Companies & Sectors
RIL KG-D6 gas output falls to below 15 mmscmd

KG-D6 fields, which began gas production in April 2009, had hit a peak of 69.43 mmscmd in March 2010 before water and sand ingress shut down well after well

Reliance Industries (RIL) has reported that natural gas production at its eastern offshore KG-D6 fields dropped to less than 15 million standard cubic metres per day (mmscmd), the lowest level since starting output in April 2009.

 

RIL produced a total of 14.83 mmscmd from Dhirubhai-1 and 3 (D1&D3) gas fields and MA oil and gas field in the KG-DWN-98/3 or KG-D6 block in Bay of Bengal in the week ended 26th May, according to a status report of the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons (DGH).

 

RIL has shut half of the 18 wells on D1&D3 field due to high water and sand ingress and a third of six wells on MA field due to the same reason.

 

The report said D1&D3 fields produced 11.05 mmscmd of gas while the rest came from MA field. Output at D1&D3 field has dropped from 12.35 mmscmd in March and 11.85 mmscmd in April.

 

MA field produced an average of 5,709 barrels of oil in the week ending 26th May.

 

RIL has so far drilled 22 wells on D1&D3 fields but has put only 18 on production so far. Half of these wells are now shut.

 

KG-D6 fields, which began gas production in April 2009, had hit a peak of 69.43 mmscmd in March 2010 before water and sand ingress shut down well after well.

 

This peak output comprised 66.35 mmscmd from D1&D3, the largest of the 18 gas discoveries on the KG-D6 block, and 3.07 mmscmd from MA field, the only oil discovery on the block.

 

Besides the fall in output from D1&D3, gas production from MA field, which had hit a peak of 6.78 mmscmd in January 2012, too has dropped.

 

The report said of the 14.83 mmscmd of gas production from KG-D6, 14.34 mmscmd was sold to urea manufacturing fertiliser plants. No sale was made to power plants.

 

The remaining 0.49 mmscmd was consumed by LPG manufacturing plants and the pipeline that transports the KG-D6 gas, it said.

 

RIL, the report said, has projected an output of 14.50 mmscmd last week of May.

 

The company has so far made 18 gas and one oil discovery in the Krishna Godavari basin block in Bay of Bengal. While the lone oil find, MA went on stream in September 2008, largest among the gas finds, D1&D3 were put on production in April, 2009.

User

COMMENTS

Dekho ji.com

4 years ago

RIL wants to increase the gas prices that it sells to govt, thats why all this drama. Why dont they allow full audit of their books as asked by CAG Vinod Rai. Well, Vinod is gone and so CAG is back to its old ways of working.

Bombay HC says liability of employee is on principal employer

The liability of an worker engaged by a contractor rests with the main employer who had awarded the work or contract, ruled the high court

The Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling, has laid down a substantial point of law saying that the liability towards an employee engaged by a contractor or managing agent is on the main or principal employer.

 

Justice AH Joshi upheld the decision of  Mumbai Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation for awarding monetary relief to a worker, who died in an accident. The worker was not employed by the principal employer but by a contractor.

 

Justice Joshi was hearing an appeal filed by United Assurance Company, which challenged the award of compensation to a driver who was hired by MGM Motors to transport vehicles on behalf of Mahindra & Mahindra (M&M).

 

Admittedly, the victim was not employed by M&M, which owned the vehicles. The victim was rather employed by MGM Motors to whom the work/ contract for transport of vehicles was entrusted by the auto company.

 

The vehicles were required to be transported by a driver, Sureshkumar Parasnath Singh, engaged by MGM Motors on behalf of M&M. Thus, the HC held the liability towards an employee engaged by contractor or a managing agent is on the principal employer (in this case M&M).

 

The judge noted that this being an appeal under the Employees’ Compensation Act, the appellant has to substantiate the challenge on substantial questions of law.

 

He directed the appellant’s advocate KV Vitonde to pin point and address the court on substantial question of law whether a principal employer would be liable to pay compensation to a worker employed by a managing agency.

 

The HC, however, said it is not proved that due to any terms of contract between the two sides, the liability towards employees’ compensation was to be borne by MGM Motors.

 

Irrespective of the terms, the employee concerned is seen to be entitled to receive the compensation, the judge remarked and dismissed the appeal finding no merit in it.

User

COMMENTS

ABHA CHAWLA MOHANTY

4 years ago

THE HONORABLE HIGH COURT" ORDERS",,,,,,,,,IMPACTING.....

Auto recall: Why not make it mandatory with penalty provisions?

While auto recalls are making headlines, the fact remains that it is only voluntary. Not only European, Japanese or American markets, even China has a vehicle recall policy in place along with a penalty provision and criminal proceedings, if required

Following the “voluntary code on vehicle recall” initiated by the Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers (SIAM) last year in July, about 1.5 lakh cars and over 11,500 two-wheelers have been recalled by manufacturers. This is a welcome step, although domestic vehicle makers still have to catch up with the idea. The important question, however, is why not make this code as mandatory with a penalty provision on automakers that is adopted across the world?

 

"The voluntary code on vehicle recall will address potential issues that exist in a motor vehicle which do not meet the safety requirement due to manufacturing defect and the remedial actions taken in this regard. The vehicle shall be covered under safety recall for seven years," SIAM had said while announcing the code.

 

While the industry body has prepared the code for recall, in case a manufacturer fails to follow it despite clear evidence, SIAM expects the government, especially the ministry of road transport and highways to issue “appropriate directions” to the automaker for violation. Moreover, the Code is silent on the penalty provisions.

 

In September 2009, a committee set up to review the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, recommended a fine of Rs1 lakh on an automaker for producing defective vehicles. The National Road Safety and Traffic Management Board Bill proposed a penalty of Rs10 lakh. But there is no progress on this front.

 

European, Japanese or American markets have vehicle recall policies in place along with a penalty provision and criminal proceedings, if required. Even China, the world’s largest auto market, has penalty provisions in case its 150 automakers fail to adhere to the vehicle recall policy.

 

Earlier this week, Renault, the French carmaker recalled 7,016 units of its Pulse and Scala vehicles for defect. Japanese automaker Nissan too decided to recall 22,188 units of its Micra and Sunny variants, produced between June 2012 and March 2013, owing to faulty braking system.

 

Interestingly, according to a report in The Economic Times, since the implementation of the recall code, it was the multi-national automakers, who have been complying with the code. Apart from Renault and Nissan, Honda has recalled 11,500 units of its CBR 250R bike due to defective brake system and Ford has recalled whopping 1.28-lakh units of its Figo and Classic variants due to steering and rear suspension issues. Toyota, on the other hand had recalled 10,800 units of its Corolla Altis, Corolla, Camry and Altis models due to faulty driveshaft, airbag malfunctioning and power windows switches, the report said.

 

It would be noteworthy to mention that last month four major Japanese automakers, Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Mazda had announced that they would recall 3.4 million vehicles sold across the globe due to airbag issue. All these airbags, made by Japan's Takata Corp were at the risk of catching fire or injuring passengers. All the four automakers would do the repairing free of cost. There is no mention of any penalty either on Takata or the four automakers, though.

 

Back home, last year while speaking with reporters, S Sandilya, president of SIAM had ruled out imposing penalty on carmakers for not following the code. He said, “The recall code has been framed with consensus of all members. Companies would adhere to it voluntarily to rectify defects in vehicles and secure their own brand image. The expenses they incur to replace faulty parts as a part of the recall exercise do not require any additional penalties to be put in place”.

 

The absence of a regulatory mechanism is what is hurting customers the most in India. For example, in the US, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) investigates complaints and issues mandatory notifications to automakers for recalling and fixing technical glitches in vehicles. The NHTSA can also impose penalty on automakers for failing to comply with its directions.

 

China too, levies a fine of Rmb10,000 to Rmb30,000 on automakers for selling defective vehicles besides obligatory product recall.

User

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)