On March 4, the Supreme Court will take up two public interest litigation cases that question the rationale for the gas price increase at a time when the company has failed to keep to the spirit of the production-sharing contract in all aspects, be it the work programme, costs or performance. Of course, there are public-sector beneficiaries from the gas price hike. But Reliance’s failure to deliver promised supplies—combined with its legendary lobbying power—will ensure that it dominates the proceedings.
Also, it hasn’t escaped anyone’s attention that the current supplies from the kg-d6 block of Reliance have risen suddenly from below 10 mmscmd (million metric standard cubic meters per day) to around 14 mmscmd, after the Cabinet approval to allow Reliance the new price from April 1 (under the revised formula that could more than double the rate from $4.2 per million British thermal unit (mBtu) to around $8.4 mBtu).
Surprisingly, even as the government has opted to pursue the arbitration route to get Reliance to deliver on the committed work programme under the production-sharing contract, one doesn’t get the feeling that it is genuinely pursuing that route, given the long delay in even setting up the mechanism to begin the process. At stake is around $1.7 billion that Reliance will be able to recover—as costs on creating excess infrastructure to handle over 80 mmscmd gas—without any supplies to justify the expenditure.
Official sources claim the delay in finalising a third neutral arbitrator for the process is because of Reliance. But instead of taking a stern stand, the petroleum ministry appears to be shadow run by senior Reliance personnel who would like to have everything done their way. This includes hastening the process of finalising the bank guarantee to pave the way for them to get the new gas price; and getting a quick Cabinet approval to retain five of the discoveries they have made in the KG basin block, despite having failed to meet the regulatory deadlines and parameters to establish their claims.
Reliance claims to have surrendered 81 per cent of the area (around 6,400 sq km) awarded to it under the D6 block. While Reliance is keen to hold on to around 600-700 sq km area where three significant discoveries holding around 1 tcf reserves have been made, there are some in the petroleum ministry and DGH who are keen to get it back and repackage it for re-auction under the next round of NELP.
“Article 4 of the production sharing contract (PSC) makes it mandatory for RIL to relinquish the areas as prescribed. There cannot be any discretionary space in it. The minister cannot twist the provisions of the PSC according to his own interpretation,” says retired economic affairs secretary E.A.S. Sarma, who has consistently been raising the red flag, questioning the lax implementation of PSC where Reliance is concerned. The dangers of any laxity, Sarma points out, would lead to diluting the sanctity of PSC. Already, Sarma points to a news item stating that Cairn has demanded that 8,000 sq km of the Barmer area relinquished by that company be returned to them as it contained valuable hydrocarbon resources.
Additionally, with its partners, Reliance has blamed the geological factors for the sharp drop in gas production from levels over 40 mmscmd, an argument which has been questioned by the DGH and a technical expert appointed to look into reasons for the sharp decline in gas production from what was once seen as a most promising find. Subsequent discoveries in the KG block, however, show there is reason to hope more gas is still waiting to be found, else nothing explains BP’s $7.2 billion investments.
“The issue is not merely the new prices, but the entire mismanagement of the contract to the detriment of public interest—this is not possible without the acquiescence of DGH/MOPNG—which only a comprehensive inquiry can establish and the FIR (by the Delhi government) is one such desired step,” says former petroleum secretary T.N.R. Rao.
Given the probe facing V.K. Sibal, former head of DGH, and the recent FIR filed by the Delhi government, there is keenness within the petroleum ministry not to let Reliance dictate the terms of the bank guarantee and instead “draft a format of guarantee that will hold till the final arbitration decision. We don’t want the Indian courts to be out of this as only then can we be sure of justice,” opined official sources.
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
Typical - the corrupt government will do everything possible to prevent fresh explorations, that may negatively impact bribe-giving-Ambani's profits.
'''Former petroleum minister M Veerappa Moily is fuming because Oil and Natural Gas Corp has dragged its owner — the Union of India — to court for the alleged theft of 18 billion cubic meters of natural gas since 2009 by Reliance Industries Ltd from adjacent ONGC blocks in Krishna Godavari Basin.
“It is extremely serious matter where a government-owned company has taken recourse to writ petition against its largest stakeholder Union of India and its regulating agency Directorate General of Hydrocarbons alleging omissions and commissions on their part,” Moily wrote to petroleum secretary Saurabh Chandra.''
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT