RE: FW: My article on West Seti Project

October 7, 2010

Er. Sagar Gnawali
Gulmi

Dear Sagar

I am happy to note that you are a fast learner. It was me who brought up the issue of project life and the cost of “Decommissioning” for the first time that Nepal will have to bear under present arrangement, if implemented as it is. I have dealt with all these issues in my article published in Hydro Nepal which can be accessed by clicking the link below:

http://www.ratnasansar.com/2009/09/erer.html

What you need to understand is that it will not be possible to cover all these issue in an article of about 800 words. In the article you are referring to I am merely trying to draw people’s attention to two issues:

1.       This project should be built in the interest of Nepal and people of Nepal.

2.       I am also suggesting a number of modalities that will ensure the above.

I Hope you will be able to understand the message carried by this article in the above light.

Take care and keep in touch.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha, fca

Senior Water Resource Analyst

http:www.RatnaSansar.com/

-----Original Message-----
From: Sagar Mani Gnawali [mailto:sagar.gnawali@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 3, 2010 9:52
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: FW: My article on West Seti Project

Ranta Sir,

  You are not talking about the life of the project. I think such type of project could not run more than 30/35 year because of sanitation.

     I have heard that 70 MW of electricity will get by Nepal in Free.

Selling of the electricity in india in Very little price and getting 70 MW of electricity is Like a Nepali slogan  KHUKHURO THALIYARA BOKO

KATTNU.

   I think with out foreign investment we could not complete this project. I have studied about the increasing energy demand of Nepal. I

think one day the cost of fossils fuel will be go very high, At that time all house hold application and activities will totally turned in

Electricity. At that time the demand of electricity will increase in high rate. I think this is my projection of Nepal after 10/12 year. At

that time how we run the country?

On 10/3/10, Ratna Sansar Shrestha wrote:

> Dear Colleague

> 

> 

> 

> Attached please find my article on the captioned topic. I am forwarding it

> to you in case you have yet to read it. If you have problem opening the

> attachment, you can also peruse it by following the link below:

> 

Re: FW: My article on West Seti Project

October 6, 2010

Prof. Dr Mohan Lohani

Kathmandu

Dear Prof. Lohani

Thanks for emailing your comments.

I have come to understand that someone needs to take up a crusade to point out that the emperor is “naked” (the vision is defective, policies are harebrained and most people are corrupt) and I am wont to do it without mincing words. I do come up with strong critique due to which people have branded me as antidevelopment, which is absolutely wrong. In the limited space of about 800 to 1200 words, there is very little one could articulate and, hence, only critical expressions get aired.

In the captioned article I have tried to sketch how a project should be built in the interest of Nepal and Nepali people. This is an example of my vision for most of the projects related to water resource. I have written an article on vision for new Nepal driven by water resources, which can be accessed by following the link below:

http://www.ratnasansar.com/2008/12/nepals-water-resource-and-new-nepal.html

I hope Indian people, politicos, bureaucracy et al and people in Nepal serving Indian interest are able to understand that this vision is not anti-Indian. This is a model that affords a win-win situation for both Nepal and India. They need to grow up and understand that projects that do not serve Nepali interest will not get built as the likes of us won’t allow such projects to be implemented (cancellation of current incarnation of West Seti project is a good example) and without having a project built in Nepal, India will never stand to get downstream benefits like flood control and water for irrigation during dry season without which she won’t be able to feed her ever increasing population. They need to remember that Ganga plain is her only granary and without arranging to have water in the rainy season stored in Nepal’s hills, it won’t be able to increase cropping intensity there.  Necessary water, for example, to irrigate 1.5 million hectares of land can stored in one single project – upper Karnali – while we have only 1.6 million hectares of land in the whole Terai where water stored in the projects in mid hills could potentially be used.

Building a storage project entails cost for Nepal in terms of inundation of large tracks of land and displacement of local populace and they should not dream of building such a project without making necessary arrangement to recompense Nepal for this cost which could be in the lines of what Lesotho or Canada receives from South Africa and USA respectively. People in Nepal need to learn this and Indians need to be prepared to recompense Nepal for such costs.

With best regards,


Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha, fca
Senior Water Resource Analyst

http:www.RatnaSansar.com/

From: Mohan Lohani [mailto:m_p_lohani@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 3, 2010 13:05
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: {Disarmed} Re: FW: My article on West Seti Project

Dear Ratna Sansarji, Your West Seti Project article is commendable as it accords high priority to national interest.You are right if this multi-purpose project does not suit India's interest,we should make use of it by generating electricity and by irrigating our own land.But we should not shake our legs while negotiating with India terms and conditions for power deal .We always fail when we allow our own interest to supersede the larger interest . Tks and regds, Mohan Lohani --- On Sat, 10/2/10, Ratna Sansar Shrestha <rsansar@mos.com.np> wrote: From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha <rsansar@mos.com.np> Subject: FW: My article on West Seti Project To: "Ratna Sansar Shrestha" <rsansar@mos.com.np> Date: Saturday, October 2, 2010, 11:12 PM Dear Colleague Attached please find my article on the captioned topic. I am forwarding it to you in case you have yet to read it. If you have problem opening the attachment, you can also peruse it by following the link below: http://www.ratnasansar.com/2010/10/blog-post_02.html Please feel free to forward it to those who you feel should read it. With best regards, Sincerely, Ratna Sansar Shrestha, fca Senior Water Resource Analyst

RE: My article on West Seti Project

October 4, 2010

Dr Chiran S Thapa
Naxal, Kathmandu

Chiranjee

The attachment was “written” in preeti font. If you were unable to open the attachment, the reason could be that you don’t have that font installed in your computer.

I fully agree with you that we should aim to use the electricity domestically and export the rest. But we need to bargain hard and also learn to bargain well too. Most of the time, people supposed to negotiate on behalf Nepal have always put their personal interest above national interest.

With best regards,

Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha, fca

Senior Water Resource Analyst

http:www.RatnaSansar.com/

-----Original Message-----
From: C.S. Thapa [mailto:cst21@hermes.cam.ac.uk] On Behalf Of C.S. Thapa
Sent: Sunday, October 3, 2010 19:35
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: Re: FW: My article on West Seti Project

Ratna Sansarji,

I was able to read the article in your blogsite but the attached was as much of a jumble as ever.

I like your idea of a model for Nepal's six thousand rivers - but as in the thousands of items consumers buy the right price is I think the key to use

both internally and for export. Need for a great enterprise for the single objective of a bargain always and for every river?

best,

Chiran

On Oct 3 2010, Ratna Sansar Shrestha wrote:

>Dear Colleague

> 

>

> 

>Attached please find my article on the captioned topic

Indian Hurdles to power export to India and Arun III

October 4, 2010

Bhubanesh Kumar Pradhan
Former Secretary,

Ministry of Water Resources

Dear Bhubaneshjee

Thank you so much for your solidarity.

I agree with you that we need to continue with "Lutaremos Siempre".

Further, I also agree with you that it is wrong to offer Arun III to India on a silver platter. I am raising my voice stridently against it. There is no point in building it for India while depriving our eastern development region of necessary power for its industries and further industrialization.

However, my analysis shows that it was a step in the right direction to cancel Arun III in 1995. I have written an in-depth article on this issue which touches dwells on both incarnations of Arun III. I have uploaded this article in my website which can be accessed by clicking the link below:

http://www.ratnasansar.com/2009/03/arun-iii-project-nepals-electricity.html

With best regards,


Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha, fca
Senior Water Resource Analyst

http:www.RatnaSansar.com/

From: Bhubanesh Pradhan [mailto:bhubaneshpradhan@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2010 19:20
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Subject: {Disarmed} Re: Hurdles of power

Dear Ratna Sansarji,

Thank you for copying to me "Hurdles of Power" through contact.I really appreciate your raising awareness in our water resources issuses.If we are not to raise our voices, anything can happen here.

When we were about to start Arun 3 with the assistance of  the World Bank, the vested lobby at the instance of the forces against the Nepalese interest made hue and cry leading to the cancellation of the Project. Yet when the same project was given in a silver platter to the same forces, nobody raised a word about the deal. This is Nepal that you understand and I faced during uneasy years in my gvernment service.

We should always continue to struggle. In Spanish, they call it "Lutaremos Siempre" (We always struggle). We simply give continuity to our struggle and the struggle goes on. Thank you once again for your relentless effort. 

With regards, 

Yours sincerely,

bkpradhan

---

From: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
To: Ratna Sansar Shrestha
Sent: Sun, September 26, 2010 8:45:18 AM
Subject: FW: Hurdles to power import from Nepal

Dear Pokhareljee

Thanks a lot for your solidarity.

Your question below has been responded to by the outcry that ensued release of press communiqué on water resource released by UCPNM last week.

नेपालको हितमा पश्चिम सेती आयोजना बन्नुपर्छ

हालै पश्चिम सेती आयोजनाको कार्यालय बन्द भएको समाचार प्रेषित भयो भने यस आयोजनाको इन्टरनेट वेबसाइट पनि बन्द हुनाले के कति कारणले कार्यालय बन्द गरियो प्रष्ट छैन । अझ अस्ट्रेलिया स्थित मूल प्रबद्र्धक कम्पनी स्नोई माउन्टेनस् इन्जिनियिरंग कर्पोरेशन स्मेकको वेबसाइटमा समेत यस आयोजना सम्बन्धमा केहि पनि उल्लेख नहुनु आश्चर्यजनक छ ।


संबिधान उल्लंघन
यस सम्बन्धमा नेपाल सरकारले गरेको सम्झौता संबिधानको धारा १५८ अनुरुप संसदीय अनुमोदन नगराइएकोले संबिधान उल्लंघन हुनाको अतिरिक्त संसदको अधिकार पनि हनन् भएको जीकिर लिएर सार्वजनिक सरोकारको रिट निवेदन सर्बोच्च अदालतमा दायर गरिएबाट यस आयोजनाका धेरै शुभेच्छुकहरु हतास बनेका थिए राष्ट्रघात खोतल्नेहरुले गर्दा आयोजना कार्यान्वयन नहुने चिन्ताले । तर यस सम्बन्धमा संसदीय अनुमोदन अनावश्यक ठहर् याउंने त्रुटीपूर्ण फैसला आएपछि यो आयोजना कार्यान्वयनमा जानुको सट्टा आयोजना कार्यालय नैं बन्द गरियो ।

यस पंक्तिकार लगायतका अधिकांश आलोचकहरुले यो आयोजना कार्यान्वयन नहोस् भनेर कहिल्यै चाहेका थिएनन् नगण्य अपवाद वाहेक । मुलुकलाई फाईदा हुने नैं भए पनि संबिधान मिचेर संसदको अधिकार कुण्ठित पारेर फाइदाको पछि लाग्नु हुन्न संबैधानिक प्रकृया पूरा गरिनुपर्छ भन्ने मात्र धारणा थियो । अझ यस पंक्तिकारको विश्लेषणमा सम्पन्न सम्झौता अनुरुप कार्यान्वयन गर्दा देश र जनतालाई तात्विक रुपमा लाभ हुने देखिन्न । त्यसैले सुदूर र मध्य पश्चिमााचल विकास क्षेत्रका जनता अनि समग्र मुलुकलाई वास्तविकरुपमा लाभान्वित हुने गरेर निर्माण गरिनुपर्छ भन्ने धारणा थियो र छ पनि । तर यस सम्बन्धमा सतहीरुपमा बुझ्नेहरुले र बुझेर पनि बुझपचाउनेहरुले यस्तो कुरा अभिव्यक्त गर्नेलाई विकास बिरोधिको बिल्ला भिराउने गरेकाछन् ।

संबिधान मिचिएको र संसदको अधिकार कुण्ठित भएको सन्दर्भमा अरु दलहरुले चासो नदेखाएपनि एमाओबादीले हालै एक बिज्ञप्ती प्रकाशित गरेको सराहनिय छ । आशा छ अरु दलहरुको पनि आंखा चांडै्र उघ्रने छ ननिदाई निदाएको बहाना गरेकोमा बाहेक ।

बिद्युत बजार र निकासी दर
७ सय ५० मेगावाट क्षमताको जलाशययुक्त आयोजना हुनाले यसबाट उच्च गुणस्तरको बिजुली वार्षिक ३ अर्ब ६३ करोड युनिट उत्पादन हुन्छ । बेमौसमी फलपुूल अथवा काउलीले झैं यस्तो बिजुलीले सापेक्षरुपमा बढी मूल्य पाउंछ । नेपालले अहिले भारतबाट सस्तोमा प्रति युनिट ७ रुपैया ८० पैसा र महंगोमा १० रुपैया ७२ पैसा मा आयात गरिहेकोमा यो भन्दा माथिल्लो स्तरको बिजुली भारतमा ३ रुपैया ७५ पैसामा निकासी गर्ने बन्दोबस्त प्रबद्र्धकले गरेकोमा पनि जलश्रोतको क्षेत्रमा काम गर्ने सचेतवर्ग धेरै आक्रोशित छन् । यत्ति गुणस्तरको बिजुली खनिज इन्धनबाट उत्पादन गर्दा प्रति युनिट २० रुपैया भन्दा बढी पर्ने परिप्रेक्ष्यमा बिस्थापित लागत अंग्रेजीमा अभ्वाईडेड कष्ट को एक चौथाई भन्दा पनि कम दरमा निकासी गरेर नेपालले प्राप्त गर्ने रोयल्टी लगायतका राजश्वमा पनि ठगिने अवस्था थियो ।

यस आयोजनालाई किन निकासीमूलक बनाइयो भन्ने सम्बन्धमा केहि स्वनामधनी उर्जाबिद्हरुले नेपालमा बजार अभाव छ भन्ने गरेकाछन् जुन यस पंक्तिकारको विश्लेषणसंग मेल खांदैन । १० हजार मेगावाट कार्यदलले पनि यो आयोजना सम्पन्न हुने बेला सम्ममा यो आयोजनाको सबै बिजुली नेपालमा नैं खपत हुने विश्लेषण गरेकोबाट पनि भ्रम चिर्ने काम केहि हद सम्म भएको छ ।


बाढी नियन्त्रण र सुख्खायाममा िसंचाई
यो एउटा जलाशययुक्त आयोजना हुनाले वर्षातमा परेको पानी यसको जलाशयमा १ अर्ब ५६ करोड घन मिटर संचित हुन्छ । यसरी पानी संचित हुनाले तल्लो तटीय क्षेत्र दुई किसिमले लाभान्वित हुन्छ वर्षातमा ४ महिना बाढी नियन्त्रित भएर र सुख्खायाममा ८ महिना िसंचाई गर्नको लागि ९० घन मिटर प्रति सेकेन्ड पानी नियन्त्रितरुपमा थप उपलब्ध भएर । कोलम्बिया सन्धी अन्तर्गत संयुक्त राज्य अमेरिका यस्तै प्रकारले लाभान्वित हुंदा माथिल्लो तटीय राज्य क्यानाडाले यस्ता लाभ बापत तल्लो तटीय राज्यबाट रकम प्राप्त गरेको नजीर छ । लेसोथोले पनि १८ घन मिटर पानी उपलब्ध गराए बापत दक्षिण अपि्रुकाबाट वार्षिक अढाई करोड डलर प्राप्त गर्दछ ।

तल्लो तटीय क्षेत्रले बाढी नियन्त्रणको फाइदा पाउंदा के कति रकमले लाभान्वित हुन्छ भन्ने सम्बन्धमा आयोजना प्रबद्र्धक तथा नेपाल सरकारले कुनै पनि अध्ययन नगरे नगराएकोले किटानीका साथ भन्न सकिने अवस्था छैन । तर सुख्खायाममा नियन्त्रित रुपमा ९० घन मिटर प्रति सेकेन्ड पानी यो परिमाणको पानीले धान वाहेकको पानी फारो हुने खेती गरेमा २ लाख ७० हजार हेक्टर िसंचाई हुन्छ थप पाएबापत लेसोथो र दक्षिण अपि्रुका बीच तोकिएको दर प्रयोग गर्दा भारतबाट नेपालले वार्षिक ८ करोड ३३ लाख डलर बराबर ६ अर्ब २५ करोड रुपैया प्राप्त हुनुपर्ने देखिन्छ ।

केहि भारतीय विशेषज्ञ अनि केहि भारतको पृष्ठपोषणरत स्वनामधनी नेपाली विज्ञहरुले बगेको पानीको पैसा लिन मिल्दैन भन्ने गरेका छन् । अचम्म त के हो भने यी तिनै विज्ञ हुन् जसले नदीमा त्यसै बगेको पानी जसको कुनै आर्थिक-वित्तिय मूल्य हुंदैन बगेर खेर गयो भनेर दोहर् याउने गर्छन । जलाशयमा संचित पानी भनेको बाढी ल्याउने वर्षातको पानी होइन जुन बगेर जांदा आर्थिक÷वित्तिय हिसाबले खेर गएको ठहर्दैन । बरु वर्षातको पानीले बाढी पहिरो भूस्खलन ल्याउंछ र धनजन नोक्सानी गराउंछ । तर आयोजनाको जलाशयबाट थप पानी नियन्त्रित रुपमा उपलब्ध गराउन नेपालले ३ हजार हेक्टर बराबर खेतीयोग्य भूमि वनजगल पूर्वाधार संरचना पर्यटकीय स्थल डुबानमा पर्न जान्छ र करीब १३ हजार स्थानिय बासिन्दा बिस्थापित हुन्छन् । यी नेपालको गैर नगद लगानि हो र यस्तो पानी निशुल्क प्रदान गर्नु बुद्धिमत्तापूर्ण कार्य होइन ।

नेपाली जनता विस्थापित हुने गरेर नेपालको भूभाग डुबाउनाको औचित्य दुई अवस्थामा मात्र हुन्छ । पानीबाट भारतको तल्लो तटीय क्षेत्र लाभान्वित हुने अवस्थामा माथि उल्लिखित रकम नेपालले पाउने भएमा अथवा यस आयोजनालाई बहुउद्देश्यीय बनाएर िसंचाईबाट नेपालले नैं लाभ प्राप्त गर्ने भएमा ।
आयोजनाको लागि वित्तिय व्यवस्था
एक अर्ब २० करोड डलर लागत लाग्ने भनिएको यस आयोजना निर्माणार्थ ९० करोड डलर ऋण लिएमा ३० करोड डलर डलरको ७५ रुपैयाको हिसाबले २२ अर्ब ५० करोड रुपैया बराबर पूंजी स्वरुप लगानि गर्नु पर्ने देखिन्छ । जुन रकम ४ वर्ष सुख्खायाममा नियन्त्रित पानी थप उपलब्ध गराए बापत भारतबाट प्राप्त हुनु पर्ने रकम बराबर हो । यो मोडेलमा कार्यान्वयन गरेमा एउटा पक्षले गुमाएर अर्को पक्ष बढी लाभान्वित हुने अवस्था आउंदैन र आयोजना कार्यान्वयनको लागि सकारात्मक वातावरण बन्छ । तर सुख्खायाममा थप पानी नियन्त्रित रुपमा पाएबापत रकम तिर्न भारत तयार नभएमा र आवश्यक खेतीयोग्य जमिन नेपालको यस भेगमा उपलब्ध नभएमा यस भेगको खेतीयोग्य जमिनको आवश्यकता अनुरुप यो आयोजनाको बांधको उचाई घटाएर डुबानमा पर्ने जमिनको क्षेत्रफल र बिस्थापित हुने जनसंख्या समेत घटाएर यो आयोजनालाई कार्यान्वयनमा लैजानु पर्छ । नेपाल भित्रै बिजुली र पानी खपत गर्ने गरेर यो आयोजना निर्माण गरिएमा संसदीय अनुमोदनको प्रकृयामा पनि जान आवश्यक हुन्न ।

निश्कर्ष
यो आयोजना नेपालका ६ हजार नदी नालामा बन्न सक्ने राम्रा आयोजनाहरु मध्ये एक हो । यो आयोजना नेपाल र नेपालीको उच्चतम् हितको लागि कार्यान्वयन गरिनुपर्छ । हालको अवधारणामा बनाइने हो भने बिजुलीको बिस्थापित लागतको आधारमा दर तोकेर निकासी गर्ने र सुख्खायाममा उपलब्ध हुने थप नियन्त्रित पानीको समुचित रकम नेपालले पाउने व्यवस्था हुनुपर्छ । यस प्रति भारत सकारात्मक नभएमा यस आयोजनाको पानीले नेपालमा िसंचाई गर्नको लागि आवश्यक पानीको परिमाणको आधारमा बाँधको उचाई कायम गरेर यसलाई बहुउद्दश्यीय आयोजनाको रुपमा कार्यान्वयन गरिनुपर्छ ।

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

२०६७ आश्विन १७ गतेको नेपाल साप्ताहिकमा प्रकाशित

मोहि माग्ने ढुग्रो लुकाउने

October 3, 2010

Paras Kharel
Kathmandu

Parasjee

I am glad that you are following my writings.

There is a proverb in Nepali: मोहि माग्ने ढुग्रो लुकाउने

Most of the Indians and their agents in Nepal will never accept that Indian interest is in the downstream benefits, not electricity. They are happy to have our hydrocracy believe that India needs electricity from Nepal and not mention a word about the downstream benefit which they stand to get free of cost along with good quality power at cheap rate. They would even go on to add that Nepal should arrange to export before India starts generating nuclear power. Therefore, what you are proposing will require them to be honest and truthful which is not their wont.

One good example is 400 kV transmission line from Dhalkebar to Mujaffarpur. Nepal is borrowing form WB to build it in the belief that it will be used to import power from India to mitigate loadshedding problem in Nepal. In actuality, Mujaffarpur suffers from severe power deficit problem and this network will be actually used to evacuate power from Arun III and Tamakoshi 3 projects. In the normal course, investment in such infrastructure is the obligation of the importer (India in this case) or the project itself. But Nepal’s hydrocracy is so smart by half that we are investing in something, someone else should have invested.

ve

With best regards,


Sincerely,

Ratna Sansar Shrestha, fca
Senior Water Resource Analyst

http:www.RatnaSansar.com/

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: paras kharel <kharelparas@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:36 AM
Subject: query
To: ratna.sansar@gmail.com

Dear Ratna Sansar ji,

I follow your articles on issues concerning national interest, mainly through your blog. 

I would appreciate if I could get your take on the following (if and when you have the time):

If it is downstream benefits that the other side is really interested in from hydroelectricity projects here (as in the case of Upper Karnali or West Seti), then wouldn't it be wise for them to ask their proxy private sector to sell electricity to the Nepali market (since domestic demand is surely there) even as they appropriate the downstream benefits free of cost? Of course, ideally we need to be paid for the downstream benefits, but the scenario I mentioned looks better than what we current have -- exporting away our power as well as not getting paid for the downstream benefits. Why do you think the other side doesn't take the route that I just mentioned?

Best regards,

Paras Kharel

Nomination for "foot in mouth award" - UCPNM stoppage of hydropower projects

The ASS is nominated for "foot in mouth award" her/his asinine comments last week (NT # 521) about "stoppage of 14 hydroelectric projects that together would generate 5,000 MW" for effectively implying that the load shedding problem in Nepal will not be mitigated due to the stoppage. As most of these projects are dedicated for export, Nepal's load shedding problem will be impervious to these being built or not. Meaning load shedding problem in Nepal will not be solved even if these are to be built. These are being planned to be built to mitigate the load shedding problem across the border; in contravention of Nepal's constitution. Moreover, some are being undertaken to arrange water for irrigation in India during the dry season by impounding rain water in the reservoirs to be built which will inundate Nepal's fertile land, forest, tourist sites, existing infrastructure, etc. and also displace local populace. This arrangement too breaches constitutional provision and also ignores the precedents set by treaties between Canada and USA as well as Lesotho and South Africa.

Ratna Sansar Shrestha

Published in NT 522 if October 1-6, 2010