Search This Blog

Pages

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Secretary Power says MOPNG had agreed that NTPC will be supplied gas at USD 2.34 per mmbtu by RIL

No need to wait for Bombay High Court’s case outcome of RIL-NTPC
Secretary Power accuses Ministry of Petroleum (MOPNG) of going back on its commitment
Secretary Petroleum had promised to take NTPC’s ICB discovered price to EGOM
It was a pre-condition to agreeing to MOPNG’s affidavit in Supreme court in RIL-RNRL case


1. Secretary Power his letter dated 3rd March 2010 to Secy Petroleum states:
a. MOPNG had agreed that NTPC will be supplied gas at USD 2.34 per mmbtu by RIL
b. MOPNG will take the proposal to EGOM in this regard
c. MOPNG had agreed that it need not wait for the decision of Bombay High Court in the RIL-NTPC case
d. This was a pre-condition to Ministry of Power agreeing to MOPNG’s affidavit dated 01.12.09
2. In his letter Mr Brahma reminded Secy MOPNG of the discussion at the residence of Solicitor General of India during the briefing of RIL-NTPC case, where Secy MOPNG was present.
3. “It was agreed that MOPNG will put up the proposal for allocation of 12 mmscmd of gas to NTPC at the ICB discovered price(of USD 2.34/ mmbtu)”, states Secy Power.
4. In a astonishing revelation, Secy Power writes that, “on this understanding only, we (Ministry of Power) had agreed to the language of affidavit as proposed by MOPNG and files in Supreme Court on 01.12.2009.”
5. It may be noted that the affidavit of MOPNG was heavily criticized by the RNRL counsel, Ram Jethmalani as being against NTPC’s interests.
6. Mr Brahma’s letter reminded Secy MOPNG that it was decided in the meeting that MOPNG will not wait for the decision of the Bombay High Court in the RIL-NTPC case.
7. It is clear from the letter that MOPNG had agreed that RIL should supply gas to NTPC at USD 2.34 per mmbtu as discovered in the ICB by the public sector company.

1 comment:

  1. It is condemnable on MOPNG's part to have retracted on their commitment. The price of US$ 2.34 per mmbtu is in public interest as it will lower the price paid by the ultimate consumer. I strongly recommend that the matter be taken to the court of law.

    ReplyDelete