Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

88. The affidavit states that on 07.02.2011, the relevant technical personnel of the petitioner met with the DGH, furnished detailed explanations and placed on record the report of M/s. Exploration Technologies Inc. prepared by Mr. Greg Caswell, an international expert on the subject of reservoir engineering. It stated that the report is based on a scientifically prepared and validated simulation model.

89. It is further stated that in the meeting, the DGH sought from the petitioner the international case studies on retrograde condensate reservoir since it was not aware of any such similar reservoirs in India. The case study in relation to Arun field Indonesia operated by Exxon Mobil was submitted by the petitioner on 15.02.2011. The affidavit further states that on 11.02.2011, the petitioner submitted a report prepared by Mr. S.K. Khazanchi, a renowned expert on reservoir engineering, who until recently, was the head reservoir engineering of the DGH itself. Mr. Khazanchi was also the General Manager (reservoir studies) at India‟s only reservoirs engineering institute, namely, the institute of reservoir studies established by ONGC. According to this report, no damage has been caused to the reservoir and it certifies that the petitioner has consistently acted in conformity with good international petroleum industry practices. The affidavit discloses that to deal with the peculiar situation of the Amguri oil field, the petitioner proposed that a gas compression project be established at Amguri. However, that project has been delayed by the respondent as the respondent has failed to accord its approval for the necessary budget even after the operating committee has done so. It is stated that as per Article 6.5 and 6.6 of the PSC, the gas compression project could not be provided with unless the approval of the respondent was obtained.

90. The petitioner disputes the respondents‟ statement that the production had been approved by the MC long back, as the gas compression project, according to the petitioner, has not been approved by the MC. The further submission of the petitioner is that the report prepared by Mr. Greg Caswill, Mr. S.K. Khazanchi and the case studies of the Arun field Indonesia constituted scientific evidence which has not been considered by the respondent while passing the order dated 14.02.2011. According to the petitioner, the said order merely talks of "ground realities", but does not deal with the scientific evidence relied upon by the petitioner to establish that the petitioner has not caused any irreversible damage to the oil field; the petitioner has adopted good international petroleum industry practices in operating the oil field in question, and; that the condensation in the reservoir can be revaporised and the damage, though not caused by the petitioner, is reversible.

93. The criticism of the order passed by DGH on 14.11.2011 by Mr. Sundaram on the ground that the same only refers to "ground realities" and does not deal with the scientific evidence produced by the petitioner, prima facie, may not be entirely correct. I say this for the reason that the said order has been passed in the context of the report of technical audit/surveillance prepared by DGH. It is the observations made in the said technical surveillance report which are referred to as "ground realities" in the communication dated 14.11.2011 of the DGH. The letter dated 14.11.2011 refers to the report from the independent consultant produced by the petitioner at the time of hearing. The said report, it appears, did not find favour with the respondent as no case history had been presented in support of the report findings. Even according to the petitioner, the case study pertaining to Arun filed in Indonesia was furnished on 15.02.2011, i.e. after the issuance of the letter dated 14.02.2011.