كليدواژه :
انفال , قرارداد مشاركت در توليد , قانون اصلاح قانون معادن , منابع نفتي , الگوي امتيازي
چكيده فارسي :
ﯾﮑﯽ از ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎت ﭼﺎﻟﺶ اﻧﮕﯿﺰ در ﺻﻨﻌﺖ ﻧﻔﺖ اﯾﺮان ﻃﯽ ﭼﻨﺪﯾﻦ دﻫـﻪ ﮔﺬﺷـﺘﻪ، ﭼـﺎﻟﺶ اﺳـﺘﻔﺎده از روش ﻗﺮاردادي ﻣﺸﺎرﮐﺖ در ﺗﻮﻟﯿﺪ ﺑﺮاي ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪ ﻣﯿﺎدﯾﻦ ﻫﯿﺪروﮐﺮﺑﻮري ﺑﻮده اﺳـﺖ. ﻓـﯽ اﻟﻮاﻗـﻊ ﺗﻔﺴـﯿﺮ ﺷـﻤﺎري از ﻣﺪﯾﺮان و ﺳﯿﺎﺳﺖ ﮔﺬاران ﻧﻔﺘﯽ ﻣﺒﻨﯽ ﺑﺮ اﯾﻨﮑﻪ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده از ﻣﺪل ﻣﺸﺎرﮐﺖ در ﺗﻮﻟﯿﺪ در ﺻـﻨﻌﺖ ﻧﻔـﺖ ﺑـﻪ دﻟﯿـﻞ ﺗﻌﺎرض ﺑﺎ اﺻﻞ 45 ﻗﺎﻧﻮن اﺳﺎﺳﯽ ﻓﺎﻗﺪ ﻣﺸﺮوﻋﯿﺖ ﻣﯽ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ، ﺑﻪ ﻣﺎﻧﻌﯽ در ﻣﺴﯿﺮ ﺗﺤﻮل ﻧﻈﺎم ﻗﺮاردادﻫﺎي ﻧﻔﺘـﯽ اﯾﺮان ﺗﺒﺪﯾﻞ ﮔﺸﺘﻪ ﺑﻪ ﮔﻮﻧﻪ اي ﮐﻪ ﺣﺘﯽ ﭘﺲ از ﺗﺼﻮﯾﺐ ﻗـﺎﻧﻮن وﻇـﺎﯾﻒ و اﺧﺘﯿـﺎرات وزارت ﻧﻔـﺖ در ﺳـﺎل 1391 و ﺗﺠﻮﯾﺰ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده از روش ﻣﺸﺎرﮐﺘﯽ در ﺣﻮزه ﺑﺎﻻدﺳﺘﯽ، ﻋﻤﻼً ﺗﺎﮐﻨﻮن ﺗﻐﯿﯿﺮي در اﯾﻦ ﺑـﺎره رخ ﻧـﺪاده اﺳﺖ. در اﺻﻞ 45 ﻗﺎﻧﻮن اﺳﺎﺳﯽ ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﻧﻔﺘﯽ در زﻣﺮه اﻧﻔﺎل ذﮐﺮ ﻧﺸﺪه اﺳﺖ ﻟﮑﻦ از دﯾﺪﮔﺎه ﻓﻘﻬﯽ ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﻧﻔﺘـﯽ در ﺟﺮﮔﻪ ﻣﻌﺎدن )اﻧﻔﺎل( ﻗﺮار ﻣﯽ ﮔﯿﺮﻧﺪ. ﻧﮑﺘﻪ ﺣﺎﺋﺰ اﻫﻤﯿﺖ اﯾﻦ اﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﻗﺎﻧﻮن اﺻـﻼح ﻗـﺎﻧﻮن ﻣﻌـﺎدن ﺑـﺮاي ﺑﻬﺮه ﺑﺮداري از ﻣﻌﺎدن ﻣﺪل اﻣﺘﯿﺎزي را ﺗﺠﻮﯾﺰ ﻧﻤﻮده اﺳﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻫﻤﯿﻦ ﺧﺎﻃﺮ اﯾﻦ ﺳﺆال ﻣﻄﺮح ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮد ﮐﻪ وﻗﺘـﯽ از ﻣﻨﻈﺮ ﻗﺎﻧﻮن اﺳﺎﺳﯽ ﻣﻌﺎدن و ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﻧﻔﺘﯽ ﻫﺮ دو در زﻣﺮه اﻧﻔﺎل ﻗﻠﻤﺪاد ﺷﺪه اﻧﺪ ﭘﺲ ﭼـﺮا ﻗـﺎﻧﻮن ﮔـﺬار ﺑـﺮاي ﺑﻬﺮه ﺑﺮداري از ﻣﻌﺎدن ﻣﺪل اﻣﺘﯿﺎزي را ﺗﺠﻮﯾﺰ ﻧﻤﻮده ﺣﺎل آﻧﮑﻪ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده از روش ﻣﺸﺎرﮐﺖ در ﺗﻮﻟﯿﺪ در ﺻﻨﻌﺖ ﻧﻔﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺮاﺗﺐ از ﻣﻨﻈﺮ ﻣﺼﺎﻟﺢ ﻋﻤﻮﻣﯽ ﺑﻬﺘﺮ از روش اﻣﺘﯿﺎزي اﺳﺖ، ﻣﻐﺎﯾﺮ ﺑﺎ ﻣﻔﺎد اﺻﻞ 45 ﻗﺎﻧﻮن اﺳﺎﺳـﯽ ﻗﻠﻤﺪاد ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮد؟ ﺑﺮرﺳﯽ دﻗﯿﻖ ﻣﺒﺎﻧﯽ ﻧﻈﺮي و ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﯽ ﺑﻬﺮه ﺑﺮداري از ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﻧﻔﺘﯽ و ﻣﻌﺎدن ﺑﯿﺎﻧﮕﺮ اﯾﻦ اﻣﺮ اﺳـﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺮﺧﻼف آﻧﭽﻪ ﺗﻔﺴﯿﺮ ﻣﯽ ﺷﻮد، وﺟﻪ ﻣﺸﺘﺮك ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﯽ ﺑﯿﻦ ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﻣﻌﺪﻧﯽ و ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﻧﻔﺘﯽ ﯾﻌﻨﯽ اﻧﻔﺎل ﺑـﻮدن آﻧﻬـﺎ ﻣﺘﻀﻤﻦ اﯾﻦ ﻧﺘﯿﺠﻪ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﯽ اﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ وﻗﺘﯽ از ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻘﻨﻦ اﺳﺘﻔﺎده از روش اﻣﺘﯿﺎزي ﺑﺮاي ﺑﻬﺮه ﺑـﺮداري از ﻣﻌـﺎدن ﺑﻼﻣﺎﻧﻊ اﺳﺖ، ﺗﻮﺳﻞ ﺑﻪ روش ﻣﺸﺎرﮐﺖ در ﺗﻮﻟﯿﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻃﺮﯾﻖ اوﻟﯽ ﺟﺎﺋﺰ و ﺑﻼاﺷﮑﺎل ﻣﯽ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ.
چكيده لاتين :
One of the challenging issues in the Iranian petroleum industry over the past decades has been the issue of applying contractual method of production sharing for the development of hydrocarbon fields. In fact, the interpretation made by a number of directors and policymakers in the field of oil industry that application of production sharing contract is unlawful due to conflict with Article 45 of the constitution, has become an obstacle to the evolution of oil contracts in Iran, which even after approval of Petroleum Ministry Act in 2012 authorizing the application of participatory contractual methods in the upstream sector, virtually no change has occurred so far. In article 45 of the Constitution, oil resources are not mentioned in the category of Anfal, but from the jurisprudential and constitutional point of views, oil resources are considered as mines (Anfal).
It is important to note that the Mines Act has authorized concessionary model for the exploitation of mines. Therefore, it is argued that when, from the perspective of the Constitution, mines and oil resources both are considered as Anfal, why the legislator has allowed the use of concessionary method for exploitation of mines while application of the production sharing method in the oil industry, which is far better than the concessionary model in terms of public interest, is in contradiction with Article 45? A careful examination of the theoretical and legal bases for the exploitation of oil and mineral resources suggests that, contrary to what is being interpreted, the common legal basis between mineral resources and oil resources, that is to say, both being regarded as Anfal, implies the logical consequence that when using the concessionary method for exploitation of mines is permissible, the use of the production sharing method in oil industry is legally much more permissible. It is noteworthy that the analytical approach adopted in this research is based on library studies.
