respectively, and $4.79/MMBtu and $51.01/bbl for non-US gas and oil, respectively.

How Should Shale Gas Extraction Be Taxed?
Author: Philip Daniel, Alan Krupnick, Ms. Thornton Matheson, Peter Mullins, Ian Parry, and Artur Swistak