Jurisprudential analysis of the cost of money's nature in the Iran's oil and gas upstream contracts

The oil industry in countries with reserves needs to attract high investment and use new and advanced technologies, which is usually provided through upstream contracts. However, one of the important issues in using these contracts in the country's economy is the compliance of their provisions with the rules of Imami jurisprudence. The main question of the research is what are the most important jurisprudential doubts related to the discussion of the cost of money in the upstream oil and gas contracts (including reciprocal sale and IPC) and the sharia solutions to resolve these doubts? The research findings obtained by descriptive method and content analysis show that given that the legal nature of these contracts is not borrowed, the cost of money in these contracts can not necessarily be considered usury; Because in these contracts, there is cooperation between the employer and the contractor to carry out real activities in the field of oil and gas, this interaction can be analyzed in the form of a new contract or a peace contract. The surplus related to the delay in payment of the debt can be accepted according to the opinion of many jurists and the Guardian Council, if it is mentioned as a condition in the contract. Finally, since the cost of money in upstream contracts is usually determined on a floating basis (Libor plus a fixed number), the suspicion arises in relation to these contracts. However, this challenge can be solved by using the jurisprudential solution of "mitigation";