With 29 discoveries in the past dozen years, Cairn India, an offshoot of the UK-based Cairn Energy, was billed as one of the most successful exploration firms in the country. Agrees V.K. Sibal, director general, hydrocarbons (DGH), who heads India's oil and gas regulatory authority and does have some reservations against Cairn, "It has come to India with fresh ideas. It's an aggressive firm, which has already drilled 100 wells and chased discoveries until it first struck oil in its 16th well."
Despite such a build-up, several controversies rocked the IPO. It was an unusual flare-up, with the state-owned ongc and the DGH raising questions about the claims made by Cairn. A few analysts gave the "don't buy" recommendation to the issue, which seemed jinxed as the Sensex lost 400 points the day it opened. There were storms in various wells as Dhir & Co slid along slick roadshows to contain the spillover. As it partially blamed "vested interests", Cairn sailed through choppy seas; the issue was subscribed 1.5 times after two days.
But these events highlighted the larger issues that plague the Indian energy sector. They presented its inherent weaknesses; an industry source maintains that "the oil development business is a risky one, and all we do is to derisk it". They painted a scenario where there are conflicts between the private players and the regulator, and among the various state-owned and private competitors. More importantly, they sent a message to the investors that policymaking in this risky business has to evolve rapidly. Finally, according to Cairn, they missed the wood for the trees—that its largest discovery in Rajasthan would make India less dependent on imports.
It started with doubts about the quantity and quality of Cairn's reserves, especially in its largest Mangala field in Barmer, Rajasthan. In early September this year, DGH Sibal shot off a letter to stockmarket regulatorSEBI, hinting that Cairn might be overstating its reserves in Rajasthan. It quoted a Cairn press release that stated that its estimated reserves were 3.6 billion barrels of oil equivalent (bboe), of which 2.2 bboe were "under active development planning" and the remaining had been "identified in other fields under review".
Sibal contested these claims and wrote that of the 15 discoveries in Rajasthan, only four (with 1.16 bn barrels of oil originally in place or OOIP) had been approved. The "commerciality" for another two discoveries (with 274 mn barrels of OOIP) too had been acknowledged. "As the remaining discoveries are at various stages of appraisal...hence the in-place reserves for these discoveries have not been approved...," the letter noted. Adds a DGH source, "We wanted Cairn to tell us how it had arrived at the figures. It's not acceptable if its estimates are more than what's been approved by us. For, then, anyone can exaggerate reserves and play the market."
What irked Cairn more was that it was blamed for things that were someone else's responsibility. This related to the pipeline (anything between 300-700 km) that will ship the Rajasthan crude to the various refineries. Many criticised the issue as one of the risk factors in Cairn's prospectus mentioned that "we have no control over the construction or operation of the pipeline...there is a risk that the pipeline may not be constructed in time for the commencement of crude oil production from the Mangala field.... We are aware of no firm agreement for the construction of the pipeline or its specifications, including its route...."