Methanex filed the High Court injunction late last week, though a hearing date for the in-chambers application has yet to be set.
Company Asia-Pacific vice-president Bruce Aitken confirmed the court action, but declined to specify the reasons behind the move, other than to stress that Methanex was still trying to be fair and reasonable in this critical matter.
He said the hearing would be held in chambers and that Methanex would abide by any ruling.
The legal move has not surprised industry commentators, who say delaying legal tactics are really the only option left to the company if it is not to soon implement progressive shutdown of its Taranaki production facilities.
"Methanex is in survival mode and this is the only alternative left to them right now. They are within their legal rights to take this action. They are entitled to their view," said one commentator.
He agreed with Aitken's comments at the February NZ Petroleum Conference, that the Maui redetermination process was an ill-defined, possibly tortuous path set up to fail. "When those Maui contracts were signed 30 years ago, it was never envisaged that the buyers of the gas would be the Crown plus three big users. The Government has tried to get mirror contracts with those users, but there are discrepancies."
Natural Gas Corporation and Contact Energy could survive losing physical gas and rights to pre-paid gas, NGC less so than Contact, through any downward revision of remaining Maui reserves.
However, he said it was a different story for Methanex. "Losing physical gas will put Methanex out of business. There are still solutions, though, if everybody is reasonable."
Also there was no guarantee Methanex would get enough Pohokura gas to survive past 2005, as there was intense competition for the 1tcf resource, which was due to come onstream in about three years.
NGC has opposed the Methanex court move, saying it wants a speedy resolution of the redetermination process so the whole gas industry can plan ahead.
NGC said Methanex claimed that field owner, Maui Development Ltd, and the Crown had not met their obligation to provide sufficient information on Maui reserve figures.
NGC spokesman Keith FitzPatrick said his company was satisfied it already had enough data to make an informed decision on reserves assessment. It wanted the redetermination process to go ahead, though it would be seeking to be a party to the proceedings.
Shell NZ chairman Lloyd Taylor has already warned that delays to resolving redetermination will increase the risk of gas shortages within the next few years. He has also said it's not up to MDL, but the government and its major gas user partners to quickly settle the matter. He thought redetermination could be settled within months if all the parties agreed.
Some commentators were predicting - shortly after the November shock announcement of reduced Maui reserves - that Methanex would take legal action to fight any downward revision of its Maui entitlements.
The Crown and MDL might also appeal any court decision favourable to Methanex, which would stretch the timeframe for settling redetermination out two years or longer. While any matters were unresolved, Methanex could continue to take its maximum entitlement under its Maui take-or-pay contracts and run its Motunui and Waitara Valley plants as hard as possible in the meantime.
Any reduction in entitlements would see Methanex progressively close facilities, which use about 90PJ of gas to produce up to 2.4 million tones of methanol a year, starting with the small valley plant, followed by the first of two methanol trains at the nearby Motunui complex.
Last year MDL told the New Zealand government detailed field studies revealed total expected recoverable Maui reserves from the developed parts and easily accessible undeveloped parts within the mining licence were now expected to be only 3800PJ and not the 4085PJ on which the original Maui contract between MDL and the Crown was based.
