Woodside Petroleum Ltd, through its subsidiary Woodside Eastern Energy, has lodged a claim against fellow oil and gas player Anzon Australia Ltd alleging Anzon's termination of an agreement between the two was wrongful.
![](https://static.businessnews.com.au/sites/all/themes/bn2020/images/squares.gif)
![Anzon rejects Woodside demand](https://static.businessnews.com.au/sites/default/files/default_images/default-article-image_1440x960_0.jpg)
Woodside Petroleum Ltd, through its subsidiary Woodside Eastern Energy, has lodged a claim against fellow oil and gas player Anzon Australia Ltd alleging Anzon's termination of an agreement between the two was wrongful.
The claim relates to a sale and purchase agreement between Woodside and Anzon for Anzon to acquire Woodside's interest in a Bass Strait exploration field.
The sale was conditional on, amongst other things, the unconditional consent of Woodside's joint venture partners.
Such consent was not forthcoming and Anzon terminated the sale and purchase agreement.
Woodside refused to accept Anzon's termination and attempted to terminate the agreement itself, announcing the termination to the Australian Stock Exchange.
Woodside alleges that it sold its interest in the exploration field for an amount that was $22.1 million less than the price that Anzon was to pay under the sale and purchase agreement.
Woodside has demanded that Anzon pay an amount of $22.1 million plus interest.
Anzon say that Woodside has not provided it with any details in relation to the sale of their interest in the exploration field, and in particular as to how such a lesser sale price was achieved in an environment of energy prices that are close to double that which existed at the time the agreement was entered into with Anzon.
In the interests of its shareholders, Anzon will vigorously defend the proposed claim.
THE FULL ASX ANNOUNCEMENT APPEARS BELOW
ANZON REJECTS WOODSIDE DEMAND
Anzon Australia Limited (Anzon) has received a claim from Woodside Eastern Energy Pty
Limited (Woodside), a wholly owned subsidiary of Woodside Petroleum Limited, alleging that
Anzon's termination of an agreement between Anzon and Woodside for the acquisition by
Anzon of Woodside's interest in Retention Lease Vic/RL2 was wrongful.
The claim relates to a sale and purchase agreement that was entered into between Anzon and
Woodside on 23 February 2004 pursuant to which Anzon proposed to acquire Woodside's
interest in the Bass Strait exploration field known as Vic/RL2. The sale was conditional on,
amongst other things, the unconditional consent of Woodside's joint venture partners - such
consent was not forthcoming. Anzon terminated the sale and purchase agreement on 25 June
2004. Woodside refused to accept Anzon's termination and purported to terminate the
agreement itself. Woodside announced the termination to ASX on 29 June 2004 in their
announcement titled "Woodside terminates Kipper gas field sale".
Woodside alleges that it sold its interest in Vic/RL2 in May 2006 for an amount that was
$22,177,652.93 less than the price that Anzon was to pay pursuant to the sale and purchase
agreement in 2004. (Woodside has demanded that Anzon pay $22,177,652.93 plus interest.)
Woodside have not provided Anzon with any details in relation to the sale of their interest in
Vic/RL2, and in particular as to how such a lesser sale price was achieved in an environment of
energy prices that are close to double that which existed at the time the agreement was entered
into with Anzon as well as the fact that a production license has since been granted in respect of
the Vic/RL2 field. Anzon also notes with interest that in its announcement to the ASX on 29
June 2004, Woodside commented that production from Vic/RL2 "is currently commercially
viable" and that "Woodside Petroleum Ltd. has today terminated its agreement with Anzon".
In the interests of its shareholders, Anzon will vigorously defend the proposed claim. Anzon has
a strong record of compliance in relation to its contractual obligations and commitments and
rejects any suggestion by Woodside that it wrongfully terminated the sale and purchase agreement.