Of Reliance, by Reliance, for Reliance

SURYA P. SETHI

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/of-reliance-by-reliance-for-reliance/article4866611.ece

The government has used fallacious arguments to double the price of gas and
hand over windfall profits to India’s richest company

Hans Christian Andersen’s story about the emperor’s new clothes came to
mind as I read the Finance Minister’s justification of the totally
indefensible hike in India’s wellhead price for dry natural gas. The
absence of any evidence-based research backing key economic decisions is
the true “economic reality” of India, which is today the only country in
the world that sees no difference between the wellhead price of natural gas
and the price of liquefied natural gas (LNG).

The core argument being presented is that the higher price will yield
higher upstream investment in untapped hydrocarbon frontiers, resulting in
higher output of domestic natural gas and the reduction or even elimination
of India’s import dependence on even costlier LNG, thereby improving the
country’s fiscal stability and energy security.

Unfortunately this argument is fallacious on several counts.

*Decline in output*

First, the government itself admits that despite raising the domestic
wellhead price of natural gas by almost 300 per cent from as low as
$1.79/MMBtu to as high as $5.25/MMBtu, investments in the sector and the
country’s gas output have actually dropped. The bulk of this drop is
because of Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL), the company whose demands
triggered the recent price increase. The Comptroller and Auditor General
report explicitly outlines how RIL reneged on its production commitments
while gold-plating its investments. Can the government guarantee that a
price of $8.4/MMBtu will raise gas availability?

What if history repeats itself and it does not? Will the government then
find more ways to raise prices even further? How long will the government
wait to do so? Does it have a long-term vision based on geopolitical
developments in the energy sector, especially gas, where Canada and the
U.S. are poised to become major LNG exporters?

Significantly, the single largest instance of foreign direct investment
that the above cited 300 per cent price increase attracted was BP’s
acquisition of a 30 per cent stake in RIL’s declining KG basin play and not
in any new greenfield frontier. BP is not known to invest $7 billion-plus
for improving a country’s fiscal or energy balance. The company must have
seen returns from a known discovery even at the then approved price of
$4.2/MMBtu.

Second, the import parity price for a globally traded commodity such as
crude oil (unlike natural gas) that has justifiably been in place since the
1990s has not succeeded in raising domestic crude production significantly
or attracted significant FDI in the Indian sedimentary basin. Here too, the
single largest investment was the purchase of a foreign company’s stake in
an existing on-shore field in Rajasthan.

Finally, and most importantly, even if the government is right; what is the
justification for raising the price of gas from existing fields? We can
always pay a higher price for more difficult horizons provided the duly
approved and audited costs of exploration and production warrant that. The
current production was realised with no prospect of getting $8.4/MMBtu.
Will the government spell out its plan for this windfall profit it is
bequeathing to current producers at the cost of the common man and honest
taxpayers?

It has been argued that the bulk of the benefits from the price hike will
go to the public sector. However, we all know that the upstream public
sector companies are milked by the government through ad hoc burdens such
as funding under-recoveries. Hence, the real beneficiaries will be private
gas producers unless the government also announces policies that place the
same burdens on upstream private and public sector companies. But that
would defeat the real purpose of the price increase, wouldn’t it? A bogey
used to milk the upstream public sector is the absence of profit-sharing in
the nomination blocks that they received in the pre-NELP era. It would be
educational for me and others if the government would make public the exact
amount of profit gas and profit oil that it has received from private
producers since the New Exploration Licensing Policy was instituted.

In any event, the entire fairy tale of fiscal stability has now been
undermined by none other than the Finance Minister himself. In his press
briefing on Friday, he opened the door for subsidising the purchase of gas
for the power and fertilizer sectors that together use over 75 per cent of
the available gas in India.

*Cheating & double-cheating*

Like the $4.20/MMBtu price the last time, I am intrigued by the choice of
the number $8.40/MMBtu this time around. In everyday language, these
numbers are used to signify cheating and double-cheating! The price of 4.20
was derived based on a RIL formula that had never been used and is still
not used anywhere in the world to price natural gas at the wellhead or any
other form of gas anywhere. The 8.40 number reportedly flows from the
Rangarajan formula, which again is not used anywhere else in the world to
establish the wellhead price of natural gas or any other form of gas
anywhere.

Can the government identify even a single gas field in the world that gets
a well head price of $8.40/MMBtu for conventional dry natural gas? How come
investments keep taking place elsewhere without resorting to such dubious
pricing formulae? Can Dr. Rangarajan identify which element in his formula
represents the wellhead price for dry natural gas actually received by
conventional natural gas producers around the world? The truth is that none
of the elements in the Rangarajan formula represents the wellhead price it
sets out to establish, and yet it magically delivers a price at exactly
twice the 4.20 level! The Henry Hub spot price (currently at $3.77/MMBtu),
which is the only relevant element in the Rangarajan formula, is also
greater than the wellhead price received by producers of conventional dry
natural gas in the U.S.

*‘Gigantic scam’*

Strong words are typically not in my vocabulary so let me simply say that I
agree with Gurudas Dasgupta, MP, that a “gigantic scam” is being
perpetrated on the impoverished people of our country.

I also agree with former Union Revenue Secretary E.A.S. Sarma’s assertion
that the gas price hike is a policy initiative that “socialises costs and
privatises profits.” Let us not forget that the same KG basin gas that was
once offered to NTPC at $2.34/MMBtu for 17 years and which is documented to
cost under a dollar per MMBtu to produce received $4.20/MMbtu in the first
five years and is now guaranteed to receive twice that or more in the next
five years. This is the road to wealth in a country wherein some 80 per
cent of the people live below the $2/day purchasing power parity threshold.

I urge the non-Congress leaders to join hands with Mr. Dasgupta in stopping
this loot. Perhaps the Supreme Court, that placed very clear
responsibilities on the government while pronouncing its judgment on the
gas dispute between the then warring Ambani brothers, will take note of
what is going on, especially in light of the CAG’s findings on the KG
basin. Let me add that if indeed India is floating on natural gas, raising
the wellhead price of dry natural gas to levels unheard of anywhere else in
the world is the worst policy option to release this national wealth. Such
an option works best when reserves are limited and producers gold plate
their investment to extract the much needed energy at higher and higher
prices to achieve the investment multiples that current policies guarantee
— just as the CAG discovered in the case of KG basin.

In closing, let me inform the honourable Petroleum Minster that everyone
related to the hydrocarbon field in India knows that I do not represent any
lobby — not even the oil and gas import lobby that our Petroleum Minister
seems to have inside information on. My old and new clothes do not come
from any vested interest, blandishment or deception. Can our emperors make
the same claim?

*(The writer, formerly Principal Adviser, Power & Energy, Government of
India, is Adjunct Professor, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National
University of Singapore)*






-- 
Peace Is Doable

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Green Youth Movement" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send an email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to