Oil Min’s $3 bn notice ‘premature’, RIL-Shell and ONGC to counter penalty demand
A consortium of Reliance Industries Ltd-Shell India and Oil and Natural Gas Corp.
(ONGC), production of oil and gas Panna-Mukta-Tapti fields, refused to pay a collective $ 3 billion claim to the Ministry of Petroleum as a deficit in their share of profits that even a court in the United Kingdom Gives its final price in an ongoing arbitration case, including the alleged injury quantification method.
In May, the government sent an opinion on the application, saying that companies should have included margin trading that charge consumers the share of oil profits with it.
A report of the peppermint cited an email response RIL that he described as “premature” notification of the government’s request.
He said that the company, as a subcontractor in the field, has been informed by the government of the “alleged participation in the benefits of oil and government royalty supposedly to be paid by the Contractor under the Government’s interpretation of the partial final decision Of the arbitral tribunal of October 12, 2016. ”
He said that the quantification of the obligation, if any, of the parties resulting from the partial adjudication will be determined by the court after the parties put forward their arguments.
The court has not yet set the timetable for quantification, the office said, adding that some outstanding issues need to be resolved before the quantification process can begin, according to the mint report.
The dependency and Shell India have a field of 30 percent, while ONGC has the remaining 40 percent. “The agency has already responded adequately to the notification of the government’s request.
In addition, Reliance has already challenged the partial tender in court and the questions are English, as such, sub judice, “the Mint report quoted the firm in a statement.
RIL and British Gas Exploration and Production India Ltd. (BGEPIL) – which held the stake in the land before being acquired by Shell – had filed an arbitration tribunal in the UK in December 2010, as a result of differences With the government on issues such as cost recovery and benefit sharing.
ONGC was not party to the case. There were two issues of controversy here.
First, the government said that companies should have included margin trading that charge consumers the oil for benefits they can share.
It also states that only the actual taxes paid by the contractors can be admitted as a theoretical cost tax rate and is not mentioned in the contract signed in 1994.
Oil gain is the amount of benefits that the developer of a field and the government share after excluding at all costs.