|
Reflections on Phulbari Coal Project
The Phulbari coal deposit is very likely among the largest in the world, with a capacity to produce 15 million tonnes of coal per year. Then why would the original licensee, BHP, abandon it…asks Nazrul Islam, a former official of the mining company
In recent months there has been a lot of talk again about Phulbari coal deposit and Asia Energy Corporation's open-cut mining proposal to the government of Bangladesh. The Bangladesh Nationalist Party Government had decided not to proceed with Asia Energy's proposal after vehement protests by local people and the deaths of peaceful protesters in 2006.
Everyone including myself thought that the open-cut mining proposition had been abandoned forever. It is unfortunate for Bangladesh and its people that like Bangladeshi politics, the same old faces and ideas, resurface after lapses of some period. I have been keenly observing different points of view expressed by many individuals within and outside the country. I have also seen the AEC's video presentation depicting what would be the benign visual nature of things after of the project. It is a good piece of advertisement material for selling a product to allure unsuspecting customers. Technical and scientific nature of the project need a different approach.
BHP had an agreement with Bangladesh government for coal exploration and possible subsequent open-cut mine development. One simple question is this: Why would a world renowned international corporation like BHP that has the expertise of surface-mining equal to none in the world leave despite securing such a deal? Almost ten years of negotiations, exploration and spending millions of dollars, BHP discovered Phulbari Coal Deposit in 1997 and left soon after. There must be some overwhelming reason for abandoning such a large coal mine, possible one of the larges in the world, with a production capacity of 15 million tonnes per year, at least according to the AEC's proposal. To understand this, one needs to know the background of BHP's involvement in Bangladesh. Here, I am in a position to fill in the gap.
I was responsible to get BHP involved in Bangladesh coal project. It took 18 long years of sustained effort that started in the seventies. I got a job and immigrated to Australia in September 1970 after resigning from the Pakistan Geological Survey. In early February 1971, I joined Utah Development Company, the biggest coal miner in Australia as a project geologist for coal exploration. Utah's then exploration manager, Oliver Warin, and chief of coal exploration, Ted Milligan, were sympathetic to the Bangladeshi independence movement. During nine months of the War of Independence, and for long afterwards, both of them kept in touch with the movement that I was involved in to mobilise support of the Australian government and the people for the independence of Bangladesh and subsequent recognition.
The initial rapport and understanding cemented a long-term friendship among us and these two became friends of Bangladesh after its independence. In fact the first Utah-BHP delegation to Bangladesh, headed by its senior vice-president, Oliver Warin, had a meeting with the then secretary of energy & mineral resources, Shafiul Alam and his geological experts. Warin, in his speech, mentioned his contact and indirect involvement with Bangladesh since 1971.
Ted, a renowned coal geologist, had an office in Canberra for coal research to locate areas of possible coal deposits in different continents. We often talked about the Jamalganj coal deposit where I worked in 1961-62. I did some literature research on Bangladesh coal based on very limited data I had in my possession at the time: borehole data of Jamalganj, reports on geophysical surveys of seismic, aeromagnetic and gravity by oil companies and the Geological Surveys of Pakistan and India. Based on this study, I could infer that there was a possibility of locating coal deposits at shallow depths in the hidden Rangpur Saddle where graben or half graben structure could have been developed in northwest Bangladesh. Ted agreed with my interpretation.
In late seventies Utah was heavily involved with coal exploration in Australia and many other countries resulted with the discovery of many deposits. I was the senior project geologist at the time and was responsible for the discovery of two coalfields in Australia that earned me professional respect. I was always conscious of my obligation to Bangladesh, the newborn country to whom I owe everything, and wanted to do something tangible in economic development of Bangladesh. I asked Ted to convince Utah's management to permit coal exploration in Bangladesh. He readily agreed and others concurred.
I wrote a letter on behalf of the company in 1979, to Kazi Fazlur Rahman, energy secretary of Bangladesh, expressing coal exploration interest by Utah. This was before Barapukuria was discovered. Bangladesh did not have mining rules for coal exploration by foreign companies at the time. And the secretary's reply was that Utah might come with a proposal to discuss with the government of Bangladesh. The company did not feel enthusiastic enough at that moment to venture into uncertain territory with non-existent mining rules as well as not having enough available geological information. Moreover, the company was heavily involved in coal exploration in Indonesia.
In the meantime by acquisition, BHP became Utah-BHP. In 1983, I left Utah-BHP and started my own geological consultancy. I used to have regular contact with friends and former colleagues. After discovery of Barapukuria in 1984, I was able to get my former colleagues and friends in Utah/BHP interested in Bangladesh coal exploration again.
With my assistance as its geological consultant, BHP started negotiations with the government of Bangladesh in 1987 and continued till 1994 when an agreement was signed on August 20, 1994. I was very much aware of the environmental consequences of coal mining in Bangladesh, even before approaching my colleagues. I got the assurance from Ted Milligan and Oliver Warin that the company would adhere to strict environmental studies similar to Australian requirements if coal deposit discovered in Bangladesh.
BHP was interested in open-cut mining on consideration of several factors. Economics of development costs versus profits by extracting most of the coal, and expertise it had with so many open-cut mines. Ted Milligan took an unusual step to become the project manager of Bangladsh Coal and lived in Dhaka for three years off and on. He never really involved himself so directly in case of other countries. Both Ted and I were not hopeful of finding coal at a shallow depth of around 100 metres that was BHP's benchmark. But we were hoping that BHP's management board would change its decision if a large enough deposit could be discovered and opt for underground mining. My own thinking was that even if BHP left then Bangladesh would get a coalfield discovered free of cost without spending a taka. And the country would then be in a better position to develop, by itself, an underground coal mine in the near future with the help of international financial institutions. We knew BHP would not be able to fulfil environmental requirements similar to Australian standards for strip mining at more than 150metres below the ground.
BHP could not locate a shallow coal deposit around 100m depth; the Phulbari deposit is much deeper between 150m and 260m. BHP knew very well that an open-cut mine at such depth would need multi-dimensional long-term environmental studies besides tackling geological and engineering problems. Considering flood-prone deltaic region having numerous rivers with heavy monsoon rainfall, it is easy to understand that it would be rather impossible to pass through environmental regulations of any country, not to speak of comparable Australian standards.
Moreover, BHP did not want to create another environmental disaster like Ok-Tedi Copper Mine in Papua New Guinea where it had to quickly abandon the mine and paid hefty compensation to the surrounding inhabitants. The poisonous mine water seepages contaminated the nearby river and destroyed everything downstream. It is obvious to any professional person that open-cut coal mining in Bangladesh is far more complex and needs close scrutiny.
In fact, after taking over from BHP, AEC was considering submission of a proposal to the government of Bangladesh for underground mining as the logical option. A copy of that 'Draft Proposal' has come to my hand. It is intriguing, why and how that position has been changed dramatically. Moreover, AEC's (now Global Coal Management) surface mining proposal has a marked difference of 80 per cent export component to that of the agreement of BHP where export was considered for excess quantity after satisfying the need of Bangladesh. This is a vital argument in favour of Bangladesh's energy needs and national interest. Everyone knows Bangladesh's energy need is very acute and the future economic development is very much dependant on this. A new company like AEC that does not have any mining expertise wants to exploit this situation and ask the government and people of Bangladesh to jump on a mirage like a thirsty wonderer in a desert. In spite of global warming, underground mining is a possible and logical proposition for Bangladesh, considering that clean coal technology may be developed in the near future. Underground mine would not produce enough coal to meet Bangladesh's needs. But it would still provide some energy for the country and avoid making manmade disasters for generations to endure. Bangladesh cannot afford the luxury to take that sort of a gamble.
It will not be wise for the Bangladesh government to make a hasty decision for such a complex matter related with vital economic, geological and environmental consequences. My involvement in this project was due to a sense of gratitude to the mother country. If it brings harm instead of benefits for the people of Bangladesh, I would not be able to forgive myself. This is the reason I have taken this step to explain myself in order to solicit forgiveness from those who may have suffered in the recent past and others in the future if such eventuality arises.
Nazrul Islam is a former geological consultant for BHP's Bangladesh Coal Project.
Go home, gringo
Bolivia and Venezuela's expulsion of their US ambassadors exposes yet another faultline in north American foreign
policy, writes Richard Gott
On the 35th anniversary of the military overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile on September 11, 1973, which had the overt support of the United States, the presidents of Bolivia and Venezuela have asked the US ambassadors accredited to their countries to leave.
They both believe they are facing the possibility of an imminent coup d'etat in which they accuse the Americans of being involved. A third country, Paraguay, announced 10 days ago that it had detected a conspiracy involving military officers and opposition politicians. Latin America now faces its most serious crisis since the re-introduction of democratic practice at the end of the last century.
Brazil and Argentina have both denounced the violent activities of opposition groups in Bolivia that have led to the closure of the natural gas pipelines to their countries, while President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela has warned that a coup against Evo Morales of Bolivia would be seen as a 'green light' for an armed insurgency in that country.
Giving details of a planned coup in his own country, in which retired military officers and opposition figures were involved, Chávez announced the expulsion of the US ambassador, Patrick Duddy, and the withdrawal of his own ambassador from Washington. Any aggression against Venezuela, Chávez said, would involve a halt in the supply of Venezuelan oil to the United States.
Chávez's decision came one day after President Morales had thrown out the US ambassador in La Paz, Philip Goldberg, who has been frequently accused by the Bolivian government of plotting with the separatist politicians in the eastern province of Santa Cruz.
The situation in Bolivia is immediately more dramatic than in Venezuela, although both countries are facing important electoral battles at the end of the year.
Evo Morales, an indigenous politician from the Andes in the west of the country, has organised a referendum on a new constitution to which the rightwing (and white racist) politicians in the eastern lowlands are bitterly opposed. The atmosphere of violence has now broken into the open, with endless political demonstrations and several deaths, the seizure of provincial airports, and sabotage of the oil and gas installations on which the country's economy depends. Morales has accused the regional governors of the five eastern regions of creating the conditions for a coup.
Chávez originally announced his decision to expel the US ambassador from Caracas as an act of solidarity with Morales - 'so that Bolivia is not alone'. But it was soon clear that he had his own possible coup d'etat to deal with. A tape recording of phone conversations between retired military officers, some of whom were involved in the failed coup of April 2002, was broadcast on Venezuelan television on Wednesday night, revealing plans to seize the Miraflores presidential palace and to capture or shoot down the presidential plane.
The suggestion that there were plans to assassinate the president brought large crowds down from the shanty towns on Thursday night to demonstrate their solidarity with Chávez. Several of the alleged conspirators have been detained. Venezuela, like Bolivia, has an uncertain pre-election climate, since there will be regional and municipal elections in November that will be viewed as a judgment on the popularity of the president.
The possible coup in Paraguay appears less serious, since it only appeared to involve preliminary discussions between retired General Lino Oviedo, an old hand at failed coups, and a serving officer. Yet since the government of the left-wing former bishop, Fernando Lugo, has only been in power since August, tales of a possible coup have reverberated through the continent. Brazil declared pointedly that it would not tolerate a coup in Bolivia 'or in any other Latin American country'.
The US is, of course, preoccupied with Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, but whichever presidential candidate takes over in January will also find Latin America at the top of his in-tray.
Guardian/UK, September 12, 2008
Obama or McCain?
Obama exhibits self-confident flexibility instead of self-convinced strong-headedness, one who has the genuine charisma and media-savvy to win over all the cynics, the fearful and the envious who now dismiss him as an inexperienced, lightweight celebrity, writes Maswood Alam Khan from Berkeley, California
After World War II, America became a big hero. The American president was in a way deemed the president of the world and the only rival that used to flex its muscle as a superpower in the global theatre was the Soviet Union. With disintegration of the Soviet Union, America has apparently become the sole lord of the whole world.
A series of recent misadventures on the global stage during the Bush presidency has, however, seemed to have sent the mighty United States into an ever deeper morose. And especially since 9/11, the greatest military power in the world seems to have been holed up in an ignominious bunker, as if the wounded former giant now and again ventures out only to lob water balloons at perceived bullies in a frenzy of pre-emptive attacks in the name of vigilance against threat of terrorism which to a neutral observer seems paranoiac.
With no other superpower existent, an enemy was necessary to motivate American people on one hand to pay the premium for maintaining their gargantuan war machinery and to stimulate American youth on the other hand to shed blood in the name of defending American interests at home and abroad. Imaginary foes have thus successfully been constructed. The first foe was Iraq - a 'soft target' that the most sophisticated American war machinery were successfully deployed to hit and experiment with.
Mikhail Gorbachev, the ex-president of the USSR, has accused the United States of imperialistic conspiracy against Russia, and of pushing the world to a new Cold War. 'The USA can't put up with the fact that somebody in the world is independent of it,' Gorbachev told The Daily Telegraph. 'Every American president must wage war,' he added.
America has been stuck in an outmoded delusion of grandeur in imagining itself as the sole sage and the other 200 countries wrong, sinful, idiotic - and envious of its unquestionable blessings and intent on bringing America down.
But, American people have been tired of such false delusion and are now eager to see a change in American lookout. Americans are eager to see no more sacrifice of their youth's life at far flung war frontiers when countries like China and India are continuing to build up their economies to rival and ultimately to surpass America, the so-called sole lord. The past eight years of American administration has been of sheer unilateralism when the world has grown increasingly multilateral for greater impact on the global stage through cooperation.
The world rebukes China for its human rights policies but China controls America's purse strings by purchasing securities America needs to sell to bail out its flailing financial institutions. With all its problems and handicaps, China is growing while the United States is sitting moribund and stagnant.
The enthusiasm of people around the world at the probable election of Barack Obama as the next American president suggests that the world still believes in America as its hero despite its role as a spoiler in the progress of the world. The world wants an American president who knows that 200 other countries exist. It is time for the USA to show the world that America is an idea and not a mere geographical locale on the planet earth.
This is clearly a fine hour in US history, not only for American people but for all the people of the world. The USA has already mishandled many global issues as American voters could not presage how their elected president would react to the needs of the hour. Unless the US can renew itself and draw on all its resources of creativity and intelligence, this great country will simply join the list of failed civilisations. The key to success will be in the leadership and the US election on November 4 hinges on the perception of who can provide that leadership.
Barack Obama is one who taps into the youth culture that is a global phenomenon today. He is one who looks fearlessly at the big picture of the world and sees the modern global culture as it is. He is one who exhibits self-confident flexibility instead of self-convinced strong-headedness, one who has the genuine charisma and media-savvy to win over all the cynics, the fearful and the envious who now dismiss him as an inexperienced, lightweight celebrity.
The unpopular Iraq war, an unpopular president, and a tanked economy will favour the Democrats, no doubt. Obama will gain from minorities but will lose some of the white working class voters who are comparatively old. Young whites will subscribe to youthful Obama's zealous vision. The vast majority of those who voted for Hilary Clinton will also come back, no matter how angry they were when Obama had battled with Hilary.
John McCain's strength in terms of the Republican Party is that he does have the image of the maverick and moderate, at a time when there is a sour mood in the US, directed mostly at President Bush. However, a McCain presidency could get defined as the third term of George W Bush by Americans who loath to analyse a candidate's full profile in depth before casting their votes.
John McCain may have to prove that he is formidable. He has had to walk a fine line in terms of distancing himself from Bush, and has, so far, done well. The downside is his age. He has already been showing his age. It will be a tough, uphill climb for him. The issue of national security, however, will be seen as his strength. He could, for example, really try to stress that he is someone with reform credentials to change Washington that are as good, if not better than Obama's.
Obama, on the other hand, will have to indirectly focus on the negatives: that McCain is an old man who is out of touch and one who sold his soul to the devil on taxes to win the approval of President Bush. But, Obama should respect the fact that McCain is 'old'. In politics, he must not forget that being older is often an asset.
The Democratic Party's nomination has been such a rocky ride for Obama and hats off to him for his having handled his journey towards the White House in such a great manner. He has already earned the respect of most of the people who had voted for Clinton in the primaries. Senator Clinton herself has also bowed to his aura and crowd pulling capabilities.
Certainly, there is Obama's relative inexperience in politics and public life though Americans know that Abraham Lincoln was also elected president with little or no experience. In the present context, however, Obama's lack of experience may make him an easy play for the Russians, the Chinese and the other authoritarian regimes and dictatorships. On the other hand, McCain is experienced and understands the nature of international politics.
There will also be problems revolving around Obama's race and ideology. His challenge will be to sustain the mood of enthusiasm. He did draw wonderful crowds, and there has been an extraordinary turnout of young people wherever Obama spoke; but whether they turn out to vote in November remains to be seen.
Obama's main challenge is to make himself known to more and more people; to tell his story, to share his values and to make people comfortable with him, so that in the remaining weeks he can focus on substantive issues on economic and international affairs to prove his élan in those areas.
What is worrying is that race, God forbid, may be a major driving force in this election. It is unsaid in most circles but many worry about it silently. It is not yet clear just how much of a factor race will be. If Obama does not win the presidency, his race may be cited as the reason why.
Many Americans feel that the country has gone off on the wrong track. High price of gas is viewed by Americans as Bush's direct contribution though pundits know well that the oil price is not dependent on the US alone..
A good number of Americans don't care for either Obama or McCain because they think that both of them will only take the US down the same path it has been on. The US, to their opinion, needs to focus on economy, gas and domestic issues and let the world solve their own quarrels and wars.
Mishandling of the Iraq war by the Bush administration is going to be one of the deciding factors this time around and the Republican candidate McCain must prove that he is truly a maverick and not someone who will continue the Bush policies. However, although McCain now touts himself as the candidate who will reform Washington, he does not appear to support any major policy shift from the last eight years.
Given the political and economic atmosphere now prevalent in American, Obama rather than McCain holds the advantage going into the November 4 elections.
Maswood Alam Khan is the general manager, Bangladesh Krishi Bank
‘Quick Comments’, (01713-065-354, letters@newagebd.com, quickcomments@gmail.com ) seeks the readers’ instant reaction ondifferent national and international issues. Comments should be brief, not exceeding 150 words. Submissions should mention ‘Quick Comments’ and will be subject to editing for quality and clarity..
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
