Expensive. The traditional cross-border payment model has four costs: paying processing costs, receiving costs, financial operating costs, and reconciliation costs. According to the World Economic Forum report on The Future of Global Financial Infrastructure, generally, remitters charge 7.68% of the amount. The average cost of the bank using a proxy bank to complete a cross-border payment is between $ 25 and $ 35, more than 10 times the cost of completing the Automatic Clearing House,ACH settlement in Japan. Poor liquidity: In traditional cross-border payment models, banks, in order to maintain liquidity, need to hold currencies from multiple countries in bank accounts, known as "current accounts". Because the remittance bank has difficulty to predict when the agent will confirm its transfer information, it has to hold a certain amount of foreign currency in its current account. Force Majeure factor: due to external force majeure such as a country currency changed by policy or war, it is very likely to lose trust endorsement, leading to the depreciation and incirculation of the national currency of the issued currency. In the traditional cross-border payment mode, not all banks can join the SWIFT, or the SWIFT is not economical. Based on the above reasons, relying on blockchain technology, JAP will bring strong changes to the traditional settlement system and bring strong changes to the reform of the payment model and the trading system in the traditional foreign exchange market.
Expensive. 1. If an agreement has a duration of more than one year, the consumer may cancel the agreement at any time after one year with a notice period of no more than one month, unless reasonableness and fairness oppose termination before the end of the agreed term.
Expensive. Drilling and well work represent one area which is signif- icantly more expensive on the NCS compared with the British sector. If the various extra costs involved off Norway are added together, daily operating costs for a mobile rig are about USD 30 000 higher than on the UKCS. “Work-year costs – the total bill for one rig worker – are about twice as high as on the UKCS,” notes Mr Xxxxxxx. “That’s not solely because of pay. Basic earnings per person are about the same between the two continental shelves, but Norway has much higher extra payroll costs and travel expenses.” He adds that staffing levels on Norwegian platforms are high, and actually on a par with numbers seen in typical low-cost Third World countries. Mobile rigs are another area where Norway loses out competitively. Upgrading such a unit to satisfy stricter regulatory standards for working on the NCS can cost in the order of NOK 30-100 million. In reality, no com- “Costs are only one factor affecting the level of activity. Other important aspects include legislation, regulations and other fiscal terms as well as access to new exploration acreage.” mon rig market operates between the NCS and the UKCS. Operation and maintenance On the operation and maintenance side, the comparison shows that the NCS is only 10 per cent more expensive than the British sector. But it must then be borne in mind that the UKCS is about seven years ahead of Norway’s offshore sector in terms of maturity. Norway also produces from a limited number of large fields, while the UK has a number of small developments on stream. Norwegian unit costs are thereby rather lower than on the UKCS – but should actually have been even smaller. Compared with the Gulf of Mexico, Norway’s offshore unit costs are two-three times higher. This indicates that both the NCS and the UKCS face substantial cost chal- lenges over the next few years, and that both sectors should seek to learn from experience in other mature areas such as the Gulf of Mexico.