India Nuclear News And Discussion

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 09 Jun 2010 19:49

Sanku wrote:Sir, what are you saying? On one hand you are convinced (as many of us are) that the intent of the UPA Govt and particularly the PoV espoused by MMS and his choicest people (SMK etc) seems to be that of "pushing it as the Americans want it to be"

OTOH you question the hulla gulla? Which clearly brings more and not less focus on the issue of Nuclear liability wavier.

So there are two options
1) Some one put up the Courts and the media to highlight the issue now so as to highlight the ill effects to the bill.
2) A framework by the Gov to ensure that the bill is passed under "we cant help it this is the best the law has"

Which is your choice?

Sanku ji, I would like to submit that perhaps both the options you have indicated above are not mutually exclusive. It is quite possible that one set of persons are trying to nuke the Liability Bill using the Bhopal verdict (I hope they succeed in this!), while it is equally possible/probable that the Government might only pay lip service to the "relook" idea and try to push the Bill as it is, and as the Americans want it to be, with perhaps just some cosmetic changes.

Perhaps the 'halla-gulla' over the Bhopal verdict is an exercise in PR to contain / limit the political fallout. My 'conspiracy theory', if you want to call it that.

As you might have observed from my posts all these days (since that fateful day in July 2005 when the Indo-US deal was announced from a foreign land without its having been first discussed adequately within our country), I have been writing against the deal and its associated shenanigans based on my assessment that it will ultimately prove detrimental to the development of indigenous capability in high technology areas in our country. Notwithstanding the results of BRF polls conducted in these threads earlier, I still hold the same view.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 09 Jun 2010 20:29

Sanatanan wrote:......., I have been writing against the deal and its associated shenanigans based on my assessment that it will ultimately prove detrimental to the development of indigenous capability in high technology areas in our country. Notwithstanding the results of BRF polls conducted in these threads earlier, I still hold the same view.

I totally agree with you on this point. Unkil's several actions in the past have been motivated by their desire to stymie the growth of advanced indigenous tech. Nuclear Cycle, on which India is working for several decades , has now reached a certain stage where it can take next step towards having no dependence on external fuel supply.
Most of the argument advanced in favour of Nook bill might not stand the critical scrutiny when compared to other sources of energy.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 09 Jun 2010 20:44

Two spins on the same issue of change in the nuclear liability bill on suing the suppliers, one by IE and one by Hindu.

N-liability amount can be raised, says Govt

The government today sought to end the debate on the civil nuclear liability Bill by agreeing to “periodically review” the Rs 500-crore cap fixed for operators of nuclear power plants as damages in the event of an accident, and increase it, if necessary.

At the same time, it has tried to make it easier for the nuclear operator to demand compensation amount from a foreign supplier in case the accident happens due to a fault in equipment. This has been done by removing a provision in the original Bill that gave the operator the right of recourse only if the accident had resulted from “wilful act or gross negligence” on the part of the supplier.

...
...

Government dilutes nuclear bill under U.S. pressure

At Washington’s request, the Manmohan Singh government has agreed to delete a key provision of the draft civil nuclear liability bill allowing American suppliers to be sued for recovery of damages in the event of an accident caused by gross negligence on their part.

Although the bill channels all liability for a nuclear accident on to the operator of the facility, Section 17 of the draft tabled in Parliament last month allows the operator a ‘right of recourse’ — legalese for the right to recover any compensation it is forced to pay — under three circumstances. These are if (a) such a right is expressly provided for in a contract in writing; (b) the nuclear incident has resulted from the wilful act or gross negligence on the part of the supplier of the material, equipment, or of his employee, and (c) the nuclear incident has resulted from the act of commission or omission of a person done with intent to cause nuclear damage.

Of these, only (a) and (c) find mention in the model law specified by the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC). The CSC, which India will accede to, however, does not prohibit the inclusion of additional provisions. Indeed, some countries have already included gross negligence by suppliers as grounds for invoking the right of recourse in their liability laws. Article 4 of the South Korean Act on Compensation for Nuclear Damage, for example, includes language similar to 17(b) of the Indian draft.

...
...
Since the Bill has already been tabled in Parliament, the deletion of Section 17(b) will have to be introduced as an amendment and voted on separately prior to the passage of the law. Any other amendments proposed by the government will also have to be introduced in this way. The Standing Committee is likely to make suggested amendments of its own which the government may then accept and incorporate or reject

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 09 Jun 2010 21:12

Sanatanan wrote: Notwithstanding the results of BRF polls conducted in these threads earlier, I still hold the same view.

Thank you Sanatanan Mahodaya; as you may also know, I share your views. Although I do think we have been some what saved by Shri BHO.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 10 Jun 2010 00:03

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... W_P5zUMRaE

U.S., France Urge Japan to Make India Nuke Deal, Nikkei Says
June 9 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. and French officials are encouraging Japan to sign a nuclear agreement with India even though India isn’t part of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Nikkei English News reported, citing unnamed Japanese officials. An agreement will permit French nuclear company Areva SA and a U.S. consortium led by General Electric Co., which have each won orders for two reactors in India, to use Japanese technology from companies like Japan Steel Works Ltd. and Hitachi Ltd. that are needed to completing the projects, Nikkei said.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Jun 2010 00:26

Yeah since the late 70s US reactor vessels are made in Japan. So until Japan allows the re-export their trade is held up. So till then chai biskoot.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 10 Jun 2010 05:31

I'm sure most people on the forum have figured out that the 'relook' at the Nuclear Civil Liability bill in the wake of the Bhopal judgement is merely to strengthen the provisions of the rule (for instance - explicitly state that it is a civil liability and hence does not preclude criminal liability).

If anything, the Bhopal judgement shows us the impotence (venality) of successive GOI governments over the last 25 years, and therefore the need for an explicit civil liability bill - as the Bhopal case was held in a world where there was 'no limit' on liability. The result of that is here for all to see. So how does it make a case for having a 'no limit' on liability in case of the Nuke Industry is not clear to me. Hopefully someone would explain.

Second, this fond hope that the 'US knows that in the absence of a 'liability bill', it would not be easy to get away' - is pure hokum. (For instance following the BP disaster, the US is not gunning after UK).

Third, duty of care belonged to GOI - which it abdicated. Please remember that GOI held 26 % of the equity in Union Carbide. For NPCIL, it holds 100 % of the equity.

Let us see if US with all its power can lay criminal charges against BP executives and get conviction. If not, what hope is there then for India?

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 10 Jun 2010 08:06

IGCAR Engineer Missing

An electrical engineer working at the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research is missing from Anupuram township in Kalpakkam since Saturday.

J. Daniel Chellappa, official spokesperson, IGCAR, said Radhakrishna was a Scientific Officer ‘E' and was in the electrical maintenance department and he was not part of any sensitive work at the facility.

I recall the local vernacular newspaper reporting the death of a CRPF constable on night duty in a water tank around the same time the Engineer went missing. The two may not be related though.

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 10 Jun 2010 08:06

Siddharth Varadarajan in The Hindu, 09 June, 2010:

Government dilutes nuclear bill under U.S. pressure

Liability Bill changes may open a can of worms

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 10 Jun 2010 08:08

Anyone see the irony in US removing caps on liabilities unilaterally for industrial disasters on its soil (even disregarding its own laws on a 75 million liability cap) and US asking India to ensure its cap is only set to 75 million ?

A figure of 10 billion is being thrown around in the US as the new limit for caps for industries that operate on its soil Although realistically, the cap is limitless as there's an endless amount of lawsuits to deal with.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 10 Jun 2010 08:18

India's Innovative nuclear power reactor

“As a result of its fuel mix and fuel breeding properties, the 300 MWe plant requires 42 per cent less mined uranium per unit of energy produced than a modern high burn up PWR”, they added.

AHWR300-LEU with an estimated design life of 100 years is a vertical, pressure tube type, boiling light water-cooled, heavy water- moderated reactor with reduced environmental impact. It has many features which are likely to reduce both its capital and operating costs.

Sanatanan · Post by **Sanatanan** » 10 Jun 2010 09:40

SSridhar wrote:India's Innovative nuclear power reactor

AHWR300-LEU with an estimated design life of 100 years is a vertical, pressure tube type, boiling light water-cooled, heavy water- moderated reactor with reduced environmental impact. It has many features which are likely to reduce both its capital and operating costs.

I have some confusion here. The article states that AHWR-LEU is a vertical pressure tube reactor design. But the above image, accompanying the article, seems to show a horizontal reactor concept in which the vertical 'tubes' seen are meant for reactivity control devices (as in a horizontal PHWR), and not fuel channels. Of course, I am open to corrections in this regard.

arun · Post by **arun** » 10 Jun 2010 14:24

PTI citing Sergei Kiriyenko, Head of Rosatom State Nuclear Energy Corporation claims Russia will share Enrichment and Reprocessing (ENR) technology with India:

Russia to share ENR technology with India

The Hindu citing former Atomic Energy Commission head Anil Kakodkar claims that the Russian offer to setup a nuclear fuel facility does not involve sharing ENR technology with India:

Russian offer useful: Kakodkar

marimuthu · Post by **marimuthu** » 10 Jun 2010 14:46

SSridhar wrote:IGCAR Engineer Missing
An electrical engineer working at the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research is missing from Anupuram township in Kalpakkam since Saturday.

J. Daniel Chellappa, official spokesperson, IGCAR, said Radhakrishna was a Scientific Officer ‘E' and was in the electrical maintenance department and he was not part of any sensitive work at the facility.
I recall the local vernacular newspaper reporting the death of a CRPF constable on night duty in a water tank around the same time the Engineer went missing. The two may not be related though.

He was "found" in puzhal jail, because he was locked up in a sexual harassment case. He has given a fake name and address it seems. His relatives had gone to puzhal and has confirmed his id.

sivabala · Post by **sivabala** » 10 Jun 2010 19:09

Sanatanan wrote:
SSridhar wrote:India's Innovative nuclear power reactor

AHWR300-LEU with an estimated design life of 100 years is a vertical, pressure tube type, boiling light water-cooled, heavy water- moderated reactor with reduced environmental impact. It has many features which are likely to reduce both its capital and operating costs.
...
I have some confusion here. The article states that AHWR-LEU is a vertical pressure tube reactor design. But the above image, accompanying the article, seems to show a horizontal reactor concept in which the vertical 'tubes' seen are meant for reactivity control devices (as in a horizontal PHWR), and not fuel channels. Of course, I am open to corrections in this regard.

The vertical channels are for cooling i.e collecting heat from the bottom with light water flowing through the vertical tubes. This way using natural thermal convection they eliminated the need for pumps. Horizontal tubes are for fuel rods. dipped in a bath of Heavy water.

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 10 Jun 2010 21:07

Sanatanan wrote:Siddharth Varadarajan in The Hindu, 09 June, 2010:

Government dilutes nuclear bill under U.S. pressure

Liability Bill changes may open a can of worms

This is Outragious ! Are we a democrasy or dynasty ?

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 10 Jun 2010 23:24

Another Nuke scientist missing
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/745 ... eeler.html

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 11 Jun 2010 03:00

Government in damage control mode on Nuclear Liability Bill

http://www.hindu.com/2010/06/11/stories ... 681400.htm

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 11 Jun 2010 07:14

Jarita wrote:Another Nuke scientist missing
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/745 ... eeler.html

Jarita, did you see Marimuthu's post just a couple of posts above ?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 11 Jun 2010 08:08

ramana wrote:Yeah since the late 70s US reactor vessels are made in Japan. So until Japan allows the re-export their trade is held up. So till then chai biskoot.

Then what is USA/France's contribution? Helping India in IAEA?

Looks like nuke reactors are the easiest way to make money. Produce a 4350 tons of steel mould and sell it for $5B.

arun · Post by **arun** » 11 Jun 2010 08:30

Jarita wrote:Another Nuke scientist missing
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/745 ... eeler.html

As pointed out by BRFite Marimuthu, turns out the "Nuke Scientist" was "missing" as he had been incarcerated for sending lewd SMSes to a woman:

Missing nuclear scientist found in Chennai jail

Ameet · Post by **Ameet** » 16 Jun 2010 21:51

India, South Korea to discuss nuclear deal, trade on Friday

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Indi ... 055097.cms

India and South Korea will discuss the contours of a bilateral civilian nuclear deal and map out steps to achieve a $30 billion trade when the foreign ministers of the two countries hold talks in Seoul on Friday.

India has signed civil nuclear accords with seven countries - the US, France, Russia, Kazakhstan, Namibia, Argentina and Mongolia. India has finalised a nuclear deal with Canada, which is expected to be signed later this year.

With a view to scaling up bilateral trade from $15 billion to 30 billion by 2014, the two sides are expected to focus on increased cooperation in high priority areas like IT, civilian space, knowledge-based industries, high technology, energy, automobiles and defence.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 16 Jun 2010 22:02

US govt has forced BP to pay out a whopping 20 billion in liabilities for the spill.

This despite its liability cap of 75 mils.

I hope this issue is raised when the nucelar liability bill is up for debate in India.

Shalav · Post by **Shalav** » 16 Jun 2010 22:19

Don't understand why the govt. is bending over backwards for foreigners wrt liabilities.

It is simple only.

Set a fixed liability amount in case of accidents for Indian owned companies. Foreign companies will be liable for the same amount as per their home county's laws. Additionally they are liable for the higher of the two amounts (set by Indian laws or their home country laws) in case of accidents.

I can't see the any foreigner protesting that their home country liability is more than Indian liability so they should be liable for the lesser Indian amount. If they want to avoid the higher liability amount by incorporating in India, then the company is Indian owned, instead of a foreign subsidiary. That's a win too.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 17 Jun 2010 03:17

India closely watching NSG meet on China-Pakistan n-deal

'We are not worried. Everyone knows about Pakistan's A.Q. Khan network's proliferation activities,' reliable sources said here.

'But it will be interesting to see what arguments are used to justify the deal,' the sources added.

China has confirmed that Chinese and Pakistani officials have signed an agreement to finance the construction of two nuclear reactors to be built by the China National Nuclear Corporation at the Chashma site in Pakistan. China earlier built two reactors for Pakistan before it joined the NSG in 2004.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 17 Jun 2010 06:00

NSG exemption mandatory for China-Pak nuke deal: US

WASHINGTON: The US appeared in a publicly 'non-opposing' mode over China's proposed civil nuclear deal with Pakistan, but insisted that Beijing needs an NSG exemption to go ahead with the agreement as was done in the case of the US-India atomic pact.

"If China wishes to proceed with this (nuclear deal with Pakistan), they are going to require an exemption from the Nuclear Suppliers Group," a senior State Department official told reporters.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 17 Jun 2010 06:48

BP to fund $20B fund layout for the BP Oil Spill. And Ombaba roars that BP's liability will not be limited to $20B.

And our resident e-con-omic lion, MM Singh ji, is happy with some dry grass when it comes to Indian lives and interests w.r.t nuclear liability bill. What a shame!

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 18 Jun 2010 03:23

Indo-S Korea talks to explore civilian nuclear deal today

ajit_tr · Post by **ajit_tr** » 18 Jun 2010 03:40

Turn the nuclear bill from liability to asset

The legislative challenge is to ensure that Indian victims get the same degree of protection from Indian courts as U.S. victims would from their courts.

ajit_tr · Post by **ajit_tr** » 18 Jun 2010 03:41

Govt. withdraws crucial amendment to nuclear liability bill

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 458192.ece

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 19 Jun 2010 07:31

India, SKorea Agree to Discuss Nuclear Treaty

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Jun 2010 07:39

ajit_tr wrote:Govt. withdraws crucial amendment to nuclear liability bill

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 458192.ece

She added that it was not just American suppliers but France and Russia too which wanted India to adopt a law in line with international norms. Others who deposed were the Union law, home and power secretaries.

I tried to look for this "international norms". Any idea what it is? (And, why does it not apply to BP I wounder.)

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 19 Jun 2010 17:21

http://www.prsindia.org/index.php?name= ... category=1

There are four international conventions on this issue: The 1960 Paris Convention, The 1963 Vienna Convention, 1997 Protocol to Amend Vienna Convention and 1997 Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage. India is not a party to any of these conventions

Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Docume ... ility.html

full text
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Docume ... f500.shtml

ajit_tr · Post by **ajit_tr** » 19 Jun 2010 19:10

Japan weighs role in India's nuclear boom

By Peter J Brown

Japan is promoting the use of nuclear energy and long ago integrated nuclear power into its national power grid on a massive scale. Now, French and United States companies want Japan to sign a nuclear deal with India - and soon - because billions of dollars in contracts for the construction of two and possibly as many as six more new Indian nuclear plants are in motion.

Specifically, GE Hitachi and Toshiba-Westinghouse cannot sell nuclear plant technology as planned without formal Japanese approval. (In the US, Hitachi is partnered with General Electric and Toshiba with Westinghouse.)

"Japan is an essential party for US and French nuclear cooperation with India. Japanese firms are deeply entangled in the US and French nuclear industry," said Jeffrey Lewis, director of

the Nuclear Strategy and Non-Proliferation Initiative at the Washington DC-based New America Foundation.

The swirl of geopolitics behind giant nuclear deals is increasingly evident as the US seeks to challenge or even block outright China's planned sale of more nuclear power plants to Pakistan, for example. As Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan takes the helm the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), he and the DPJ leadership must weigh both the advantages and the drawbacks of this proposed nuclear deal with India.

In late 2008, the US House of Representatives passed a civilian nuclear agreement with Delhi allowing India to purchase nuclear fuel and technology from the US. The accord had been in the pipeline for many years as it had difficult hurdles to overcome.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 20 Jun 2010 13:45

Gerard wrote: Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage

Written no doubt by the nations exporting nuclear reactors - which is to say the developed world.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 20 Jun 2010 19:13

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Civil_li ... ear_damage

These Conventions were linked by the Joint Protocol adopted in 1988. They are based on the concept of civil law and share the following main principles:

1. Liability is channelled exclusively to the operators of the nuclear installations;
2. Liability of the operator is absolute, i.e., the operator is held liable irrespective of fault, except for "acts of armed conflict, hostilities, civil war or insurrection";
3. Liability of the operator is limited in amount. Under the Vienna Convention, the upper ceiling is not fixed; but it may be limited by legislation in each State. The Paris Convention set a maximum liability of 15 million Special Drawing Rights (SDRs, about EUR 18 million), but this was increased under the Brussels Supplementary Convention up to a total of 300 million SDRs (about EUR 360 million), including contributions by the installation State up to SDR 175 million (EUR 210M) and other Parties to the Convention collectively on the basis of their installed nuclear capacity for the balance;
4. Liability is limited in time. Generally, compensation rights are extinguished under both Conventions if an action is not brought within ten years;
5. The operator must maintain insurance or other financial security for an amount corresponding to his liability or the limit set by the Installation State, beyond this level the Installation State can provide public funds but can also have recourse to the operator;
6. Jurisdiction over actions lies exclusively with the courts of the Contracting Party in whose territory the nuclear incident occurred;
7. Non-discrimination of victims on the grounds of nationality, domicile or residence.

In the UK, the Energy Act of 1983 brought legislation into line with earlier revisions to the Paris/Brussels Conventions and set a new limit of liability for particular nuclear installations. In 1994, this limit was increased again to £140 million for each major installation, so that the operator is liable for claims up to this amount and must insure accordingly. The majority of this insurance is provided by a pool of UK insurers comprising 8 insurance companies and 16 Lloyds syndicates. Beyond £140 million, the current Paris/Brussels system applies, with government contribution to SDR 300 million (c. €360 million).

In mainland Europe, individual countries have legislation in line with the international conventions and, where set, cap levels vary. Germany has unlimited operator liability and requires €2.5 billion security which must be provided by the operator for each plant. This security is partly covered by insurance, up to €256 million. Switzerland (which has signed but not yet ratified the international conventions) requires operators to insure up to €700 million.

In Finland, a 2005 Act requires operators to take at least &eur;700 million insurance cover, and operator liability is unlimited beyond the &eur;1.5 billion provided under the Brussels Convention. "Nuclear damage" is as defined in the revised Paris Convention, and includes that from terrorism.

In Canada, the Nuclear Liability Act of 1976 is also in line with the international conventions and establishes the licensee's absolute and exclusive liability for third-party damage. Suppliers of goods and services are given an absolute discharge of liability. At present a limit of CA$75 million per nuclear power plant is set on the insurance cover required for individual licensees, but this is under review. Cover is provided by a pool of insurers, and claimants need not establish fault on anyone's part, but must show injury. Beyond the cap level, any further funds would be provided by the government.

Japan is not party to any international liability convention, but its domestic law generally conforms to them. Plant operator liability is exclusive and absolute, and power plant operators must provide financial security of 60 billion yen (US$540 million). Beyond that, the situation is unclear, though liability is unlimited. In relation to the 1999 Tokai-mura fuel plant criticality accident, insurance covered 1 billion yen and the parent company (Sumitomo) paid the balance of 13.5 billion yen.

Russia is not party to any international liability convention, nor does it have any domestic laws on nuclear liability. The country signed but has not ratified the Vienna Convention. It has some "interim" bilateral agreements to cover entities working under safety assistance programs, but the legislative deficit is a deterrent to Western contractors in particular.

Ukraine adopted a domestic liability law in 1995 that it has since revised in order to harmonize with the Vienna Convention, which it joined in 1996. It is also party to the Joint Protocol and has signed the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC). Operator liability is capped at 150 million SDRs (c. €180 million). Special provisions apply to work on the Chernobyl shelter so as to extend coverage outside the Vienna Convention countries.

China is not party to any international liability convention and has only a 1986 interim domestic law on nuclear liability, which corresponds with international conventions except that the liability limit is only about US$36 million.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Jun 2010 07:33

India wary of NSG double blow

At its plenary meeting in New Zealand beginning on Monday, the 46-nation cartel may turn a blind eye to China's plan to supply new reactors to Pakistan, handing Islamabad a free pass. The NSG is also likely to adopt fresh restrictions on the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) equipment and technology, thereby diluting New Delhi's hard won ‘clean' waiver.

On ENR, Hungary, currently chair of the NSG, told India in March that consensus on the new rules was still proving elusive. In the light of the September 2008 waiver, Indian officials had suggested exempting India from the applicability of draft rules banning ENR sales to non-NPT countries. But this proposal has found few takers. And now there are signs the U.S. and others are is pushing for the adoption of the ENR ban during the upcoming New Zealand plenary. The new rules will “very probably be approved,” an NSG diplomatic source told TheHindu on Sunday.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Jun 2010 07:38

India lobbying hard with nuclear partners on ENR issue

In its recent interactions with the Nuclear Suppliers Group ‘troika', India suggested that an asterisk be added to the cartel's draft new rules on ENR transfers exempting the country from the proposed requirement of membership in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It also raised the issue with Russia, France and the United States, countries with which it has signed nuclear cooperation agreements in the wake of the ‘clean' exemption granted to India by the NSG in September 2008.

For the past two years, consensus eluded the NSG on the ENR issue because some members states — notably Argentina, Brazil and South Africa — objected to other elements of the new restrictions. These three countries do not support the U.S.-inspired proposal that adherence to the Additional Protocol — a more intrusive form of international monitoring not mandated by the NPT — be a precondition for ENR imports.

But NSG diplomats say the U.S. has had some success in building a consensus over the past few months and that major elements of the ENR ban, including the requirement of NPT membership, could well be adopted during the cartel's plenary in Christ Church this week.

Among India's nuclear partners, only France has given a commitment to provide India ENR equipment. Though the bilateral agreement does not provide for such transfers, Indian officials say President Nicholas Sarkozy gave a verbal assurance to this effect to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Paris last year.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Jun 2010 09:33

India eyes stake in Russian Uranium field

India is evaluating the option of picking up stake in one of the world's largest uranium fields in Russia.

The possibility of a minority equity stake in the Elkon field in Russia's Yakutia province, which is estimated to hold 344,000 tonnes of uranium or about 5.3 per cent of the world's recoverable reserves, is being seen as a step towards securing long-term supplies for the country's nuclear capacity, a Government official involved in the exercise said.

Russia's state-owned mining firm ARMZ Uranium Holding Company has the licence to the Elkon field, in which a stake was offered in the course of bilateral negotiations during the Russian Prime Minister, Mr Vladimir Putin's, visit to India earlier this year.

ARMZ Uranium Holding, which also has licences for uranium fields in Kazakhstan and Mongolia, had earlier said it is looking for a strategic partner to help it develop the Elkon mine.

The possibility of setting up a Russian-designed nuclear fuel fabrication facility in India is also under consideration, as has been provided in the Inter-Government Agreement on Cooperation in the use of Atomic Energy for Peaceful Purpose signed by the two countries.

The accord also provides for the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel in India under international safeguards.

Jindal Steel & Power (Mauritius) Ltd, in 2008, had bought the entire stake in a uranium asset in Mongolia jointly owned by Canadian firms Bluerock Resources Ltd and Uranerz Energy Corp for $2.6 million. Mongolia has about 2 per cent of the world's uranium reserves. Little known Mumbai-based firm Taurian Resources had bagged exclusive rights for exploration and mining of uranium in the Arlit region of Niger, which is the fifth largest supplier of uranium globally.

Prabu · Post by **Prabu** » 21 Jun 2010 13:56

SSridhar wrote:India wary of NSG double blow
At its plenary meeting in New Zealand beginning on Monday, the 46-nation cartel may turn a blind eye to China's plan to supply new reactors to Pakistan, handing Islamabad a free pass. The NSG is also likely to adopt fresh restrictions on the transfer of enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) equipment and technology, thereby diluting New Delhi's hard won ‘clean' waiver.

On ENR, Hungary, currently chair of the NSG, told India in March that consensus on the new rules was still proving elusive. In the light of the September 2008 waiver, Indian officials had suggested exempting India from the applicability of draft rules banning ENR sales to non-NPT countries. But this proposal has found few takers. And now there are signs the U.S. and others are is pushing for the adoption of the ENR ban during the upcoming New Zealand plenary. The new rules will “very probably be approved,” an NSG diplomatic source told TheHindu on Sunday.

This is disturbing news ! How GOI is going to counter it ? And put pressure on uncle to come clean on chinki-paki nexus ?