• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Energy Sector - 2
Very interesting article.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The ultimate unlimited source of alternate energy that will change the world for ever – it is not hydrogen, not solar, not nuclear – it is the colossal electromagnetic waves</b>
India Daily Technology Team
May 23, 2005
The ultimate unlimited source of alternate energy that will change the world for ever – it is not hydrogen, not solar, not nuclear – it is the colossal electromagnetic waves India Daily Technology Team Scientists are finally finding clues to the unlimited source of alternate energy. It is not hydrogen, not solar, not nuclear and not something that you hear from alternate energy source specialists. It is something that runs the Universe, causes gravitation and so on.

It is the continuous generation and emission of electromagnetic waves that requires continuous supply of energy. And the Galaxies supply that energy all the time. If this energy can be captured and used, it will solve our energy needs forever.

The energy is all around us. We just need to learn to capture it and use it.

The energy source is the galactic bodies all around the Universe.

However, the conversion of planetary bodies into pure energy is an inevitable event at the inner region of galactic spiral, because sooner or later masses traveling closer and closer with increasing gravitation and acceleration towards each other must crash together. Only in the galactic center they will be ground, milled as well, until all atomic binding energies, i.e. Strong ad Weak forces are completely released or decoupled from atomic bondage. Spiraling pure energy flux through the angular divisions of force field symmetry from outer region of galactic field towards the inner center therefore generates a seamless spectrum of energy waves. And because there is a continuous conversion of galactic mass to energy this is the enormous steady force that repel the galaxies to recede from each other, a phenomenon called the expansion of universe.

Scientists and engineers are working on harnessing this energy that will solve the alternate energy needs forever. It will also make bending space and time. Interestingly, with a proper breakthrough it may move our human civilization by thousands of years.
India - Alternate Energy Project
<b>Check text or pdf files</b>
RelendinQ Terms: IREDA will relend grant proceeds to its clients at an interest rate of 15% per annum for windfarm systems, repayable in 6 years with 1 year grace; and 10% per annum for solar PV applications, repayable in 8 years with 2 years grace. These rates and terms will be adjusted from time to time to reflect variations in IREDA's overall cost of funds and will be brought closer to commercial market rates as the technologies gain wider acceptance in the market.
Financing Plan: Renewable Resources Development Project (US$ million equivalent)
IBRD IDA GEF Bilateral Investor IREDA IDBI Total
Small Hydro 70 24 94
Windfarms 15 13 50 31 16 125
Solar PV 30 10 2 13 55
Papermill 75 67 28 170
TA 3 2 1 6
Total 75 115 26 54 135 17 28 450
Economic Rate Of Return: Not applicable
I think ZeeTV (or one of the desi networks) had something on a village in Rajasthan benefiting from those use huge wind energy generators setup across the desert regions.
A.P 8275 MW
M.P 5500 MW
TOTAL 45195 MW
.According to the web site of the Ministry of Non conventional Energy, the following is the present utilization of Solar Energy in India. Quote
Under the PV program of MNES, about 6, 10, 000 systems aggregating to over 20 MW have been installed. This includes 3,85,000 solar lanterns; 1,80,000 home lighting systems; 41,000 street lighting systems, 4204 water pumping systems and of about 1.2 MWp aggregate capacity of stand alone power plants/packs
These figures are based on statistics as on 31st Dec 2001. Since then I am sure there must have been increase in capacity and utilization. However, it is obvious that no major breakthrough has taken place and we still get report of poor availability of power in the rural areas of India , particularly during the summer months when there is heavy demand both by the consumers in the big cities and by the agricultural sector
According to the Government of India , The solar radiation falling over India is about 5,000 trillion kWh / year. There are about 300 clear sunny days in a year in most parts of the country. The average insolation incident over India is about 5.5 kWh / sq. meter over a horizontal surface.
A country wide solar photovoltaic programme is being implemented by the Ministry for about last two decades. The Programme is aimed at developing the cost effective PV technology and its applications for large scale diffusion in different sectors, especially in rural and remote areas.
It is quite evident from the findings of the Government of India that there is tremendous potential for development in this sector. The only problem is the funding of this scheme so that its benefits can reach the poorest section of the rural population.

Let us think over the problem to find out some means of resolving it.

<b>Gas pipeline damaged in blast near Quetta</b>

QUETTA: A 12-inch diametre Sui Southern Gas Company (SSGC)’s main pipeline supplying gas to Quetta and other parts of the province was damaged when a powerful bomb exploded near it at the Damboli repeater station, some 53km away from the provincial capital, in the wee hours of Saturday.

No major disruption was reported. Levies force said saboteurs had planted a powerful bomb near the gas pipeline which went off with a big bang, damaging the gas pipeline. The staff at the SSGC Gas Control Centre that constantly monitors the supply of gas across the company’s transmission and distribution networks put in place emergency procedures. The valves at Damboli and Shori repeater stations were shut down, said an SSGC official.

The SSGC emergency repair teams dispatched from Sibi, Shikarpur and Karachi have already arrived at the site of the blast, which were expected to restore gas supply later Saturday night.

Only three small villages near Sibi, namely Lehri, Bhag and Jhatpat suffered disruption in Sui gas supply due to the explosion. Meanwhile, a powerful bomb exploded near the railway track at the Sariab road in Quetta on Saturday night. However, no loss of life was reported. Police and law enforcement agencies reached the scene and started a probe.

At present for India the best option is to make maximum possible utilization of the energy available from its own sources. It is true that nature has not given enough petroleum reserve to our country and consequently, we have to depend upon imported crude for keeping the nation‘s wheels moving.
Coal is the only source of fossil energy that is available to us in plenty. SO far we have been using coal for cooking and power generation in thermal power stations. We have stopped using coal in the railways a few years back. In cooking also to reduce pollution, particularly in the urban areas, we have switched over to LPG from coal. Now according to the present thinking of the experts, the use of coal should in fact be reduced to prevent the w3warming up of the earth. This has given us the idea of increasing our dependency on natural gas as a medium of energy. Unfortunately, this would require the importation of large quantity of natural gas from other countries.
This quest for natural gas has now given us the idea of importing natural gas by pipeline from, Iran, Turkmenistan and, Bangladesh and of late Myanmar. All these ideas are still in the planning and negotiation stages. Let us examine these grand projects and their desirability as a reliable source of energy for running the vital installations of our national economy.
Any pipeline from Iran or Turkmenistan has to pass through Pakistan. Apart from the vulnerability of the pipeline within Pakistan, one has also to take into account the possible political and other developments that may take place in future within the countries in which the source of such gas supply originates. There is no guarantee that on a future date, the Government of Iran or Turkmenistan refuses to sale gas to India for any unspecified reasons. Added to this is the possibility of Pakistan at some point of time refuses to allow passing of gas through its territory to India. In both these situations, the Indian industries and other facilities that would have been developed on the basis of assured gas supply from Iran and Turkmenistan will come to a grinding halt.
Now let us go to the possible natural gas suppliers from the East. Bangladesh is a country which can be least dependent as a reliable source of energy for India. The internal politics of Bangladesh is such that very few politicians will have the courage to sign a pact with India to sell any gas to India. They will immediately be termed as traitors by the rest of the political parties. Therefore, Bangladesh should be ruled out as a reliable supplier of the natural gas, at the most gas can be purchased from that country to run some auxiliary industry as an alternate source of energy as and when the BD political leadership is benevolent enough to send some gas to India. In any case, BD will be more unreliable than Iran and Pakistan as far as supply of energy to India is concerned.
That leaves us with Myanmar. It is a country which can be depended upon, as its leaders are honest enough to always take decisions boldly. If they agree to sale natural gas to India, they will be true to their word. At present, it has a military government but even that is replaced by some other form of Government, we can be assured of steady supply from that country, provided that India does not interfere or is seen to interfere in any internal matter of Myanmar.

This is the most optimistic and conservative energy scenario for India in the future, we need to re assess our energy requirement and examine the possibilities of use of other sources of energy for our growing industry as well as other sectors of consumption.
I am of the view that, power generation in India should be increased by setting up more hydro power and nuclear power plants. Gradually, we should reduce the number of conventional thermal power plants. We have so far tapped only a very small part of our hydro power potential. This needs to be explored to the fullest extent. At the same time, we should increase the use of solar power and bio gas to primarily meet the energy requirements of the rural sector. The electrification of the railways needs to be speeded us and all big cities should have metro rail system. The cumulative effect of all these measures will reduce our need for petroleum or natural gas as a source of energy.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>India's electricity reforms (not going too well)</b>
10/30/2005 0:17:27
<b>An electricity shortage may thwart India's rush to modernity</b>

ITS organisers are calling it a victory for people power. They even invoke the name of Mahatma Gandhi, icon of India's independence struggle. For economic reformers, however, it is a depressing defeat: by making a huge fuss and refusing to pay their bills in full, Delhi's middle class last month persuaded the local government to withdraw an increaseof about 10%in the residential electricity tariff.

The protesters alleged they were being robbed by rigged meters and forced to pay exorbitant first-world prices for an unimproved, erratic third-world service. They had a point. But if not even well-off citizens in the capital will pay an economic rate for their power, what hope is there for the rest of the country, where politicians habitually offer free power to farmers in the hope of winning their votes? And while electricity boards continue to rack up huge losses, what chance is there of finding the money so desperately needed for investment in new generating equipment? More fundamentally, where will the fuel come from?

Power cuts are a way of life in India, at least in parts of the country lucky enough to regard them as an interruption rather than the norm. There is a worsening shortage. Over the past decade, electricity generation has grown at a compound annual rate of 5.5%, but demand has grown even faster. Peak demand exceeded supply by 11.3% in 1998 and by 12.1% in the last financial year (ending this March).

That, moreover, is to define demand in the narrowest of senses. The countryside, where more than two-thirds of India's people live, accounts for no more than 13% of electricity consumption. India's 1.1 billion people use on average just 526 units (kilowatt-hours) of electricity a year, compared with 1,247 units in China. Where electricity is available it is often only for a couple of hours a day, unusable for industry and of such poor quality that power surges routinely wreck equipment.

Yet India wants electricity to reach every village by 2008demanding the electrification of 110,000 villagesand every household by 2012. At present, 56% of India's households, and just 44% of those in rural areas, have connections to the grid. Meanwhile, it is hoped that India's economy, already growing at an average of more than 6% for the past 15 years, will expand even faster, meaning more electricity-intensive manufacturing and air-conditioned shopping malls. The government talks of adding 100,000 megawatts (MW) of new generating capacity over the next ten yearsa virtual doubling.

Indian industry, long used to the failings of the national grid, has survived by building its own “captive” generating plants. Azim Premji, chairman of Wipro, one of India's information-technology stars, senses that the electricity shortage is “coming to enough of a crisis now that we have to fix it, like we fixed telecoms.”

T.L. Sankar, an energy expert at the Administrative Staff College of India in Hyderabad, likewise draws succour from past successes in other fields, such as the near-doubling of food production in India during the “green revolution” of the late 1960s and 1970s. Something similar, he argues, is needed now.

“Crisis” may be the wrong word for such a long-standing shortage, with its origins in every link in the electricity supply-chain, from fuel through generation, transmission and distribution. But crisis is how it has sometimes felt during the last few months, because of a combination of factors. Manmohan Singh, the prime minister, has often spoken of the seriousness of the needs, and has set up a committee to tackle them. This summer, too, the oil price has soared and worries have mounted about a shortage of coal, which fuels about 60% of India's electricity, compared with about 26% from hydro-electricity and 11% from oil and gas.

A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, India's president and a much-respected scientist in a largely ceremonial post, has put the electricity shortage into the broader context of insufficient supplies of energy. In his speech on the eve of Independence Day on August 15th he called for efforts to make “energy independence” “our nation's first and highest priority”.

Always the worst season for power-cutsair-conditioning provides respite from the sweltering heatthis summer has been particularly bad in some places, notably Maharashtra, India's wealthiest and second most populous state. Meanwhile, the row in Delhi has highlighted the mess that is India's electricity distribution.

Lost in transmission

Delhi had been held up as a model of successful power-sector reform. An Electricity Act in 2003 had achieved little, perhaps because it was so ambitious. Part of the difficulty lies in India's federal system, under which electricity is a “concurrent” subject, where both the central government and the 29 states have a role.

Except in a few cities that remained exempt, distribution was monopolised by state electricity boards (SEBs). The act called for the “unbundling” of generation from transmission and distribution, which was to be opened to private competition. Independent regulators would adjudicate tariffs, and the cross-subsidies that penalise industry to the benefit of the domestic consumer and farmer were to be removed. At present less than 42% of electricity is sold to industrial and commercial users, but that yields more than 70% of the SEBs' annual revenues.

Only two statesOrissa, in the poor east, and Delhihave privatised distribution. The Delhi government claims that privatisation has brought big benefits. The two private firms involved, affiliates of the big national conglomerates, Reliance and Tata, succeeded in cutting losses to theft from about 50% of supply to about 40%the national average. The government claims electricity was on its way to being “self-sustaining”.

This picture of healthy progress, however, does not match popular perceptions. Reliance, in particular, is accused of having behaved badly. Much suspicion has centred on new digital meters. Reliance denies they run too fast, arguing they are more sensitive than the old mechanical ones. So electricity bills would have risen sharply anyway.


The timing of the furore in Delhi is unfortunate. Electricity reforms have stalled, and may slip into reverse. Communist parties, on whose votes the government led by Mr Singh's Congress Party relies for a parliamentary majority, want to water down the 2003 Electricity Act. Jealously protective of the interests of public-sector workers, they oppose unbundling and privatisation, and support cross-subsidies.

Already, Congress-led state governments have been among the worst offenders in using electricity to buy votes and popularity. Some of Maharashtra's troubles, for example, can be traced to elections held last year, when the government offered farmers free power for irrigation pumps. Maharashtra was forced to remove the sop this June, but other Congress-led governments, most recently in Punjab, have offered the same handout.

One consequence of failing to fix the SEBs is fiscal. Their average tariff has risen by 20% since 2000, compared with a rise in the cost of their supplies of just 4%. But still, tariffs, on average, are just three-quarters of supply costs. Some estimates suggest that the SEBs lost 10 trillion rupees ($215 billion) over the past decade. This has damaged their ability to add distribution capacity, and even to carry out basic maintenance. The Planning Commission has pointed out that more than 90% of the investment in the power sector goes into generation and transmission rather than distribution, akin, it argues, “to building a superstructure without a foundation”. Still, the money needed for new generating capacity is hugeestimates range between $10 billion and $15 billion a year.

Efforts to attract private investment, including from abroad, into power generation have been largely unsuccessful. The most spectacular failure was the impressively modern 2,200MW Dabhol power project in Maharashtra, which started operation in 1999, only to shut in 2001 after a row between its promoter, Enron, a collapsed American energy giant, and the SEB. Years of legal wrangling have ensued, with damaging effects all round. Many Indian observers drew the lesson that privatisation and foreign investment in power did not work and meant high prices. Foreign firms wondered whether power-purchase commitments signed by bankrupt SEBs were worth anything. Only now is the project restarting, having, in effect, been nationalised. It will be at least a year before it is producing electricity.

Despite Dabhol and a huge gas-fired plant that Reliance is building in Uttar Pradesh, a northern state, coal is expected to remain India's “mainstay” fuel for decades to come. Its proven reserves, of 92.4 billion tonnes, are just over 10% of the global total. But it is of low quality, with a high ash content and low calorific value. It is also, by international standards, expensive (perhaps twice the cost of South African coal), and production is not growing fast enough. Rajiv Sharma, a senior official in the Ministry of Coal, blames this on underinvestment in the 1990s, when coal became a “condemned fuel”, because of its polluting effects and contribution to global warming.

Coal India, the state's near-monopoly, was unprepared when demand took off in 2003. So India has been importing more coalnearly 11m tonnes last year. Vipul Tuli, of McKinsey's, a consultancy, predicts a “massive” shortage of 100m tonnes by 2011-12. Domestic coal usage is constrained and made more costly by an inadequate rail network. Imports are hampered by a lack of capacity at the ports.

Recent months have seen a scramble by India to secure fuel supplies. There is talk of pipelines to bring gas from countries such as Turkmenistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar and, most controversially, Iran. Meanwhile ONGC, a state-owned oil exploration and production company, has teamed up with Lakshmi Mittal, a steel tycoon, to bid for foreign oil assets.

India's nuclear industry, which at present supplies about 2% of electricity, received a big boost in July, when Mr Singh went to Washington, DC, and secured an American offer of help for it. Despite having nuclear weapons, which it tested in 1998, India has never signed the international non-proliferation treaty. So this was a diplomatic coup. Mr Singh has suggested India could have 30,000 to 40,000MW of nuclear capacity for the next 20-30 years. But that optimistic figure is still a fraction of requirements.

There may be more potential in hydro-electricity, which already produces a quarter of India's needs, in renewable forms of energy, and in moderating demand by enhancing energy-efficiency. India has an estimated 120,000MW of untapped hydro-electric potential. Big dams are controversial, but much of this could be realised through small, run-of-the-river projects. It is hoped to increase hydro's share in production to 40%. The “most significant” strategic goal set by Mr Kalam in his Independence Day speech, however, was to increase the share of renewable energy in generation from around 5% now to 20-25%. Wind power already accounts for about 2%. Solar power is negligible now, partly because of the high capital cost of solar plants, but the president was optimistic that new technology would soon bring the cost down. He estimated, moreover, that 30m hectares of wasteland in India are available for the cultivation of “bio-fuels”, such as Jatropha, an oil-producing shrub.

An obsession with “energy security” may not be wise in a world where, in Mr Singh's words, borders are becoming less relevant. But it must make sense to look at options other than coal and imported hydrocarbons. The impediments to meeting India's needs through increases in thermal-power generation seem likely to dog the country's progress for years. They lie not just in the present shortages of fuel and capacity, but in the structure of an industry too long governed by political rather than economic concerns. They are not insuperable. But they are so complex and daunting that one leading industrialist privately argues that the only solution is for electricity to be declared a national emergency. That way, the general recognition of the scale of the challenge might actually turn into action.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->That leaves us with Myanmar. It is a country which can be depended upon, as its leaders are honest enough to always take decisions boldly. If they agree to sale natural gas to India, they will be true to their word. At present, it has a military government but even that is replaced by some other form of Government, we can be assured of steady supply from that country, provided that India does not interfere or is seen to interfere in any internal matter of Myanmar. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Chinese involvement in Myanmar is well known, to retard India's development China can use its client state Myanmar against India.
China policy to surround India which is quit visible i.e Pakistan, Nepal, BanglaDesh, Mynamar .
For India its very important to have there own source of energy, plutonium based nuclear plant are best and cheapest option with minimum dependency on foregin resouce. Even to run nuclear plant we need material form western world and even from China and Russia.
Yes, I agree with you we need multiple option for long term development.
Myanmar did not become a client State of China on its own. It is the result of collective failure on our part since 1961 till 1990, to have Burma isolated and cut off from India. There is very large Chinese and Indian population in Myanmar. While, China handled the situation properly, we did the opposite which resulted in total lack of interaction between Govt of India and Burma. We need not get into that aspect here as it is a discussion on energy needs of India. I would just like to mention that no Islamic Zihadi disruption is expected from Myanmar in our lifetime.

With regard to the energy security for India, I would like to mention the following points for discussion. In 2002-03 the total installed capacity for generation of electricity was 125,600 MW out of which thermal was 78,300 MW and Hydel was 26,900 MW. In additon, 2700MW was produced by nuclear power plants. In the same year, India produced 29.4million tons of crude oil and imported 74.1 million tones of crude oil to meet its domestic requirements. During the same year it produced and consumed 28 billion cu meters of natural gas.
According to the experts, there is no possibility of any drastic increase in the production of crude oil or natural gas within the country as there may be very few undetected hydro carbon deposits in India. Under these circumstances, it is necessary to search for new and dependable sources of energy.
India should go in for at least 12 nuclear power stations of 2000 mw each, so that we can get sufficient power for our growing industrial needs. It should also go in for more hydro power, particularly in the Himalayan range so that there is always an alternative source of energy. In addition, several small steps need to be taken to ensure that energy is available to the rural people at affordable price. This can be achieved by intensive use of solar energy and bio gas, which can cater to the needs of lighting and cooking in the villages. If the quality and supply of electricity is improved in the cities, the general public will become less dependent of LPG and will change over to electricity for cooking.
<b>Petronet, Chevron may soon sign LNG deal</b>

<b>NEW DELHI : This could well turn out to be a big one for India’s LNG trade. Petronet LNG, which developed the first LNG terminal at Dahej, is close to signing up a deal with the US-based Chevron Corporation to import 2.5million tonne (mt) of LNG from Australia.

Chevron International and Shell are working at the Gorgon gas fields in North West Australia, and are expected to produce LNG by ‘09-10. The initial round of talks has been held between Petronet and Chevron, and a formal agreement will be inked before the end of the year, senior government officials said. The long-term LNG supply contract will be for 25 years. The Gorgon fields is estimated to have a capacity to produce 10mt of LNG annually.

The proposed import of LNG from the Gorgon fields will be primarily for the Kochi terminal. This deal with Australia comes close on the heels of the LNG import deal with Iran, which appears to have come under a cloud. Although India and Iran have signed up a deal, the agreement is still awaiting ratification by National Iranian Oil Company. India has been scouting for fresh sources of LNG given the uncertainty of gas supplies from Iran.</b>

Petroleum secretary SC Tripathi had recently said India was exploring alternatives for LNG supply from Australia and Qatar to meet its growing gas requirements. Petronet LNG, which is importing LNG from Rasgas and Qatar for its Dahej terminal, has been in discussions with Chevron, the operator of the Gorgon fields, to bring in LNG from Australia.

Petronet CEO P Dasgupta declined to comment on the development. Government sources said Petronet LNG had reached an in-principle agreement on the mechanism for pricing and payment. Although the finer details of the pricing are yet to be thrashed out, it is understood that it will comprise a variable and fixed component.

The variable component, expected to be linked to the Japanese Crude Cocktail, is also likely to include a band within which it would vary. Chevron Australia has signed a heads of agreement with Tokyo Gas Co, a major Japanese utility company, regarding the purchase of 1.2mt per annum of Gorgon LNG beginning ‘10 over 25 years.

Cheers <!--emo&:beer--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b><span style='color:blue'>India-Myanmar pipeline deal may leave BD out</span></b>

<b>DHAKA : Bangladesh is to be left out of the proposed one billion dollar India-Myanmar gas pipeline project, according to Indian officials, an internet (mizzimanews.com) report said.</b>

Top officials in the Indian petroleum ministry told Mizzima a high level meeting was scheduled later this month to finalise a route for the gas pipeline from Myanmar directly to India’s eastern states. "The Bangladesh route is as good as shelved," a top petroleum ministry official said. "We will now consider the route through northeast India and try to work out work schedules."

Gas Authority of India Limited chairman Proshanto Banerji said the line would instead pass through India’s north-east border with Myanmar. India’s preferred route is reportedly from Sittwe to Buthidaung in Chin State across the border to Chhimtuipui, Mizoram and then to Assam. Gas would then be transferred to a proposed national grid in northern Bengal. According to estimates the project will cost India $290 million, which could rise to $300 million if the project is delayed.

Mahmudur Rahman, adviser to Bangladesh’s energy minister, said officials in Dhaka had no objections to the change in plans. The country had asked for major trade concessions in return for allowing gas to be piped across its territory. "In commercial negotiations, every party will try to get maximum benefit and there is no harm in it," Rahman said. Bangladesh could have earned as much as $125 million a year in transit fees and other service charges from the pipeline.

Myanmar, Indian and Bangladeshi governments agreed in principle to co-operate on the gas pipeline and exploration project in January this year but Bangladesh failed to agree to any proposed terms.

<b>Indian Petroleum Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar visited Bangladesh in September to try to finalise the deal and while he was not available for comment, it seems his office too has given up on Bangladeshi involvement.

The new pipeline will have to be 40 per cent longer than the 850km Bangladesh route and <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>will cost considerably more. "But it will generate a lot of economic activity in the northeast and that’s good for the region," said Assam’s leading economist Jayant Madhab Goswami.

But the northeastern route would go through insurgency-affected areas, though the recent peace talks with the United Liberation Front of Assam have generated hopes of peace in the area along the route.</span></b>

Comments : Even if the <b><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>cost is USD 300 Million more</span></b> then this cost will be recouped within Three Years of the Operation of the Pipe Line

Cheers <!--emo&:beer--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>Avoid unreliable energy suppliers

Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar</span></b>

<b>In search of energy security, the petroleum minister has scoured the world for gas and oil deals, including stakes in oilfields abroad. Alas, such purchases could mean insecurity, not security.</b>

Many countries do not respect contracts, and India should reduce its dependence on unreliable suppliers of energy. Two such countries, unreliable in very different ways, are the US and Iran.

The Bush-Manmohan agreement on nuclear supplies offers India entry into what was once a white man's club. <b>Given rising oil and gas prices, India needs to switch to coal and nuclear energy wherever possible.</b>

It needs to get the best technology and equipment for a series of nuclear power stations, something China is doing. The Bush-Manmohan agreement aims to get India off the blacklist for nuclear supplies imposed by US law and the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

However, once India is off the blacklist, it should give US nuclear companies only a small share of contracts, and give most to France, Russia and Germany.

<b>The US is an unreliable supplier of sensitive equipment, as has been demonstrated in many past defence deals. The worst sufferer, ironically, was Pakistan, which paid for F-16s in the 1980s but never got delivery because it was blacklisted.</b>

Even when the US Administration wants to continue defence supplies, individual legislators can tack supply conditions and sanctions onto all sorts of bills.

Hence, India has long avoided the US as a key defence supplier. It has sought supply security by buying Sukhois from Russia, Mirages from France, and submarines from Germany and Russia.

Suspicions are easing with the warming of Indo-US relations. The recent Indo-US defence agreement talks of joint weapons production and anti-missile cooperation. Yet, as a supply precaution, some military experts urge India to buy French Mirages rather than American F-18s. I agree.

<b>For similar supply security, India should minimise its energy dependence on Iran. That country has dragged its feet on implementing the recent agreement to supply five million tonnes per year of liquefied natural gas, a disturbing sign.

<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>Many experts have opposed the proposed Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline, citing Pakistan's unreliability. To this we must now add Iran's unreliability.

On two occasions, Teheran has issued veiled threats to renege on gas supplies if India keeps voting against Iran in the UN and IAEA on nuclear enrichment. Maybe this is just bluff. But the mullahs have already ditched India once.

People forget. India was part of a consortium led by Amoco producing oil at the Rostam and Raksh fields in Iran in the 1960s.

But when the mullahs came to power, they nationalised the oilfields, giving India a pittance as compensation. India did not protest: it feared antagonising an important oil supplier. But Amoco fought for and got much higher compensation.</span></b>

The petroleum ministry seems to have forgotten this episode altogether, and once again seeks energy concessions in a country that has already expropriated it. The mullahs must be laughing at our cupidity.

India should seek gas from Qatar rather than Iran. India seeks concessions in Venezuela, and this is also risky. Like Iran, Venezuela does not respect contracts.

President Chavez has just told foreign oil companies to hand over 60%-90% of their shareholding or leave. The royalty on oil has been increased from 1% to 30%, and the oil tax from 34% to 50%.

In Russia, privatised oil companies have in effect been renationalised. We should not be surprised if the Sakhalin field, where India has a stake, is also nationalised.

The Mittal-ONGC combine has been granted an oil concession in Nigeria provided India invests $6 billion in Nigerian infrastructure. Some people are celebrating this.

But note that the oil concessions can later be expropriated by Nigeria, while India cannot expropriate the infrastructure.

The current Nigerian government is much better than earlier dictators who looted the oil industry, yet is not a safe oil haven.

<b>The lesson: it is safer to simply buy than produce oil in such countries. Japan, a massive oil importer, has flourished by buying rather than owning oil supplies. US companies once owned giant oilfields in the Gulf but were expropriated. They are now buyers, not owners.</b>

Buying oilfields in countries lacking property rights provides no sort of energy security at all. Finding a really large oilfield in such countries will probably be followed by a really large expropriation.

If India wants to own reserves, the best way is to buy a sizable shareholding in Exxon, Shell and Total, whose reserves are unlikely to be expropriated.

With oil prices booming, companies want to exploit tar sands, which were earlier too expensive to exploit. India has sought a tar sand deal in Venezuela.

<b>Far safer will be Canada's tar sands, which in theory comprise higher reserves than Saudi Arabia's. Ownership in Canada looks secure, unlike in Venezuela. That's the way to go.</b>

Cheers <!--emo&:beer--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>India-Iran energy link 'years away' - US official</span></b> <!--emo&:clapping--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/clap.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='clap.gif' /><!--endemo-->

<b>WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Any plans by the Indian government to sign energy deals with Iran are "years away" and exist only in the hypothetical realm, a senior U.S. State Department official said on Wednesday.</b>

Nicholas Burns, the No. 3 State Department official, did not specifically mention ongoing talks between India and Iran to build a $7 billion natural gas pipeline through Pakistan.

<b>"The Indians have assured us that there is no plan on the table that is ready for decision by the Iranian (and) Indian governments, that any plans, any discussions, have been hypothetical and are years away," said Burns, speaking at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. "We would hope that those relationships would not be consummated."</b>

Energy-hungry India in recent months had indicated intentions to finalize a deal by the end of the year.

But speaking in Riyadh earlier this month, India's oil minister said delays in Iran toward naming a new oil minister had also delayed plans to finalize the pipeline.

Iran is OPEC's second-largest crude oil producer and has the world's second-biggest reserves of natural gas.

The United States accuses Iran of seeking nuclear arms, funding anti-Israeli militia and stirring militant attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq.

Analysts say the pipeline deal has also been jeopardized by India's decision to join the United States in September and vote to refer Iran's nuclear program to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

<b>India has to tread a tightrope in pipeline talks, trying to satisfy it ravenous appetite for hydrocarbons while not upsetting Washington.

India faces a natural gas deficit of 200 million cubic meters a day in 20 years.</b>

Cheers <!--emo&:beer--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b>To face the future energy needs of India, we should explore all the possibilities. Given the geo political realities of the time, some of the sources will prove to be unreliable and some will be more dependable. We have to maintain a balance between the two and at the same time, we should develop our own source to the maximum extent. It is very easy to import energy and tide over the immediate crisis but it is very difficult to plan for the future.
In the past, India has played in the hands of the World Oil Lobby in determining its energy policy and so today we are dependent more on oil than we should have been in the normal course. One example of this had been the neglect of developing the freight carrying capacity of the railways and allowing freight movement instead by road. In a country like India, where we have a vast railway network and huge coal reserve and hydro potential to produce electricity , movement of freight by rail is the best it does not require importing of diesel for running the trucks. There are several such instances where we have played at the hands of the oil lobby. Of late we have realized this and now the railways are gearing up to meet the challenge.</b>
Please find the archives of first 300 posts at

<b>Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline : US against deal</b>

<i>* ADB experts say project feasible</i>

<b>WASHINGTON : The United States said it was “absolutely opposed” to a natural gas pipeline project linking Iran with Pakistan and India, even though an Asian Development Bank (ADB) expert saw it feasible.</b>

Iran is reportedly nearing a deal with the two neighbours for the 2,600-kilometre pipeline costing more than $7 billion.

<b>“The US government supports multiple pipelines from that (the Caspian) region but remains absolutely opposed to pipelines involving Iran,” senior State Department official Steven Mann told a forum in Washington late Wednesday.

The US accuses Iran of trying to build a nuclear bomb and being a state sponsor of terror.</b> Mann, the special negotiator for Eurasian conflicts in the State Department’s bureau of European affairs, spoke after an ADB expert told the forum that the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline and another pipeline linking Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan were both feasible.

Dan Millison, ADB’s senior energy specialist, said at the meeting organised by Johns Hopkins University that his assessment was based purely on economic grounds and demand from energy-guzzling India and Pakistan.

He said that generally, “piped gas was economically favourable versus LNG”.

“TAP (the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan project) and the Iran-Pakistan-India options appear viable and competitive versus LNG,” Millison said. Mann said any success of the Turkmenistan-sourced project depended on long term market and supply reliability and participation of “heavy hitters” from the private sector.

India, Pakistan and Iran have said they hope to conclude a deal by June 2006 despite US opposition. They plan to hold further talks in February in Tehran. India has said construction of the pipeline should start in 2007 and be operational by 2011. Millison said although the trans-Afghan gas pipeline was shorter and less costly, as of last month, India and Pakistan were “moving forward” with the Iran project.

A multilateral institution official, who attended the Washington meeting, said a key question was whether India and Pakistan were prepared to go ahead with the project despite US opposition. He thought India might forge ahead but a US official beside him said New Delhi might not sacrifice its “long term interest” with Washington. Afp

Cheers <!--emo&:beer--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b>Present New Government of Iran wants to again ratify an Agreement ratified by the Previous Iranian Government – It will be the same case with Pakistan – <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>INDIA BEWARE!</span></b>

<b><span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'>Indo-Iran LNG deal delayed as govts wrangle</span></b>

<b>NEW DELHI : Indian oil companies, IOC and Gail, signatories to the $20bn India-Iran LNG deal, <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>have legally questioned National Iranian Gas Exporting (Nigec)’s claim that work on the project cannot begin without a formal ratification of the agreement by the new regime in Iran.</span></b>

India has backed its claim with a legal opinion by the Attorney General saying an agreement signed under one regime need not be ratified by a subsequent government. There is a continuity about contractual obligations, India has argued. Similar legal opinion has been given by an independent British law firm as well.

There has been no physical progress on the project even six months after the deal was inked by Indian and Iranian oil companies. Nigec, signatory to the gas deal, has for the first time formally communicated to IOC and Gail that it cannot move forward on the project till it is approved by National Iranian Oil and the economic council.

Sources said the deal has not been ratified by the economic council although the deal has been referred to it at least two times in the past six months.

India and Iran had inked a deal to import 5m tonnes of LNG which would be used primarily for the northern region. Delay in the implementation of the deal could create a fuel crisis for the region.

The delay in the implementation comes even as both the political sides have reiterated their commitment to the project. Said a senior government official, “The Iranians have assured us of their commitment every time we have taken this up for discussion. However, there has been a stalemate on the physical progress of the project.”

Senior government officials said that Gail had written to Nigec about the delays and has urged them to set up the required committees to take the project forward.

The dithering over the LNG deal comes at a time when questions are being raised about Indo-Iran relations, following the nuclear deal with the US and India’s vote at the IAEA.

Cheers <!--emo&:beer--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>India may opt out of gas pipeline project</b>
Agencies/ New Delhi
Apprehending adverse US reaction, India is unlikely to participate in building of the 7-billion dollar gas pipeline project from Iran via Pakistan and instead may prefer buying gas at its border. The Petroleum Ministry is veering around to this idea and may soon approach the Cabinet for a final decision, informed sources said.

In a note being prepared for the Cabinet, the Petroleum Ministry has suggested that New Delhi enter into an agreement only with Iran for purchase of gas at its border. Tehran would have to court Islamabad for safe passage of the pipeline, uninterrupted supplies and delivery of gas at Indian border.

The Ministry feels that setting up of an international consoritum - comprising of state firms of the three countries and global energy majors - for construction and operation of the of the world's most valuable project could be a non- starter due to political and legal opposition from US, including the threat of invoking sanctions under ILSA.

The project, the note says, may be executed separately by the three countries in their own territories to protect the project from US sanctions. The natural gas would be supplied to India by a transnational pipeline on the basis of an India-Iran bilateral agreement which provisions 'supply- or-pay' and alternative supplies in case of disruptions.

This agreement would be complemented by an Iran-Pakistan agreement which would regulate the transit of the gas through Pakistani territory and contain effective disincentives for Pakistan to attempt to interrupt/disrupt gas supply to India, sources said.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--emo&:clapping--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/clap.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='clap.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:guitar--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/guitar.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='guitar.gif' /><!--endemo-->
They made the right decision, why give Pakistan a guaranteed $ 100 mil a year or whatever it was. Iran is also a wacko mullah state, fit for only loose oily agreements.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)