03-10-2007, 08:56 PM
Second set of concerns:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There are clear indications that the environmental clearance was done without taking into account fundamental engineering and cost-benefit factors:
1.   Effect of a tsunami-type of event on the project (all scientists are unanimous that a recurrence of tsunamis cannot be ruled out).
2.   Locations for dumping the dredged sand
3.   Costs of continuous dredging given the continuous sea currents, which tend to create the shoals and again rebuild the Ramar bridge making the project inoperable for most of the time.
4.   The types of naval craft which can navigate through the project channel (apparently, the heavy oil tankers cannot go through this channel and will continue to circumnavigate around Sri Lanka and through Straits of Malacca to reach the markets of South- East and East Asia. There has been no market study of the numbers and types of vessels that will navigate through the channel and the freight rates expected to be paid by these vessels for being tugged through the channel. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's take those one by one:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->1.   Effect of a tsunami-type of event on the project (all scientists are unanimous that a recurrence of tsunamis cannot be ruled out).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True. Neither can the effect of an asteroid landing 10 km off Kanyakumari, which will probably cause an appreciation in beach-front property values in Coimbatore.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->2.   Locations for dumping the dredged sand<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about along the Kerala coastline? Erosion here is doing a good job of undoing the effects of the earthquake that Shri Parasuram caused by hurling his axe into the Marxist Fault along the Western Ghat. Or, dump it as a sort of (Kalyan)Ramar Bridge, directly blocking any tsunami and hence blocking any damage to the TN coast? Or use it to build an island from where the a LookOut can sit on a coconut tree and warn of the next tsunami?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->3.   Costs of continuous dredging given the continuous sea currents, which tend to create the shoals and again rebuild the Ramar bridge making the project inoperable for most of the time.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting argument. I was told that "the annual cost of dredging is half the capital cost". In other words, the capital cost is only twice the annual dredging cost. Perhaps the dredged sand can be used precisely to redirect the sand? Anyway, I don't see that the presence of a dredger makes the channel inoperable - Kochi port was created by dredgers, and they have lashing monsoon winds and tides several months of the year, like the east coast does. The East Coast also has cyclones .. more on this later.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The types of naval craft which can navigate through the project channel (apparently, the heavy oil tankers cannot go through this channel and will continue to circumnavigate around Sri Lanka and through Straits of Malacca to reach the markets of South- East and East Asia. There has been no market study of the numbers and types of vessels that will navigate through the channel and the freight rates expected to be paid by these vessels for being tugged through the channel.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I suspect that since the author is unaware of any market study on this, there is really no basis for saying that such a channel will NOT have a significant effect on the coastal economy. True, today there may be a depressed market for east-west coastal trade, because you have to use deep-sea ships, and go around SL, a detour of some 350 miles at least. Also, you have to face the dangers of the Indian Ocean off SL's coast, both natural and man-made.
So today, the threat of bad weather somewhere far out is enough to stop this trade. The author ignores this (a sure annual disruption for several months of the year) while citing the possible delays to shipping due to dredging operations. This does not seem to be a fair evaluation of the situation at all.
Much more on this later...
There is anyway NO reason for supertankers plying the Straits of Malacca (which means they are carrying oil to or returning empty from Japan/Malaysia/Australia) to go through any passage between India and SL, so the argument on that is irrelevant. Question is whether supertankers between the Persian Gulf and BD, or Kolkatta, would ply this route. For supertankers, this is probably no deal, because they are large ocean-going vessels. However, what the channel WILL do is open up the market for smaller Indian-based operators to trade LNG, LPG and oils between the West and East coasts, using ships small enough for them, operating close enough to run for cover if bad weather threatens. If u r caught out beyond SL today, and a sudden storm comes up, u have the choice of going into LTTE ports, or sinking.
So again, I have to question the author's logic here.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->There are clear indications that the environmental clearance was done without taking into account fundamental engineering and cost-benefit factors:
1.   Effect of a tsunami-type of event on the project (all scientists are unanimous that a recurrence of tsunamis cannot be ruled out).
2.   Locations for dumping the dredged sand
3.   Costs of continuous dredging given the continuous sea currents, which tend to create the shoals and again rebuild the Ramar bridge making the project inoperable for most of the time.
4.   The types of naval craft which can navigate through the project channel (apparently, the heavy oil tankers cannot go through this channel and will continue to circumnavigate around Sri Lanka and through Straits of Malacca to reach the markets of South- East and East Asia. There has been no market study of the numbers and types of vessels that will navigate through the channel and the freight rates expected to be paid by these vessels for being tugged through the channel. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's take those one by one:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->1.   Effect of a tsunami-type of event on the project (all scientists are unanimous that a recurrence of tsunamis cannot be ruled out).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True. Neither can the effect of an asteroid landing 10 km off Kanyakumari, which will probably cause an appreciation in beach-front property values in Coimbatore.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->2.   Locations for dumping the dredged sand<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How about along the Kerala coastline? Erosion here is doing a good job of undoing the effects of the earthquake that Shri Parasuram caused by hurling his axe into the Marxist Fault along the Western Ghat. Or, dump it as a sort of (Kalyan)Ramar Bridge, directly blocking any tsunami and hence blocking any damage to the TN coast? Or use it to build an island from where the a LookOut can sit on a coconut tree and warn of the next tsunami?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->3.   Costs of continuous dredging given the continuous sea currents, which tend to create the shoals and again rebuild the Ramar bridge making the project inoperable for most of the time.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting argument. I was told that "the annual cost of dredging is half the capital cost". In other words, the capital cost is only twice the annual dredging cost. Perhaps the dredged sand can be used precisely to redirect the sand? Anyway, I don't see that the presence of a dredger makes the channel inoperable - Kochi port was created by dredgers, and they have lashing monsoon winds and tides several months of the year, like the east coast does. The East Coast also has cyclones .. more on this later.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The types of naval craft which can navigate through the project channel (apparently, the heavy oil tankers cannot go through this channel and will continue to circumnavigate around Sri Lanka and through Straits of Malacca to reach the markets of South- East and East Asia. There has been no market study of the numbers and types of vessels that will navigate through the channel and the freight rates expected to be paid by these vessels for being tugged through the channel.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I suspect that since the author is unaware of any market study on this, there is really no basis for saying that such a channel will NOT have a significant effect on the coastal economy. True, today there may be a depressed market for east-west coastal trade, because you have to use deep-sea ships, and go around SL, a detour of some 350 miles at least. Also, you have to face the dangers of the Indian Ocean off SL's coast, both natural and man-made.
So today, the threat of bad weather somewhere far out is enough to stop this trade. The author ignores this (a sure annual disruption for several months of the year) while citing the possible delays to shipping due to dredging operations. This does not seem to be a fair evaluation of the situation at all.
Much more on this later...
There is anyway NO reason for supertankers plying the Straits of Malacca (which means they are carrying oil to or returning empty from Japan/Malaysia/Australia) to go through any passage between India and SL, so the argument on that is irrelevant. Question is whether supertankers between the Persian Gulf and BD, or Kolkatta, would ply this route. For supertankers, this is probably no deal, because they are large ocean-going vessels. However, what the channel WILL do is open up the market for smaller Indian-based operators to trade LNG, LPG and oils between the West and East coasts, using ships small enough for them, operating close enough to run for cover if bad weather threatens. If u r caught out beyond SL today, and a sudden storm comes up, u have the choice of going into LTTE ports, or sinking.
So again, I have to question the author's logic here.