20 May 2015

Greymouth Petroleum: GXL Royalties v. Greymouth Gas

Todd Corporation took Greymouth Gas to the High Court chasing access to accounting records in a dispute over royalties payable on a Taranaki project.  There are suspicions Greymouth is padding expenses recoverable before royalties are payable.
Todd subsidiary, GXL Royalties, joined with oil and gas competitor Greymouth Gas in the commercial exploitation of a Taranaki prospect.  GXL gets five per cent of the “output value” after Greymouth Gas has recovered its intitial investment.  GXL is entitled to have an independent auditor verify claimed initial investment costs.
The High Court was told Greymouth calculated these costs at $45.6 million.  In 2013, after a fruitless two years attempting to complete the audit, Ernst & Young told GXL it was refused access to supporting documentation covering major components of these costs.  The auditors flagged the appropriateness of $14.6 million claimed to be incurred by the permit operator, a US-controlled company called Swift Energy, and the amount of $16.51 million claimed spent on drilling rigs supplied by Greymouth Gas related companies.  
Ernst & Young was refused access to the primary accounting records.  GXL is suing Greymouth, alleging the auditor was misled.  Justice Gilbert ordered access.  The royalty agreement did not state that Greymouth’s accounting records for the initial investment were confidential.  Access is necessary to complete the audit envisaged by the parties earlier royalty agreement, he said.
GXL Royalties Ltd v. Greymouth Gas – High Court (20.5.15)

15.054