Indian Nuclear News & Discussion - May-2008

[abhischekcc]

SO the left has finally discovered what BRF had been shouting for the past several years - that manmohan singh is the reason for the shortage of n-fuel.

At least this fact will now become more well known now - how MMS has damaged the civilian nuclear power of India, and is now hell bent to damage our military nuclear power.

[Gerard]

India optimistic on uranium supply from Australia

[Tilak]

PM and Pranab differ on N-deal: Natwar
IANS
Monday, May 26, 2008 11:48 IST

NEW DELHI: There are differences in the way Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his external affairs minister, Pranab Mukherjee, see the much-discussed India-US civilian nuclear deal, former foreign minister Natwar Singh has said.

"The prime minister says the deal is on and they will get it through but when Mukherjee is asked about it there is a big question mark. Mukherjee has even said the deal is not going to pass," Natwar Singh said in an interview.

When told that it was Mukherjee who is selling the deal to the Left parties on behalf of the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA), Natwar Singh said: "Much depends on how enthusiastic he himself is about the deal".

The India-US civilian nuclear deal has run into rough weather with the Left parties - who lend outside support to the UPA government - opposing it. The main opposition party, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), is also opposed to the deal in its present form.

The US government has repeatedly told the Indian government that time may be running out for the deal to materialise as the George Bush presidency enters its last leg ahead of polls.

"The UPA government has gone about the deal in the wrong manner. When it knew that parliament would not approve it, it should not have gone ahead," said Natwar Singh, who was external affairs minister in the Manmohan Singh cabinet till December 2005. He was succeeded by Pranab Mukherjee.

Natwar Singh had to resign when he, and his son Jagat Singh, were named beneficiaries by a UN inquiry committee headed by Paul Volcker in an Iraqi oil scam.

The former minister said the draft of the civilian nuclear deal had undergone several drastic changes since he first saw and approved it as external affairs minister on July 18, 2005. "Manmohan Singh and I saw it during our visit to Washington. I supported it then for two reasons. One, it tacitly recognised India as a nuclear power. And two, it was energy-oriented."

Natwar Singh said the term energy was later downplayed and non-proliferation was emphasised. "There were no questions about the 123 agreement, the Hyde Act, or the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections then," he said.

"The US has shifted the goalpost several times," he said, adding: "I don't see the deal going through".

Natwar Singh, who was in the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) before joining the Congress, said: "The United States is selling this deal to us in an attempt to pitch us against China. We should not fall for it."

"(US President) George Bush has tried to sell it so that he can claim it as an achievement. But the next US president is not going to endorse it, whether it is John McCain (Republican candidate) or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama (Democrat frontrunners)," Natwar Singh said.

[Rye]

Natwar Singh, who was in the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) before joining the Congress, said: "The United States is selling this deal to us in an attempt to pitch us against China. We should not fall for it."

why not? This sounds about the right time to increase the pressure on China on various fronts and to ally with the west on a per-issue basis.

Shri Natwar Singh is still dancing with the dinosaurs, or has thrown in his lot with the CPI(M) to substitute for his crutch of Congress /INC ideology.

There is a saying in Tamil which translates to "Make full use of the tailwind".....maybe the real deal is to figure out how to use the tailwind without letting go of the gun.

[Tilak]

There you go Folks ...

'US nuclear assurances political not legal'
IANS
Monday, May 26, 2008 11:26 IST

WASHINGTON: A US Congressional report has added a new twist to the stalled India-US civil nuclear deal by suggesting that Washington's nuclear fuel-supply assurances to India are "political, rather than legal, obligations".

The US State Department apparently told lawmakers about the "political" nature of its assurances to India in a balancing act aimed at assuring them that the bilateral 123 agreement finalised last July to implement the nuclear deal is consistent with the enabling US law, the Hyde Act.

The State Department did so in unclassified responses to over 40 questions from the House Committee on Foreign Affairs about the 123 agreement, according to a recent press release from four knowledgeable non-proliferation experts.

However, the State Department has not allowed the committee to make its responses available to the public lest it may affect the passage of the deal, which must come up before the US Congress for final approval.

US officials have assured India that only the "123 agreement is the deal" between the two sides with President George Bush declaring some of the prescriptive provisions of the Hyde Act as only "advisory". At the same time the Bush administration has assured lawmakers that the 123 agreement is in conformity with the Hyde Act.

A Congressional Research Service report prepared for members of the Congress and its committees on "US Nuclear Cooperation with India: Issues for Congress" says of the agreement's four assurances regarding India's future nuclear fuel supply two are "particularly controversial".

Under these provisions "the United States will support an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of India's reactors."

And "If despite these arrangements, a disruption of fuel supplies to India occurs, the United States and India would jointly convene a group of friendly supplier countries to include countries such as Russia, France, and the United Kingdom to pursue such measures as would restore fuel supply to India".

The report prepared by Paul K. Kerr, analyst in Non-proliferation, Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Trade Division, says these "two provisions are particularly controversial because they could potentially provide India a way to mitigate the effects of a US cessation of nuclear exports (in the event that, for example, India tests a nuclear weapon)."

"However, the State Department characterises the agreement's fuel-supply assurances as political, rather than legal, obligations," the report says. "Additionally, the US commitments under the fuel-supply provisions are unclear."

"For example, the agreement does not define what it means to 'support an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve.' And the United States has not sought commitments from any other country to supply fuel to India," it says.

Before the nuclear deal goes to the US Congress for final approval, India needs to sign a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and persuade the 45- member Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) that controls global nuclear commerce to change its guidelines for India.

India has finalised a safeguards agreement with the IAEA, but has not yet signed it. The Left parties, which are opposed to the Indo-US nuclear deal, had allowed the government to negotiate the treaty text with the IAEA but prevented it from signing it without their approval.

Noting that it may be some time before all the requirements are met for the Bush administration to bring a final agreement before Congress again, the report says: "When that happens, Congress will have another opportunity to consider the specific parameters of cooperation."

In addition to meeting the requirements set out in Hyde Act, Congress may want to assess how well the actual agreement meets the other non-proliferation requirements of the Atomic Energy Act (other than full-scope safeguards), it says.

Some substantive questions could include whether the Indian safeguards agreement meets the US requirements for perpetuity; whether US assistance could benefit India's nuclear weapons programme and whether India's Non-proliferation record, as described in the Nuclear Non-proliferation Assessment Statement, contains anything that causes concern for members, or would have a negative impact on US national security.

Although joint resolutions of approval for nuclear cooperation agreements receive expedited consideration, significant concerns about the agreement could result in the passage of a joint resolution of approval with conditions, as happened in the case of the 1985 US nuclear cooperation agreement with China, the report noted.

Several US officials have warned that Congress will not have time to approve the agreement by the end of 2008 if it does not receive it in the coming months. In that event, the next administration will need to resubmit the agreement to Congress, it said.

The next regular meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors, which must approve the safeguards agreement, is scheduled to begin June 2 - after the May plenary of the NSG. This sequence is potentially problematic because the NSG plenary must issue a final decision on whether to exempt India from the group's export guidelines.

Moreover, the NSG will not formally consider the matter until the IAEA board has approved a safeguards agreement. Both the IAEA Board and the NSG, however, could convene extraordinary meetings to consider India's case, the Congressional report said.

It would be a blunder if India signs the IAEA agreement, as predicted here. Things are about to spin out of Indias control, once this step is accomplished. And what's worse is US is telling that they will add more conditions when it goes back to the Congress (ie. after the NSG poodles do their "Unkil sponsored bit").

No wonder the GAG order's were issued, makes perfect sense..But as the PM says "Bush has promised and Common sense should prevail". And our "Strategic Experts" in the next round of editorials, will "conveniently" choose to rue about how the Congress bungled in Bangalore, instead of addressing the elephant in the room.

>Apologies for the Bigger font..

[Raju]

Natwar Singh, who was in the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) before joining the Congress, said: "The United States is selling this deal to us in an attempt to pitch us against China. We should not fall for it."

why not? This sounds about the right time to increase the pressure on China on various fronts and to ally with the west on a per-issue basis.

Shri Natwar Singh is still dancing with the dinosaurs, or has thrown in his lot with the CPI(M) to substitute for his crutch of Congress /INC ideology.

There is a saying in Tamil which translates to "Make full use of the tailwind".....maybe the real deal is to figure out how to use the tailwind without letting go of the gun.

Narasimha Rao once stated in his book, if India has to choose between China and America, we must always choose China.

Never go against the neighbours. However bad they may be.

his reasoning might be thus, if we decide to go against our neighbours then we become tools for someone elses geo-political game. Look at how US never allows any other country to influence its neighbours. And so does poodle Britain however deep be the differences.

[Rye]

Any fool can switch intentions if he/she has the capability (to cause damage or benefit).

However, not even the world richest or smartest person can upgrade capabilities at the flick of a switch.

It is easier to switch intentions than capabilities.

[Tilak]

Left to oppose govt attending IAEA Governors meeting
PTI

New Delhi, May 25 (PTI) Not satisfied with the UPA's replies to their queries on the nuclear issue, the Left parties are likely to ask the government to finalise an India-specific safeguards agreement with IAEA only after the 123 agreement with the US lapses.
Keeping this in view, the outside supporters of the UPA would pressure the government not to attend the upcoming meeting of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at Geneva early next month.

This was the unanimous view of the four Left parties, which met here on Friday. It would be conveyed to the government at the May 28 meeting of the UPA-Left Committee on the Indo-US nuclear deal, top Left sources said.

They said the government's replies on the clarifications sought by them at the Committee's last meeting were not satisfactory and the Left parties would be asking more questions to the Congress-led coalition on the nuclear issue.

After the four parties met on Friday, CPI(M) Politburo member Sitaram Yechury had a meeting with External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee to discuss the issue.

The Left parties feel that the government should wait for some more time before finalising the India-specific safeguards agreement with the IAEA as by then the 123 Agreement with the US would lapse. The Left opposition to the 123 Agreement is because they feel it was bound by the Hyde Act which was detrimental to India's sovereignty and its pursuance of an independent foreign policy. PTI

[Rye]

Raju wrote:

his reasoning might be thus, if we decide to go against our neighbours then we become tools for someone elses geo-political game. Look at how US never allows any other country to influence its neighbours. And so does poodle Britain however deep be the differences.

That is why cooperation has to be on a per-issue basis. China cannot expect to eat into Indian territory and behave in a belligerent and threatening manner and not expect India to hook up with greater global powers (like Russia and USA) to China's detriment.

[uddu]

India receives first consignment of Uranium fuel from Russia
http://sify.com/finance/fullstory.php?id=14681537

Mumbai: India has received the first consignment of uranium fuel from Russia for unit-1 of 1000 MW Kudankulam Nuclear power project (KKNPP), an NPCIL spokesperson said today.

"KKNPP, comprising of two units of 1000 MW (e) each, are at an advanced stage of completion in technical collaboration with the Russian Federation and the Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) fuel for its first unit arrived at Kudankulam yesterday," according to Nuclear Power Corporation of India limited (NPCIL) spokesperson A I Siddiqui.

The KKNPP is under construction at Kudankulam located in Radhapuram taluka of Tamil Nadu's Tirunelveli district. The project is set up through a bilateral agreement between the erstwhile USSR and India.

"The life time fuel supply for Kudankulam reactors is covered through a sovereign guarantee of Russian Federation," he said.

Under the Indo-Russian collaboration, India can reprocess the spent fuel from these reactors and all the activities at Kudankulam will be under International Atomic Energy Agency's safeguards, NPCIL said.

The two KKNPP units belong to advanced design of VVER family, a pressurised light water reactor (LWR), constituting majority of nuclear reactors of the world using LEU.

This kind of fuel is in use in VVER-1000 MW units in several countries around the world since 1980s and has given excellent performance, Siddiqui said.

[NRao]

As stated before, India would be better served by waiting to sign ANY 123 dealS ...............................

NYTimes editorial:

Nuclear Gold Rush

Need login, so, posting in full:

May 26, 2008
Editorial
Nuclear Gold Rush

If there’s one country where nuclear power would seem superfluous, it’s oil-rich Saudi Arabia. Yet a highlight of President Bush’s recent trip there was the signing of an agreement to cooperate on developing civilian nuclear energy. { , where have WE heard that before? } Saudi Arabia is only one of many nations { :: Saudi and civilian???? }in the Middle East suddenly eager for nuclear power.

There’s no prohibition against such deals and we’re not suggesting there should be — as long as governments abide by international rules for inspections and transparency. Nuclear energy is one way to address the problem of climate change, and developing countries must have the same access to the technology as the developed world.

But there are alarming signs that this sudden enthusiasm is driven less by concerns about the climate, or declining oil supplies, than by Iran’s growing nuclear proficiency. In addition to building power plants, Tehran is determined to produce its own nuclear fuel — a process that with a little more work could also churn out fuel for a nuclear bomb.

Meanwhile, the major nuclear powers — especially the United States, France, Russia and China — are eagerly competing for the world’s nuclear business. { Yes, it is MONEY that is driving all these "deals"} France’s president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has been particularly aggressive, engaging at least seven countries. Washington recently also signed deals with Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates.

Amid all their salesmanship, none of these leaders have come up with a strategy to halt the spread of nuclear fuel technology. Countries that agree to full monitoring also have the right to such technology, but it is far too easy to divert to a military program.

Back in 2004, Mr. Bush suggested that countries that make fuel technology should sell it only to countries that are already in the nuclear fuel business. Others were less enthusiastic, and the president — who was mainly thinking about Iran — didn’t push very hard.

He also didn’t come up with a credible strategy for guaranteeing buyers an uninterrupted supply of fuel. When Iran insists that it only wants a fuel program because it can’t trust the United States and its allies not to cut off its deliveries, a lot of countries that should know better end up sympathizing.

We are relieved that Riyadh has promised to buy fuel for its future reactors on the international market. But that is not enough. Before signing more deals, Washington and the other nuclear sellers must find ways to lessen the chances that expanding nuclear energy today will result in more weapons tomorrow. An international fuel bank would be a good first step.

The more time goes by, the better for India.

There is no doubt India needs "help", but not in the form of THIS 123 deal.

[vsudhir]

Scalded, Centre puts off UPA-Left meet on n-deal

[Arun_S]

A very hard hitting article.

UPA employs life support for nuclear deal

[quote]The UPA has engaged in very clever PR to snatch its prestigious nuclear deal with the US from the jaws of death. And a section of the English press is co-operating wholeheartedly. It’s a fascinating bookmarker, really, to what’s been a convoluting contract where the fine print has been drowned by those who have been overawed by the bold and large-sized type used in stating the contract’s objectives: lifting the international nuclear apartheid on India whereby uranium supplies to our existing and proposed nuclear plants would dramatically increase the availability of nuclear energy while supply of modern dual-use technology would also be resumed to us.

The Parliamentary debate in November 2007 proved that the opponents of the nuclear deal outweighed its supporters. Even the Communists, who prop the UPA from outside, were against it. And their support was contingent on a satisfactory resolution of their reservations which have become the subject of unending talks between them and the Congress party. But after each such session, the Reds have never failed to reiterate their opposition to the deal. For all practical purposes, the public has seen this as the burial of the deal.

But the Congress is a vicious animal. It fights back when attacked, and it fights with secret weapons.

Recently, it enlarged the weaponry that it has consistently used since Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed the joint statement on the nuclear deal with President George Bush in July 2005. To the list of journalists it enlisted --- along with Uncle Sam’s aid presumably --- to “spinâ€

[Arun_S]

India receives first consignment of Uranium fuel from Russia
http://sify.com/finance/fullstory.php?id=14681537
... . . . The KKNPP is under construction at Kudankulam located in Radhapuram taluka of Tamil Nadu's Tirunelveli district. The project is set up through a bilateral agreement between the erstwhile USSR and India.

"The life time fuel supply for Kudankulam reactors is covered through a sovereign guarantee of Russian Federation," he said.

Under the Indo-Russian collaboration, India can reprocess the spent fuel from these reactors and all the activities at Kudankulam will be under International Atomic Energy Agency's safeguards, NPCIL said.

That is what international IAEA agreement as agreed by UN body ~1969 is all about.

[arun]

Note comment on uranium shortage delaying commissioning of Rawatbhatta 5 and Kaiga 4, past problems and current commissioning schedule of Turamdih uranium mill :

Enriched uranium for Koodankulam arrives

[Prabu]

[quote="Arun_S"]A very hard hitting article.

UPA employs life support for nuclear deal

The question is: Will the UPA’s recent PR succeed in masking all of it? Or will that PR only be a temporary life support to a deal that’s dying…as it should?
-------------------------
by Arvind Lavakare


Does any one still support the deal here ? Or this is the last nail in the coffin ?

[Philip]

Even if we attain our objectives in nuclear power generation,it will be insufficient for future needs.A holistic approach is essential,especially into harnessing renewable energy sources.Wind power today has developed substantially with more powerful windmills and even into giant offshore wind power generators.Here is a report about Spain's success in wind power.I know many who have happily invested in windpower.

The Russian supply is most welcome.We should sign on for the other plants on offer.The Russians will happlily ignore the "death of the deal" after a convenient "period of mourning"!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.j ... ind107.xml

Spain's gain from wind power is plain to see
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in Oviedo, northern Spain
Last Updated: 1:31am BST 08/04/2008

Windmills pay. On a breezy Saturday at the end of March, Aeolian Parks scattered across the hill-top ridges and off-shore sandbanks of Spain produced 40.8pc of the country's electricity needs - 9,862 megawatts to be precise.

Milling around: the German power group E.On
is committed to developing wind farms

The much-derided turbines produced enough wattage to power the great cities of Madrid, Barcelona, Seville, Valencia, Toledo, Cordoba, Granada, Santander, Bilbao, and Zaragoza combined. The workday record on a Tuesday, March 5, was 28pc.

Years of nurture by the Spanish government have paid off. Spain is a global superpower in the wind race, with 15,000 MW of capacity. The region of Navarra is 70pc green, shielded against gas-shocks, Russian politics and soaring oil prices.

Today's wind turbines are a far cry from the archaic mini-mills that scar the landscape for little return, and provoke such fury in the English shires. They are vast. Each mast can power a neighbourhood.

Here in the wet misty mountains of Asturias, the German power group E.On is erecting a battery of mills that tower 410ft into the sky. They are higher than the dome of St Paul's Cathedral or the US Congress on Capitol Hill. The rotors alone dwarf the wingspan of an Airbus A380 super jumbo.

"We are beyond the boutique phase," said Frank Mastiaux, the head of E.On's green operations. "When this began in the 1970s it was a niche play, a nice tax break for German dentists and doctors. Now it is turning into an industrial business. Productivity has grown by 150 times in 25 years."

Every mill costs €2.6m (£2m) to buy and erect, yet the Danish manufacturer Vestas is sold out until 2010.

E.On is coy about profit margins. The European operations are flirting with break-even cost, but the company's huge 10-mile wind farms in the Texas outback have reached the magical level of €50 per megawatt hour (with US government subsidies), far below natural gas at the current market price.

America is the new Mecca for wind power. The ranchers are fully signed up. They collect an annual royalty of $5,000 to $10,000 for each turbine, and cattle can still graze underneath.


The wind revolution has crept up on us. It is solar power that has seized the popular imagination.

"Everybody loves solar, but in fact solar and wind technology are miles apart," said Dr Mastiaux. "The cost of wind power is €50 to €100 a megawatt hour, while for solar it is still more than €450. The killer for solar is the cost of silicon."

As of 2007, renewable energies produced 242 GW (gigawatts), or 5pc of all global electricity. The mix is wind (93 GW), small hydro (77), biomass (48), geothermal (9.6), solar (8.5), biogas (5.2), and tide power (0.3).

E.On, Europe's biggest privately owned energy company, believes all these forms together will quadruple over the next 12 years to 970 GW, led by wind. Dr Mastiaux said: "Renewables will soon be a €200bn business. I can't think of any other industry with growth like that."

The Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) predicts that wind power will provide almost 29pc of world electricity by 2030.

Yet the International Energy Agency says 3.5pc is more realistic. A report from the UK's Royal Academy of Engineering concluded that wind power still costs two to three times more than nuclear energy, even after decommissioning. The dispute centres on the back-up needs when the wind is not blowing.

E.On has done its own sums, based on the yield from its 1,100 MW network of wind parks across Europe and the US. It believes wind will reach durable "grid parity" with other fuels in just over a decade, if not before.

The group is taking the plunge, spending €6bn in three years to stake out its share of the renewable frontier. It lags Spain's Iberdrola, but aims to raise its wind power tenfold by 2015.

E.On's cluster of four parks in Asturias will generate 126 MW by the end of this year. The power is fed into the local grid. It is enough to supply 82,000 homes in the coastal cities of Oviedo, Aviles, and Giron.

Hardly anybody lives in these cool Celtic highlands, the only region of Spain never conquered by the Moors. The sight of huge white poplars across the ridges at 3,300ft seems to cause little offence, although Asturias hoteliers have called for a halt to new wind farms. Local branches of the socialist party (PSOE) have launched a campaign against the "massive proliferation" of turbines along the Galician coast.

Mr Mastiaux admits that it is becoming ever harder to erect turbines on land, especially in Britain and Germany. "We've hit tissue rejection. Nobody wants to look out of their window at a wind farm," he said.

The company is going off-shore. The wind yield is stronger, but the costs are higher. There is only one ship in the world fitted to install the 200-tonne masts.

E.On already has a £75m project on Scoby Sands off the coast of Norfolk, where 30 turbines are cranking out 60 MW for 30,000 homes.

It is developing one of the world's largest offshore sites with Shell on the outer Thames Estuary. Known as the London Array, it is eventually expected to provide 1,000 MW - or a quarter of London's power.

If the prices of oil and gas fall sharply - and stay low - as they did in the 1980s and again in the late 1990s, the huge gamble on renewables may prove a costly flop. But demand suggests that is unlikely to happen.

World oil output has been flat for four years, despite frantic efforts by BP, Shell, Exxon and peers to find new supplies. China's oil imports grew 14pc last year.

Goldman Sachs says crude may reach $175 a barrel within two years. "Markets are as tight as a drum and now the US has hit the stimulus button," says the bank's oil guru, Jeff Currie.

The switch to grain-based ethanol - or "dethanol", to critics - is nearing political limits as the United Nations warns of food rationing and possible starvation.

Wulf Bernotat, E.On's cigar-chomping chief, says global electricity demand will double by 2030 as the industrial revolutions of Asia gather pace.

Wind power ticks more good boxes than almost any other option. It is clean, nearly silent, emits no CO2, pays its way, and is "home made" - no small matter as Europe's reliance on imported gas jumps from 54pc to 80pc over the next 15 years.

"Those who don't like wind power have a duty to offer an alternative. So far they haven't really come up with anything," said Dr Bernotat.

Few working on the front line of the global energy crisis would disagree.

[NRao]

India could gain the MOST if they can recover the losses via theft and transmission.

[jahaju]

with the loss of karnataka the upa will find it even more difficult to push the nuke deal.

Karnataka beating cripples government
27 May, 2008, 0412 hrs IST, TNN
NEW DELHI: The Karnataka election outcome seems to be having a crippling effect on the government at the Centre. While it is not able to act on the demand of the oil PSUs for hiking the price of petro goods, the waning enthusiasm for the Indo-US nuclear deal became evident on Monday when it put off the May 28 meeting of the UPA-Left panel.

The government leaders informed the Leftists on Monday evening about the decision to postpone the meeting of the panel. Left leaders said the government has tentatively fixed the date for the meeting on June 11. This was only expected as the drubbing the Congress got in Karnataka leaves it with little elbow room for adventurism.

The Congress leadership, which expressed its willingness to go alongwith the government’s thinking on the nuclear deal issue, is certain to ask the prime minister to be more mindful of the sensitivities of the allies. The allies have already begun to lay the blame for the defeat on the reluctance to accept their governance paradigm.

The dithering on the nuclear deal is certain to dent the image of the prime minister. Mr Manmohan Singh has staked his personal prestige on the engagement with the US.

The political paralysis comes at a time when the government has to tackle critical macroeconomic issues. The surging oil prices leave the government with only two options: increase the prices or allow the oil firms to slide into red. Sensing stiff political opposition to any significant rise in prices, the government is engaged in working out a rescue package for oil companies.

There is admission that the lack of political authority for the government leadership will be more visible in the coming months. The allies, who are not in agreement with the programmes of the government, will only allow Mr Singh to merely serve the remaining term.

The prime minister is certain to come under renewed pressure for addressing their populist demands. With the Congress leadership now seen to be an ineffective vote-catcher, the allies will want the government policies to bail them out in the election. And that can make huge demands on the economy.

[NRao]

self deleted.

[abhischekcc]

With the Congress leadership now seen to be an ineffective vote-catcher

People are beginning to realize that the Gandhi family is not what the english media portrays them to be.

Phtooie!!!

Good riddance.

[SaiK]

Indian politics is that its always the winning side being put in the vulnerable position, more so stronger than any other democratic country in the world.

Hence, k-angrez is sitting pretty for the next elections, from that point of view.. since we have a ton of illiterates to move us away from this vulnerable theory that much generalized in the desi context.

The point bjp must note is that it is vulnerable to put back into sitting on the opposite side while the gandhites do whatever they wish to drive what it thinks are the wishes of desi genes.

This nuke deal must be handled by non babooze to proceed any further.. else its safe in the trash.

[abhischekcc]

Saik,

The most important thing is that BJP has formed its first government in the South, Narendra Modi has campaigned for this election, and Italian-Chinese-American government in Delhi is now in a corner.

I know that the congress plays dirty when its chips are down, but then I think right now, they are in too much of a shock - they will soon transition to panic mode.

What I mean is that right now congress is in survival-fghting mode, not deal-passing mode.
So, from now on all of its decisions will be based on what can get it electoral advantage.

Welcome to the start of elections 2009, people!!!

[achy]

http://www.hindu.com/2008/05/28/stories ... 451100.htm

Let us note that we can have civil nuclear cooperation with the U.S., Russia, and France and also our nuclear weapons programme if we go ahead with the IAEA safeguards agreement, NSG exemption, and bilateral agreements with these countries. If we allow the present opportunity to slip, we shall have a small nuclear power programme and our nuclear weapons. Getting civil nuclear cooperation from advanced countries in future may require our having to give up our nuclear weapons.

Why will we require to give up our nuclear weapons if such a deal is signed at later date??

[NRao]

Why will we require to give up our nuclear weapons if such a deal is signed at later date??

Because the new actors are more strict in their thinking ...... check out McCain's speech today.

[ramana]

No one can force India to give up anything. Only deluded Indians can be tricked into giving them up.
I think MR Srinivasan wants peace in his time.

[NRao]

The transcript of his speech in Denver today:

McCain Remarks on Nuclear Security

toward a moratorium on the production of additional fissile material.

It is coming.

And, even a more bothersome trend:

I would seek to establish an international repository for spent nuclear fuel that could collect and safely store materials overseas that might otherwise be reprocessed to acquire bomb-grade materials. It is even possible that such an international center could make it unnecessary to open the proposed spent nuclear fuel storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

So, not only would he seek to "safely store material overseas", but perhaps shove the Yucca Mountain problem overseas too!!

These are the type of issues India will have to face with the next President.

[Paul]

Looking at the history of ground breaking agreements signed between two rivals, or countries for that matter, it is pretty obvious that both parties have to be right of centre and have credible history of demonstrating ability to safeguard national interests. The Egypt/Israel agreement which resulted in return of territories to Egypt comes to mind here. Sadat signed this agreement as he had launched the 1973 yom kippur war. The media and major powers which backed this agreement played this up to his nationalist credentials. Begin on the Israeli side was a former terrorist (militiant in today's PCL), fom the right wing likud and did not need a cetificate from Israeli extremists. However, Yitzhak Rabin being from labor did not have this trust with the Israeli right wing inspite of having fought in 1967...and his rivals were in the Likud.

Similar analogies can be cited for the SALT treaty (Nixon-Reagan), making concessions to Mao (again Nixon)...or the Nazi-Soviet non aggression pact...close to home, the ceasefire is holding in J&K only becuase on the Paki side it was Mush who we were dealing with.

The west made a mistake in trying to push this agreement with the UPA which is fundamentally left of cente and does not have the nationalist credentials to unilaterally push this agenda on the country.

It remains to be seen who will come to power in the Gen elections for this agreement to be revived.

[ramana]

I think the Clinton Admin goofed when it did not conclude this accomodation with India. They were trying for more as can be seen from the Talbot bio.

But there is a sense that Indian electiosn will be in 2008 rather than 2009 due to the Karnataka reverses. So the UPA might sign the deal and presenta fait accompli to whoever comes to power next time. If it is themselves than its par for the course and if its anyone else then they have boxed them between a rock and hardplace.

[Arun_S]

[quote="Arun_S"]A very hard hitting article.

UPA employs life support for nuclear deal

[quote]The UPA has engaged in very clever PR to snatch its prestigious nuclear deal with the US from the jaws of death. And a section of the English press is co-operating wholeheartedly. It’s a fascinating bookmarker, really, to what’s been a convoluting contract where the fine print has been drowned by those who have been overawed by the bold and large-sized type used in stating the contract’s objectives: lifting the international nuclear apartheid on India whereby uranium supplies to our existing and proposed nuclear plants would dramatically increase the availability of nuclear energy while supply of modern dual-use technology would also be resumed to us.

The Parliamentary debate in November 2007 proved that the opponents of the nuclear deal outweighed its supporters. Even the Communists, who prop the UPA from outside, were against it. And their support was contingent on a satisfactory resolution of their reservations which have become the subject of unending talks between them and the Congress party. But after each such session, the Reds have never failed to reiterate their opposition to the deal. For all practical purposes, the public has seen this as the burial of the deal.

But the Congress is a vicious animal. It fights back when attacked, and it fights with secret weapons.

Recently, it enlarged the weaponry that it has consistently used since Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed the joint statement on the nuclear deal with President George Bush in July 2005. To the list of journalists it enlisted --- along with Uncle Sam’s aid presumably --- to “spinâ€

[Paul]

I think the Clinton Admin goofed when it did not conclude this accomodation with India. They were trying for more as can be seen from the Talbot bio.

But there is a sense that Indian electiosn will be in 2008 rather than 2009 due to the Karnataka reverses. So the UPA might sign the deal and presenta fait accompli to whoever comes to power next time. If it is themselves than its par for the course and if its anyone else then they have boxed them between a rock and hardplace.

If they sign the agreement and then go for an election, then they have to factor in the possibility of severly burning bridges with the left parties to the extent that it could harm their chances of reaching electoral alliances (pre and post election) with the left. This could lead to a cakewalk for the NDA in the next General elections. NDA coming to power again (under LKA...who launched the Rath yatra) means the right wing is gaining critical mass in India...and this is bad news for several parties.

Even a moderate version of this will cause sleepless nights for the CPM and Nehru dynasty. They will have to factor these scenarios should they decide to sign the agreement.

The regional satraps in the INC and outside will be licking their chops and watch in glee as the Nehru dynasty recedes into oblivion.

[NRao]

But there is a sense that Indian electiosn will be in 2008 rather than 2009 due to the Karnataka reverses. So the UPA might sign the deal and presenta fait accompli to whoever comes to power next time. If it is themselves than its par for the course and if its anyone else then they have boxed them between a rock and hardplace.

Can that happen?

Is it not IAEA, NSG, THEN sign?

IAEA sets the tripping mechanism. Any signing with IAEA, forget NSG, will bring this Govt down. There can be no signing after that, it is not even a topic of conversation.

Correct?

[ShauryaT]

But there is a sense that Indian electiosn will be in 2008 rather than 2009 due to the Karnataka reverses. So the UPA might sign the deal and presenta fait accompli to whoever comes to power next time. If it is themselves than its par for the course and if its anyone else then they have boxed them between a rock and hardplace.

Can that happen?

Is it not IAEA, NSG, THEN sign?

IAEA sets the tripping mechanism. Any signing with IAEA, forget NSG, will bring this Govt down. There can be no signing after that, it is not even a topic of conversation.

Correct?

Rule number 1. Do not trust the left. Do not trust anything they say or promise. Also, do not underestimate MMS. The Samson option exists and will be used, if needed. Also, the political machinery that the Congress is trying to win over, extends to the regional parties.

[shyam]

US has reiterated many times that, as per Indian constitution, USG can sign the agreement even with a minority government.

[vsudhir]

LKA is on record stating India cannot be bound by agreements signed by a government that does not enjoy the confidence of a parliamentary majority.

Oops, make that Yashwant Sinha.

We will reconsider N-deal if we return to power: Yashwant

And yes, massa is wary of the 'Hindu nationalist' BJP. Massa's sleuths haven't forgotten the smackdown embarrassment of POK II declared prominently in the BJP poll manifesto previously, but not taken seriously enough by anyone in Langley.

[vsudhir]

N-deal: Cong readies for final showdown (IE)

New Delhi, May 27: With the Left making noises about reviewing support to the UPA Government regardless of the Indo-US nuclear deal, there is growing restlessness in the ruling Congress camp about the need to take a final call on the deal.

Many top Congress leaders are of the view that since abandoning the deal is no guarantee for the Left’s support till the end of the Government’s tenure, it should think of going ahead with the deal that could be showcased as a UPA achievement in securing energy security for the country and providing power to farmers.

The whole thing looks too scripted somehow....

[Prabu]

[quote="abhischekcc"]Saik,

The most important thing is that BJP has formed its first government in the South, Narendra Modi has campaigned for this election, and Italian-Chinese-American government in Delhi is now in a corner

[Prabu]

[/quote]Rule number 1. Do not trust the left. Do not trust anything they say or promise. [/quote]

Agreed. You mean to say the great congess party, MMS and sonia maino dynasty is greatly reliable ??

[Prabu]

http://www.hindu.com/2008/05/28/stories ... 451100.htm

The choice is clear but the question is whether the Indian political establishment can unite on this issue for the country’s good.
[/b]

Yes very much true. All political parties can and should unite. No doubt about it, but to oppose this fradulant deal Trap !

Thanks Mr.Sreenivasan !

[Sanatanan]

News report in Economic Times > Stocks

Closing Bell [http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/mar ... 075558.cms]
27 May, 2008, 1530 hrs IST, 03:00 pm:

Kirloskar Brothers {KBL} has received contracts from the Nuclear Power Corporation of India on account of Bhartiya Nabhikiya Vidyut Nigam for design, engineering, manufacture, assembly / pre assembly, test, shop painting, packing, forwarding and guarantee of condenser cooling concrete volute pumps, auxiliary sea water vertical turbine pumps, electrochlorination plant, traveling water screens, stop log gates and sea water pump house and electrochionination building and associated structures for sea water pump house package with a contract valued at Rs 66.13 crore and EURO 18.14 lakh for supply. Another was for construction of civil works of sea water pump house and electochiorination plants building worth of Rs 33.11 crore.

As per the article titled Concrete Volute Pump at TAPP-3&4: A Natural Choice in NuPower, KBL, in technical collaboration with Termomeccanica sPA of Italy, had earlier supplied the CCWPs for Tarapur PHW Reactors 3 & 4.

The EURO component mentioned in the above news report would signify that there is something to be imported - most likely, a design and / or construction collaboration - even though it is not a first-time contract.

Now, this raises a question in my mind.

A "Condenser Cooling Water Pump" (CCWP) would be a part of the "conventional" side of a nuclear power plant, as opposed to, say, some pump that might be used for circulating heavy water through the "nuclear" side. Nevertheless inasmuch as the CCWP is to be used in PFBR which is not in the civilian list yet, would it be classified as being of "dual-use"?

The 123 Agreement text defines dual use as

“Dual-Use Itemâ€