Vijayaraghavan was speaking at an international conference "Strategy for Y2K and beyond" orgainsed by the Chemtech Foundation. He said that the process of fixing Bombay High could result in some fields closing down but that should be no cause for alarm. "ONGC and the government of India should repair and arrest the decline," he added.

According to Vijayaraghavan, it made more sense to resort to such a move as world prices for crude were fairly depressed which would facilitate imports for the next two years at least. However, it would be a different ball game beyond that period if no remedial measures were taken for Bombay High. "By 2010, we would be in a situation where80 to 90 per cent of the country's oil needs would need to be imported if production does not go up," he added.

The secretary cautioned that one-thirds of the import bill was already going towards paying up for oil and the country would be in no position to afford a greater strain in the future. He said the immediate priority was to begin surveys of basins on a war footing as the extent being done today was negligible.

A mid-life review of Bombay High is, incidentally, being done by the UK-based consultants Gaffney, Cline & Associates (GCA). According to them, the field has the potential to yield oil till 2050. This means that it has a life of close to 75 years from the time it was first discovered in 1976.

Bombay High can rightly be described as the nerve centre of ONGC contributing to over 40 per cent of its annual oil production. Till April 1998, the field produced 2,400 million barrels of oil and 177 billion cubic metres of gas. Since its discovery in 1976, Bombay High was continuously exploited asthe nation badly needed its own oil to save on imports. This, however, spawned technical problems and ONGC, in the initial years, was in a dilemma to cope with the new complexities.

On gas, Vijayaraghavan said there were many issues which needed careful deliberation. Terminals for liquefied natural gas were being readied for 2007 but pricing still remained a problem. Terminal facilities cost Rs 3,000 crore, upstream facilities for extraction Rs 40,000 crore while transport would involve more money. "One would have to reckon with all this before concluding that natural gas is the best bet," he said.

According to Vijayaraghavan, coal bed methane was another important energy resource which would need to be exploited optimally. It was under the purview of the ministry of coal but has since come under the umbrella of the ministry of petroleum and natural gas. "Despite all the enthusiasm about natural gas, I would sound a note of caution on the side effects," the secretary maintained.

He was also of the viewthat in the quest for increasing domestic production of crude, even further refining capacity creation could take a backseat. If this resulted in importing more petroproducts, the trade off would still be worth it if the country could enhance oil output.