The Directorate-General of Hydrocarbons (DGH) has held back approvals for work programme (WP) and budget for KG-DWN-98/3 (KG-D6) block for 2012-13 and 2013-14, seeking an explanation on various issues including not drilling the approved development wells and failing to adhere to the management committee (MC)-approved plans.

In a letter to the RIL President and COO (Business), Petroleum and E&P, B. Ganguly, the DGH has asked RIL to give explanations on a number of issues, including the decision of the operator to cancel the plan of drilling two development wells proposed in D1, D3 in BE 2012-13. “Exploration period of the KG-D6 block had expired on July 15, 2008. Hence, it is not clear why the spill over cost of past period has been booked under revised estimates 2012-13 budget, whereas no exploration cost was booked under budget estimate 2012-13 under the spill over past cost category,” it has asked.

Similarly, it has stated that the WP and budget for revised estimates 2012-13 do not contain any immediate firm plan for tackling serious issues of water encroachment in D1, D3 and MA existing wells, in terms of any work over/well intervention plan for their revival. “The operator should look into it seriously as the other ongoing development/ redevelopment projects in four satellite and MA fields involve considerable time for execution and hence, making up the shortfall in rapidly falling oil and gas production. A detailed explanation may be furnished by the operator (RIL) on this issue,” the letter states.

Field development plan

Similarly, the DGH states that the work over plan in D1 and D3 and MA fields have been postponed to 2013-14 and only one work over job in D1 and D3 and one in MA have been proposed in that year. However, the MC approved revised field development plan (RFDP) of MA field envisages work over of two existing wells for conversion from oil to gas wells in MA field and the operator should clarify the issue. “The oil, condensate and gas production provided in revised estimates 2012-13 for MA field should be in line with MC approved MA RFDP profile. However, they are less than the RFDP profile, and the operator should clarify on the reasons for such reduction,” it adds. In reply to a query sent by The Hindu, an RIL spokesperson said the communication from the DGH was part of normal correspondence between the contractor and DGH which was part of routine budget examination process. “DGH has sent queries on budget submitted by us in December, 2012, which we have responded to the same,’’ the spokesperson added.

More In: Business | Industry