RIL has denied knowingly producing any gas from the ONGC block.There has been much comment over the $1.55 billion demand made by the petroleum ministry on Reliance Industries and its partners, BP and Niko Resources, for alleged unfair enrichment through gas migration from an adjoining Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) block in the Krishna-Godavari basin.
The reports of large amounts of gas seeping into RIL’s block for over seven years led to the matter reaching the doors of the high court. It constituted a one-person committee of A P Shah, who'd retired after being chief justice here, to investigate. His report, delivered on August 28, 2016, opened a Pandora’s box of complexities.
It confirmed the movement of gas into the RIL block and made a subsequent determination of unjust benefit to RIL (and its partners) due to extraction and retention of the resource, in contravention to their production sharing contract with the government.
Its other important conclusion was that the migrated gas, as a national resource, belonged to the government and not ONGC. This got the petroleum ministry instantly involved in the quickly developing issue.
The government directed a technical arm to determine the amount of seeped gas extracted by RIL; it arrived at 338.332 million British thermal units. The ministry then calculated a dollar figure on the ‘unjust benefit’ made by RIL, leading to the $1.55-bn notice on November 3, 2016.
RIL denied knowingly producing any gas from the ONGC block. It had, it said, always drilled on its own block, with prior approval of the government.
As the liability demanded by the latter came under the PSC, Reliance invoked an arbitration clause in the agreement for settlement of disputes, and served the government a notice on November 11.
To roil the waters further, the company termed the demand an unprecedented move in any oil and gas sector worldwide and demanded this be settled through international petroleum industry practices, in line with the PSC.
What now?
In what seems to have all the makings of a Vodafone-like tussle, with the tax department trying to secure its demand without regard to arbitral proceedings, currently underway, all eyes are on how the government decides to handle this.
According to Tejas Karia, partner, Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co, this case is a bit different from the Vodafone one, which had involved
a statutory liability as in the law of the land. ="div_arti_inline_advt">







