admin

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary...

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary...

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary...

NASSAU, BAHAMAS — Grand Bahama tourism stakeholders are welcoming the news of increased airlift to the islands this fall, with foreign air arrivals to...

Economic Impact of Offshore Casinos on Local Gambling Markets Jul 17, 2024 SEO Offshore casinos, which are based outside a country’s jurisdiction, enable players in unregulated markets to play casino games online. While they are viewed as convenient by players, the country itself can view them unfavorably as they potentially take money away from regulated land-based casinos. In jurisdictions where all forms of gambling are illegal, governments may also point to societal problems caused by online and other forms of gambling, while the greater accessibility of offshore casinos may further compound these problems in areas where offline gambling is legal. Below, we look at some of the economic impact that off-shore casinos can have on local markets. Offshore casinos are online casinos that are established, licensed, and run outside a local gambling market. Many such casinos are licensed in Malta, Curacao, Isle of Man, and Panama. However, for Guyanan players, offshore casinos can be those that are licensed in the US, Europe, or any other country. They appeal to players because they are convenient and easy to access and because the best offshore casinos offer considerable bonuses to attract new and returning players. The introduction and implementation of cryptocurrency payments which, according to tech writer Krishi Chowdhary, are commonly found at modern online casinos, have also seen an increase in anonymous casinos. These casinos enable players from regions where gambling is illegal to anonymously place wagers without worrying about potential legal repercussions. Many regions do not have laws specifically pertaining to online gambling. This means that players can play at offshore sites legally, but because the market is not open, it means that casinos cannot register or become licensed within the region. It doesn’t make much difference to players whether a casino is licensed in their country or another country, but it does mean that the state and federal governments do not have any control over the way the casinos operate. It also means they don’t take any money in taxes. Some countries choose to make online gambling illegal, either because the country prohibits all forms of gambling or because they want local gambling markets to benefit from the revenue and state coffers to benefit from taxes. One reason that a lot of regions resist regulating online gambling is because they believe it will cannibalize, or take money away, from local gambling markets. If players are spending their money at online casinos, they will be less likely to spend money at a local casino. However, one report looked at six states in the US where online gambling became a regulated market. Rather than reducing revenue at local casinos, opening up the market led to a 2.44% increase in quarterly revenue for land-based casinos. Local casino operators stated they had not seen any reduction in player numbers or wager values. In this respect, having a deregulated market could actually be holding land-based revenues back. One earlier report from a US state did show some degree of cannibalization of land-based casino revenue following regulation, but the methodology of that study is alleged to be flawed. Where casinos and gambling venues are used to boost tourism, the likelihood of offshore casinos taking money away from land-based casinos is even lower. People specifically travel to an area to play at the casinos, and it is believed that land-based casinos attract a different market to those that play at offshore casinos. Because visitor and wager numbers do not drop following regulation, it is reasonable to assume that associated revenue streams also stay stable, or increase. Casinos typically sell food and drink, and thriving entertainment complexes and streets can crop up around these venues. Restaurants, bars, and hotels accumulate in the area, attracting those who wish to play at the casinos. With visitor numbers and physical casino revenue remaining steady, offshore casinos do not take money away from the state. However, regulating the market enables the government to more closely manage gambling in its many forms. They can restrict players so that they are only legally allowed to bet at locally licensed online casinos. Offshore casinos offer players more choices. They aren’t restricted by physical size, which means casinos can include a greater range of games, including variants from around the world. They also operate with lower overheads, which is how online casinos offer sign-up bonuses and other bonuses that physical casinos do not. This opens up the market and gives players better opportunities. It also encourages physical casinos to up their game and offer more to attract players. Beyond the economic impact of offshore casinos, an unregulated market creates something of a grey area for bettors. Typically, there are no laws that specifically prohibit offshore online gambling, which means the use of offshore casinos is not against the law. Governments are still playing catch up with the rapidly evolving iGaming market. They are trying to figure out how best to adapt, and this has left question marks over online gambling’s legality. Although it is widely believed that offshore casinos negatively impact the revenue of physical casinos, studies suggest that the two attract different player bases. One study even showed an uptick in revenue for land-based casinos following regulation of the market and the licensing of casinos in some US states. Offshore casinos do exist, and because the Internet is so free and open, for most people, it means that a failure to regulate the online gambling market means local and federal governments miss out on potential tax revenues. Related Similar Articles

Oil production paused at Liza Two to hookup gas pipeline Jul 17, 2024 News Guyana’s second FPSO, the Liza Unity …as project documents still to be made public Kaieteur News – ExxonMobil Guyana Limited (EMGL) has paused oil production at the country’s second Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) vessel in the Stabroek Block, the Liza Unity, to facilitate the tie-in of infrastructure to transport gas onshore. The Government of Guyana (GoG) plans to utilize about 50 million standard cubic feet (MSCFD) of gas per day to generate 300 megawatts of electricity to power the national grid. Gas will be piped to shore from two projects, the Liza One and Liza Two. ExxonMobil is constructing the 12-inch pipeline that will run approximately 220 kilometers from the FPSOs offshore to the Wales Development Site, West Bank Demerara. The company’s Media Advisor, Kwesi Isles on Monday told Kaieteur News in an invited comment that works on the Liza Unity vessel commenced since the first week in July. He said that the company was nearing completion with the tie-in activities on that FPSO. Notably, ExxonMobil was expected to conduct further debottlenecking on the Liza Unity FPSO during the shut-down period to allow for further ramping up of production. Isles could not confirm whether these activities were ongoing or completed. The Media Advisor would only say, “The activities scheduled for the shutdown are progressing according to plan, and we aim to restart production soon.” Upon completion of the works on the Liza Unity FPSO, Exxon will conduct similar works to hook up the pipeline on the Liza Destiny platform. Each vessel was expected to shut down production activities for two weeks to facilitate tie-in of the pipeline. EMGL’s GTE Project Manager, Friedrich Krispin previously explained the process to Kaieteur News. “We are starting that process at the beginning of July, that’s a process that takes about a couple weeks per FPSO and there’s a period in between that you are moving all of your equipment from one FPSO to the other. In the meantime, we are also building subsea structures on the bottom of the FPSOs where all these two lines connect together and connect onto the pipeline that’s gonna bring the gas onshore,” he said. The offshore works, according to Krispin is expected to be completed in the first half of August. The Project Manager said oil production will continue for most of the connection phase, however the facilities will be shut down for about 10 days. “What happens is, you take some time to kind of bring down production and then there’s a period, a short period, usually about 10 days per FPSO where you are completely down,” he said. While Exxon progresses with the construction of the pipeline, the Government of Guyana is yet to make key documents public, relative to the massive gas project being developed. Notably, the GTE project is Guyana’s single largest financial project ever pursued in the country’s history. Despite this however, the project does not have a feasibility study which demonstrates how viable the initiative is. The pipeline is expected to cost the country some US$1B but to date, there is no Final Investment Decision in that regard. Additionally, the Natural Gas Liquid (NGL) facility and power plant are expected to cost another US$759M. Government is upgrading the transmission and distribution network to support the project and has been tasked with compensating citizens along the pipeline route for their lands. A new control center to manage the power project is also to be constructed, increasing the cost of the gas project. Despite efforts by the Opposition and media for agreements relative to the GTE project to be laid in the National Assembly, government continues to delay the release of the documents sparking further concerns about the project. Related Similar Articles

Hot temperature from discharges can kill marine species – Exxon warns in summary for 7th project   Jul 17, 2024 News Map showing the location of the Hammerhead project offshore Guyana Kaieteur News – Discharges from the seventh project being pursued by ExxonMobil Guyana Limited (EMGL) in the Stabroek Block- Hammerhead can potentially affect the quality of water and harm marine species and wildlife. This information is contained in the Project Summary submitted by Exxon to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The regulator has since instructed the company to conduct a thorough Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to study the likely damage that can be done to the environment by the project. This study will also highlight measures to mitigate those harmful impacts. According to the Project Summary seen by this newspaper, “The Project could have localised impacts to marine water quality in the project development area from discharge of drill cuttings and from routine operational and hydrotesting discharges. The Project could potentially impact marine water quality in the Project area of interest (AOI) as a result of non-routine, unplanned events (e.g., spill or release).” Drill cuttings and drill fluid discharges during the drilling of development wells; effluent discharges from cooling water and produced water; hydrotesting discharges and non-routine, unplanned events such as a spill can result in the release of dangerous substances that can affect marine life. Exxon said, “Increased total suspended solids concentrations, chemical concentrations, or temperature in water column has a potential to affect marine water quality and marine habitat quality and affect wildlife.” Produced water is a liquid that is extracted during oil production activities. It contains dissolved mineral salts, or may be mixed with organic compounds such as acids, waxes, and mineral oils. It may also be mixed with inorganic metals and byproducts or with trace amounts of heavy metals and naturally-occurring radioactive materials, the US Department of Energy said in a research paper. It is also usually very high in temperature, and can be deadly to marine organisms. Due to its toxicity, this substance is best re-injected into the wells, though this may be a costly exercise. Exxon has sounded the warning before, in six EIAs for its previously sanctioned projects, of the dangers associated with the dumping of produced water into the ocean. Produced water discharges from each of the projects vary. For instance, the sixth project – Whiptail – which will produce 250,000 barrels of oil per day (bpd) will also produce 200,000 barrels of produced water daily which will be dumped into the ocean. On the other hand, the fifth project Uaru which is being designed to produce 250,000 bpd will see the discharge or 300,000 bpd of produced water.  Prior to the dumping of produced water offshore, it is treated on the FPSOs to ensure it aligns with the industry standards, as required by the EPA.  The Permits granted to Exxon by the regulator requires the operator to treat the substance to ensure “oil content specification of produced water to be discharged does not exceed 42 mg/l on a daily basis or 29 mg/l on a monthly average”. Dr. Ulric Trotz during an interview with Kaieteur News earlier this year stressed the need for stringent monitoring of these discharges by the EPA.  He said, “Any sort of contamination in a pristine marine environment that provides so much to our livelihoods, our fisher folk, so much to our own nutritional diet with our dependence on marine sources for protein, for an environment that supports marine life, you think about turtle nesting facilities on Shell Beach- anything that disturbs that environment is not in our interest.” To this end, Dr. Trotz explained, “If there are international regulations that stipulate that what is being injected into our marine environment basically complies with international practice and in no way undermines the integrity of our marine eco-system then that’s alright.” He, however, pointed out that key to the safety of the environment is monitoring the discharges. “Do we have in place the sort of capacity to monitor what Exxon tells us they are doing? So that’s important and that’s why the EPA is such an important organization. I don’t know if they have the capacity basically to do this sort of monitoring that we need to if we are to ascertain that international standards are being more or less followed by the oil and gas industry in Guyana,” Dr. Trotz said. The Scientist urged that the EPA must ensure regulations demand that the oil and gas industry operates in accordance with international law. To this end, he cautioned, “They need to ensure that they don’t depart from that cause the general practice basically is that they cut corners because they are in a country that can’t monitor and that we have to take everything so we need to develop the capacity to monitor and to ensure that whatever the oil and gas industry says that they are doing, that’s the fact and that we are not being shortchanged.” Related Similar Articles