சேது சமுத்திரத் திட்டம் பற்றி நரசய்யா முன்வைக்கும் கருத்துகளை இப்படிச் சுருக்கிச் சொல்லலாம். 1. இந்தத் திட்டம் தமிழர்களின் கனவு என்று சொல்லவே முடியாது. எந்தத் தமிழரும் இதனை முன்வைக்கவில்லை. 1860 முதல் 1922 வரை பல்வேறு ஆங்கிலேயர்கள்தாம் இந்தத் திட்டத்தை முன்வைத்துள்ளனர். 2. ஒரு கடற்பொறியாளராக, பல கப்பல்களில் உலகம் முழுதும் பயணம் செய்தவராக, NEERI அமைப்பு முன்வைத்திருக்கும் கட்டுப்பாடுகள் பலவும் செயல்படுத்த முடியாதவை என்று நரசய்யா கருதுகிறார். 3. தூரம், காலம் ஆகியவற்றில் ஏற்படும் சேமிப்பு என்று திட்டத்தினர் சொல்வதை நரசய்யா மறுக்கிறார். மாற்றுக் கணக்கைக் காண்பிக்கிறார். மேலும் 30,000 டன் கப்பலைப் பொருத்தமட்டில், சேதுக் கால்வாயைப் பயன்படுத்தினால், செலவு அதிகரிக்கத்தான் செய்யும் என்கிறார். (இதெல்லாம் எனக்கு முழுமையாகப் புரியாத விஷயங்கள்.) இந்தக் காரணங்களால் திட்டத்தை மறுபரிசீலனை செய்யவேண்டும். விரும்புவோர் அந்தக் கட்டுரையை முழுமையாகப் படியுங்கள். மேலே சுட்டி கொடுத்துள்ளேன். Sethusamudram Canal Project As a mariner I have objections to the proposed Sethusamudram Canal Project. I can very well say that it will be a project of great expenditure with very little return. In addition, digging the canal will be tampering with the environment. I shall narrate my reasoning as under: The canal was envisaged only by the English and not by any Tamil. It is often said that this is a hundred year dream of Tamils. No Tamilian ever dreamt of a canal here. A lot of wrong and dissimilar comparisons are often made. Some times it is compared to Suez Canal. The three well known man-made canals are Suez, Panama and the Kiel. All of them were carved out of Isthmuses. Nowhere a strait of this narrow nature has been made into a canal. Even the Magellan straits are dreaded by the navigators. I shall now recall the history of the canal suggestions. Between 1860 and 1922, as many as nine proposals were made for cutting a ship channel across the narrow strip of land to connect the Gulf of Mannar and the Palk Bay with the object of providing a short-cut for ocean-going ships plying between the West Coast of India and the East Coast. These were: 1. 1860 Commander Taylor’s proposal 2. 1861 Mr. Townsend’s proposal 3. 1862 Parliamentary Committee’s proposal 4. 1863 Sir William Dennison’s R.E. (Governor of Madras) proposal 5. 1871 Mr. Stoddart’s proposal 6. 1872 Mr. Robertson’s (Harbour Engineer for India) proposal 7. 1884 Sir John Code’s proposal for South India Ship Canal, Port & Coaling Station, Limited 8. 1903 S.I. Railway Engineer’s proposal based on their survey 9. 1922 Sir Robert Bristow’s (Harbour Engineer to the Government of Madras) proposal Some of the points made by environmental clearance research organization (NEERI): All the ships originating from Tutitcorin Port will comply with International Maritime Standards and follow MARPOL Convention (MARPOL 73/78) Discharge of bilge, ballast, treated sewage, solid wastes, oily wastes and spillage of cargo will not be allowed in the Gulf of Mannar area A pilot will board the vessel to navigate the ship through GOM area up to Bay of Bengal channel The traffic of crude oil tankers will be allowed in this route with strict vigilance so as to avoid any possibility of spillage in this region It will be ensured that ships navigating in this region should not use such paints and anti-corrosive agents on ship bottom, which is known to cause damage to marine organisms A pilot should be trained or an environmental watcher will board the ship to watch marine animals viz. turtle, dolphins, sea cow etc. in the region and navigate the ship safely avoiding any damage to this fauna. It will be ensured that all the ships berthing at TPT as well as all those using the route without touching TPT will have proper treatment facilities for sewage. However, discharge of treated sewage will not be permitted in GOM area Ship bypassing TPT and transiting the canal will be inspected for its navigational safety measures before it is allowed to enter the proposed navigation route An oil spill contingency plan will be drawn by Tuticorin Port Trust with preparedness to prevent spread of spillage in Gulf of Mannar and Palk Bay area and its immediate recovery by deploying equipments and ships To benefit large fishing communities in the coastal areas of Ramanathpuram and Rameswaram, a corridor both in terms of space and time be provided to fisherman to use the canal in Adam’s Bridge area for moving across Palk Bay to GOM and vice versa for fishing activity The jetties at Rameswaram are in dilapidated conditions. A programme to construct a few jetties at Pamban Island to augment fishing activity in the region to be supported by TPT The traffic of ships carrying crude oil will be handled with strict vigilance so as to avoid possibility of spillage The oil spill contingency plan in operation at TPT will be extended to navigation activities in a new channel A pilot will board the vessel either from Rameswaram or appropriate place to navigate the ship through GOM area up to Bengal Channel in Palk Bay The channel will be properly marked by navigational light buoys Accidents by collision of ships with fishing boats will be totally prevented by slowing down the cruise speed and also alerting the fisherman by cautionary measures. During implementation and operational phases of the project, TPT will take action to prevent the collisions of ships with fishing boats or damage to fishing nets with the cooperation of fishing communities, Navy, Coast Guards and other Government authorities Suitable timings, apart from ship transit, will be given to fishermen to continue with their fishing activities Will all these be observed? Or is it possible to monitor all these? If so, at what cost? While talking about saving in cost of transit all these additional costs are not considered. Point No. 3. Has the cost of this been included? Point No. 5 Who will ensure this? It is very amusing to read point No. 6. Even in ports it is found difficult to retain pilots for sustained periods. Will it be possible to have a trained pilot exclusively for this job? (The report says: A pilot should be trained or environmental watcher will board the ship to watch marine animals viz. turtle, dolphins, sea cow etc. in the region and navigate the ship safely avoiding any damage to this fauna). Is this possible? Especially when the speed is less, ships do not answer to the steering easily. Point 7 & 8 Who are the authorities for this? Point No. 12. What is strict vigilance? Point No. 14. Has the cost been included? Point No. 16 is worth noting. It is said that the ships will slow down during transiting through the canal. But the fuel consumption calculations are made according to the economic speed of the vessel! It is a known fact that at slower speeds more than land-based vehicles, ships consume relatively more fuel. Point No 14 talks about the pilotage. Has this cost been taken into account? Pilotage cost is a heavy expenditure in transiting the canal. Talking about saving of distance travelled, the real situation is as given below: For travel from Aden/ Europe Kolkata 168.7 NM Vizag 216.2 NM Chennai 259.0 NM For travel from African Coast Kolkata 102.2 NM Vizag 149.7 NM Chennai 192.4 NM Average saving therefore is only 181.4 against the claimed figure of 353.3 NM. About time saved the reality shows: Average time saved comes to 11.7 Hrs Deduct pilotage time 2.0 Hrs Real saved time 9.7 Hrs For a 30,000-tonner the real savings in money at present rates of fuel cost will prove to be negative! Therefore, before embarking on further expenditure a detailed study is required. sagarsandesh/news/sethusamudram-canal-project/
Posted on: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 04:15:34 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015