Some in the industry believe more forced disclosure may actually discourage exploration at just the time this country desperately needs more gas discoveries to replace the rapidly dwindling Maui field.
Under the Ministry of Economic Development review of the Crown Minerals Act, potential areas for forced disclosure could include existing field reserves and new field reserve estimates, but not seismic and geotechnical information nor field reservoir performance.
However, the Petroleum Association of New Zealand opposes any further release of information, saying current disclosure obligations, as well the "in good faith" release of P50 and P90 estimates, are more than adequate.
"The industry will not tolerate the release of commercially-sensitive information to the market in advance of the five-year 'protection' it currently receives under the existing regime," says Peanz executive officer Mike Patrick in a submission to the MED.
"This information is sensitive to the provider for a number of reasons, in particular to allow the companies concerned to operate in a very competitive market, to secure on-going permits, make decisions about the surrender of permits, and forward drilling and development planning."
Patrick said publicly-listed companies were subject of varying stock exchange requirements - with marked differences in reporting requirements between, say, the US, Australia and New Zealand. A publicly-listed US company would report P90 reserve estimates in its 6-monthly report to MED, but not P50 level reserves.
"To require compliance in New Zealand with requirements and regulations which would breach those foreign Stock Exchange rules would mean that publicly-listed companies in those foreign countries would not be able to come to NZ to explore - not a good scenario at a time when we need far more exploration."
Following any discoveries and appraisal, field developers approached the market to secure the essential gas and liquids sales contracts, and field and reserves information were disclosed to interested parties as part of those negotiations.
It was up to joint ventures how they developed a particular field and whether they produced that field at or near its estimated potential maximum deliverability, taking into account the sometimes "competing" factors of geology, reservoir structure and the need to maximise ultimate hydrocarbon recovery. Most seismic, field production and well-by-well production data was also commercially sensitive.
"The release of anything more detailed would be more confusing and indeed, in some instances, dangerous for the market," concluded Patrick, exhorting MED not to change the existing regime.
At a recent Energy Law Association meeting in Wellington, MED policy director Roger Perkins said it was a matter of "balance", ensuring information disclosure encouraged exploration investment, not undermining the commercial position of producers.
Some at the meeting said any additional disclosure regime would be a huge "regulation exercise" that would just scare away explorers, while others said the information sought would be meaningless without contract gas prices being revealed.
Perkins is reported as saying compulsory information disclosure would help new explorers thinking of coming to New Zealand. Downstream users, especially electricity generators, needed to be able to make better long-term decisions with information on gas supplies and reserve risks.
