Climate: responsibility of developed nations stressed

Climate: responsibility of developed nations stressed

  • September 26, 2014
  • by:  admin 
  • note:  no comments 

Union Minister of State for Environment Prakash Javadekar has stressed on the responsibility of developed countries to finance climate mitigation actions.

Speaking at the Major Economies Forum in New York on Monday, he said the basic principles and provisions of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) would apply to all aspects of the Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC). Any review of domestically determined contributions would not be acceptable to many countries including India, he affirmed.

Mr. Javadekar said the implementation by developed countries of their commitments on finance and technology transfer under the UNFCCC would be an essential pre-requisite and foundation for enhancing the actions and contributions of developing countries, according to an official text of his speech at the Forum. The INDCs or expected commitments from countries are expected to be fused into the new climate treaty next year in Paris. The Minister said all countries agreed to submit INDCs by next March.

Courtesy : http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/climate-responsibility-of-developed-nations-stressed/article6439816.ece

Sea ice rises in Antarctic, falls in Arctic – The Hindu article

  • September 19, 2014
  • by:  admin 
  • note:  no comments 

pic1

However, Arctic ice has shrunk to its sixth lowest level ever

The extent of sea ice in Antarctica is set to reach a record high, scientists said on Tuesday, as they announced that Arctic sea ice appeared to have shrunk to its sixth lowest level ever.

The National Ice and Snow Data Centre (NSIDC) said satellite data was expected to shortly confirm this. “Antarctic sea ice is poised to set a record maximum this year, now at 19.7 million sq km (7.6m sq m) and continuing to increase,” the centre, considered one of the world’s top authorities on sea ice data, said in a statement.

Jan Lieser, of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-operative Research Centre (CRC), told Australia’s ABC News that: “This is an area covered by sea ice which we’ve never seen from space before.”

Puzzling question

The conundrum of why Antarctic sea ice appears to be expanding as the Arctic decreases had puzzled polar observers, but scientists have suggested that the reason Antarctic ice extent appears to be increasing is changing wind patterns.

Figures released by the NSIDC in Boulder, Colorado, show that the so-called Arctic sea ice minimum — the point where the extent of sea ice there is at its lowest after the summer, before it begins to refreeze for winter — is expected to be confirmed imminently and would be millions of square kilometres below the long-term average.

At 5.09 m sq km, the extent of Arctic sea ice this year would be the sixth lowest on record, slightly worse than last year, though not as extreme as the record set in 2012 when it plunged to less than 3.5 million square kilometres.

However, the centre noted that there had been a particularly strong retreat of sea ice in the Laptev Sea and although the reasons for that were not yet clear, sea temperatures there had been up to 5C higher than average.

The amount of sea ice cover in the Arctic has been showing a long-term decline as climate change takes hold, with temperatures rising more rapidly in the Arctic than the rest of the planet. — © Guardian Newspapers Limited, 2014

Source : http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/sea-ice-rises-in-antarctic-falls-in-arctic/article6423597.ece

Erosion of Versov Coast , Maharashtra where houses washed out

  • September 19, 2014
  • by:  admin 
  • note:  no comments 

pic

Facts about Thorium and Monazite – A Clarification

As the name ‘Coastal Environmental and Ecological Committee’ itself implies that we are functioning as a ‘watch dog’ in the matter of conservation and preservation of ‘Ecology and Environment’ particularly in the coastal areas.  We are acting in an unbiased manner whenever and wherever there is a threat to the ecology and environment of the coastal areas and in the process we raise our voice, concern and protest in all proper fora to ensure that there is no degradation caused to the ecology and environment of the areas.  

 

We have studied the contents of the report put up on the blog http://www.the-citizen.in/news Detail.aspx? by one Mr.Srinivasan Kalyanaraman some of which are briefly indicated below:

 

  1. Unauthorised mining of ‘monazite’ by some private firms without holding valid license from the AERB .

 

  1. Monazite contains Uranium

 

  • The State Govt. of Tamil Nadu does not have any power to grant mining concessions in respect of major minerals and more so for Garnet, Ilmenite ,Rutile , Monazite, etc minerals which are called prescribed substances

 

  1. The State Govt. authorities have illegally permitted certain private firms to mine monazite also.

 

When we set out to gather authentic information from proper source of information whether the above information posted in the said block are correct or not,  a reply to the above articled has been posted by one Dr.Anitha who is a Bio-technologist in her face book.

 

Dr.Anitha has done a commendable job in giving a suitable  reply to all the above said points.   She has profusely quoted and cited the existing provisions of MMDR Act, 1957 , MCR, 1960 and various official circulars, clarifications and instructions issued by the Dept. of Atomic Energy, Ministry of Mines , Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, etc from time to time on mining and disposal of monazite.  The above detailed reply of Dr.Anitha has exposed the article of Mr.S.Kalyanraman that it contains bundle of lies.   Dr.Anitha has nailed all the lies with facts and figures about the whole scenario of beach sand mining with particular reference to monazite.  The above said rejoinder from Dr.Anitha throws much light on the statutory powers of the Central and the State Govts. with regard to mining of major minerals. 

 

From the presentation of facts posted by Dr.Anitha it can be very well understood that all mining leases in respect of Ilmenite, Rutile, Zircon and Monazite are being sanctioned by the State Govt. of Tamil Nadu only with the prior approval of the Ministry of Mines and with the concurrence of Dept. of Atomic Energy.   As regards monazite also the report reveals that even though the private mining lessees are entitled to get monazite included in their existing mining leases granted for other minerals such as Ilmenite, Garnet, Rutile, etc , final disposal of monazite , however, can be done by them only after obtaining proper license from AERB.  The above detailed reply posted by Dr.Anitha has thus put an end to the misrepresentation of facts about mining of beach sand minerals and also a fear psychosis created in the minds of the general public about mining of monazite mineral. 

 

Therefore, we do not wish to harp on the same matter in this reply.  However, we are duty bound to furnish certain authentic details about monazite .  Our present reply is based on the publication details by Indian Bureau of Mines, Ministry of Mines, Govt. of India in February, 2014 in their Indian Minerals Year Book 2012 (Part-III : Mineral Reviews) 51st Edition (Final release) exclusively on Rare earths.

 

We would like all the concerned people particularly Mr.S.Kalyanaraman to visit the Email : cme@ibm.gov.in and website : www.ibm.gov.in  to find out the veracity of our following reply comments.

 

The extracts of its contents are furnished below :

 

            “Monazite belongs to a group of rare earths minerals”

 

            “The mineral monazite occurs in association with other heavy minerals such as Ilmenite, Rutile, Zircon, etc in concentration of 0.4 to 4.3% of total heavies in the beaches”

 

            “The state wise resources are given in table-I below (includes indicated, inferred and speculative categories)”

 

            State                                                               in Million tonnes

                                                                                   (Resources)

            Tamil Nadu                                                               2.16

(Source : Dept. of Atomic Energy , Mumbai)

 

            “The details of exploration carried out by AMD , State Directorates, etc are provided in the review on Ilmenite and Rutile.”

 

            “IREL , a Govt. of India undertaking , KMML , a Kerala State Govt. undertaking are only actively engaged in mining and processing of beach sand minerals from placer minerals.”

 

            “IREL produced 16 Tonnes of Rare earths. “

 

            “There was no production during 2010-2011 and 2011-2012”

 

            “A total production and prices of rare earths in India :-

 

            Year                Quantity in tonnes               Value (Rs. In Lakhs)

 

            2009-10                     16                                            4.8

            2010-11                     Nil                                           Nil

            2011-12                     Nil                                           Nil

 

         IREL and KMML have the facility to separate monazite.  Installed capacity of monazite (96% pure) is 6000 tonnes per year while that of KMML at Chavara is 240 tonnes per year.   Details regarding mining and processing , etc are provided in the review on ‘Ilmenite and Rutile’”.

 

Policy on Rare Earths

 

            “ Rare earths compounds are freely exportable. But rare earths phosphates (monazite) which contain Thorium are controlled under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962.” 

 

            “Monazite contains about 25 to 28% P2O5 which can be recovered as a by-product for manufacturer of fertilizers and production of elemental phosphorous or its salts.”

 

            “Besides, rare earths, Thorium is also recovered from Monazite. “This confirms the contention of Dr.Anitha that monazite does not contain Uranium but only an ore of Thorium .

 

            “The total consumption of rare earth in 2009-10 and 2010-11 was estimated as 118 tonnes and 128 tonnes respectively.”

 

            “Consumption of rare earths – 2009-10 to 2011-12 by Industries

 

            Industry                                       2009-10       2010-11       2011-12 

            Paint, driers & pigments                 92                    76                    —

            Cinema arc carbon                          25                    46                    —

            TV colour picture tubes                   1                      —                      —

            Glass/optical polishing                   —                      1                      2

            Glassware de-colouring                 —                      1                      28

            R&D and others                               —                      4                      45

 

            Total                                                  118                 128                 75

 

            From the above illustration of facts culled from the authentic publication of Indian Bureau of Mines, attached to Ministry of Mines, Govt. of India it may understood that considering vast resources of 2.16 million tonnes of monazite estimated to be available in the coastal areas of Tamil Nadu,  a paltry, quantity is alone being exploited that too by IREL and KMML.  Besides, its application as a source of atomic energy, the monazite has got wider usages in the manufacturer of fertilizers and production of elemental phosphorous or its salts.  Therefore , the fear tried to be created in the minds of public by Mr.S.Kalyanaraman through his article is totally uncalled for and unfounded since the mineral monazite is not as ‘lethal’ a mineral as it is sought to be projected by Mr.S.Kalyanaraman in his article.  Considering the facts about the availability of monazite resource in Tamil Nadu, is meager quantity of exploitation at present and above all its wider application in the manufacturer of fertilizers which are the chief inputs and ingredients used the Agricultural field for increasing the agricultural production,  if monazite is not allowed to be exploited and used in the field in which it has got applications, it will go down the drain as a national waste.  

 

In the light of the facts posted above we would like Mr.S.Kalyanaraman to correct his misconception and misunderstanding about monazite.

No connection between Beach Mineral Mining and sea erosion

  • September 16, 2014
  • by:  admin 
  • note:  no comments 

 

 

 The Committee has taken the task upon itself to propagate and disseminate proper information to dispel the myth and misgiving which are being spread by some actors and stooges who are playing in the hands and also dancing to the tunes of some vested interest.  They are acting against the national interest by spreading false rumours and unscientific and  baseless allegations that mining of beach sand minerals leads to sea erosion and the sea becoming ferocious thereby causing destruction to the buildings, etc, in Colachel fishing port in Kanyakumari District.  It has also been reported about the mystery of coastal area in Australia turning red.   It looks indeed a bizarre and sounds strange that beach sand mining is directly attributed as the reason for whatever happening in the vicinity of coastal areas.  In this context it is considered pertinent to furnish the findings on the reasons for sea erosion in the coastal area.

 

An extensive study has been conducted by an appropriate authority namely  the Chief Engineer, Directorate of Sea Erosion, Government of India in this regard and as per his study report the following are adduced as the primary reasons for sea erosion.  In reply to the letter of Member of Parliament, Tiruchendur, the Chief Engineer has stated the following facts:-

 

“Sea erosion is an universal phenomenon. India is no exception to it.  Sea erosion occurs in all coastal lines in India and therefore it is not an uncommon one.  About 20% of the coastal areas in India are getting affected by  sea erosion.  A long stretch of 1350 KM coastal line has been affected by sea erosion.  The reasons for sea erosion are adduced to the following factors:-

 

  • The velocity , intensity and ferocity of wave action.
  • Rising of sea level due to global warming.
  • Back wash of beach sand due to the under current wave action during monsoon period.
  • Washing of sea weeds and other planktons by flood water.
  • Construction of fishing and other minor ports without proper planning and execution.
  • Construction of preventive walls and other structures without proper planning and
  • Putting sand bags inadequately against the intensity of flow of water. “

 

 From the above statement of facts and reasons given in the study report of the Chief Engineer, it may be discerned that there is no relationship between the beach sand mining and the sea erosion and consequently there is no reason to harbour any apprehension  in this respect.

 

The Committee also knows that. 71 beach mineral mining leases are granted in Tirunelveli, Kanyakumari and Tuticorin districts to various lessees and no lease hold area or the adjacent area is affected by the sea erosion.

 

 

 

குமரியில் திடீர் கடல் சீற்றம் மீன்பிடி துறைமுகம் சேதம் – குடியிருப்பு பகுதிகளில் கடல்நீர் புகுந்தது

  • September 16, 2014
  • by:  admin 
  • note:  no comments 

picc

தேங்காப்பட்டணம் பகுதியில் நேற்று பயங்கர கடல் சீற்றம் ஏற்பட்டது. இதனால் மீன்பிடி துறைமுகம் சேதம் அடைந்தது. கடற்கரையில் நிறுத்தப்பட்டு இருந்த படகுகளை பதம்பார்க்கும் ராட்சத அலை.

குமரியில் திடீர் கடல் சீற்றம் மீன்பிடி துறைமுகம் சேதம்
குமரியில் நேற்று வழக்கத்திற்கு மாறாக ஏற்பட்ட திடீர் கடல் சீற்றத்தால் தேங்காபட்டணம் மீன்பிடி துறைமுகம் சேதமடைந்தது.
குமரி மாவட்டத்தில் ஆண்டு தோறும் மே மாதம் முதல் ஜூலை மாதம் வரையிலான கால கட்டங்களில் கடல் அலையின் சீற்றம் அதிகமாக காணப்படுவது வழக்கம். தேங்காபட்டணம் கடற்கரை பகுதிகளில் கடந்த சில மாதங்களாக தொடர்ந்து ஏற்பட்ட கடல் சீற்றத்தால் அரையன் தோப்பு முள்ளுர்துறை போன்ற பகுதிகளில் கடலரிப்பால் தடுப்பு சுவர்கள் முற்றிலும் அழிந்து, சாலை துண்டிக்கப்பட்டது. இதனால் பல மாதங்களாக 7 கடற்கரை கிராம பகுதி மக்கள் போக்குவரத்தின்றி தவித்து வருகின்றனர்.
இந்தநிலையில் எப்போதும் இல்லாத வகையில் நேற்று திடீர் என தேங்காபட்டணம் பகுதியில் கடுமையான கடல் சீற்றம் எற்பட்டது. காலையில் தொடங்கிய கடல் சீற்றம் மாலையிலும் தொடர்ந்தது. சுமார் 50 அடி முதல் 60 அடி உயரம் வரையிலும் ராட்சத அலைகள் எழும்பியது. இதனால் ராமன்துறை, முள்ளூர்துறை போன்ற இடங்களில் குடியிருப்பு பகுதிகளில் கடல் நீர் உட்புகுந்து. சிலரது வீடுகளின் உள்ளேயும் கடல் நீர் புகுந்தது. இதனால், வீட்டில் இருந்தவர்கள் வெளியேறினார்கள்.
முள்ளூர்துறையில் அந்த பகுதி மக்கள் பயன்படுத்தும் கல்லறை தோட்டம் ஏற்கனவே சேதமடைந்த நிலையில், நேற்று ஏற்பட்ட கடல் சீற்றத்தில் மேலும் அரிப்பு ஏற்பட்டு அங்கு அடக்கம் செய்யப்பட்டிருந்த பல உடல்கள் கடலில் அடித்து செல்லப்பட்டதாக பரபரப்பாக கூறப்பட்டது. ஹெலன் காலனி பகுதியிலும் இதுபோன்று சாலை மற்றும் கல்லறை தோட்டம் முற்றிலும் சேதமடைந்து கடலில் அடித்து செல்லப் பட்டுள்ளது.
ராட்சத அலைகளால் தேங்காபட்டணம் மீன்பிடி துறைமுக பகுதியில் துறைமுக கட்டுமான பணிகள் சில இடங்களில் சேதமடைந்துள்ளது. அலை தடுப்பு சுவர் பாதுகாப்புக்காக அமைக்கப்பட்டிருந்த கோர்லாக் கட்டைகளை சில இடங்களில் கடல் அலை அடித்து சென்றுள்ளது. இதனால் மீன்பிடி துறைமுகத்தின் அலை தடுப்பு சுவருக்கு ஆபத்து ஏற்பட்டுள்ளது.
Link :
http://epaper.dinakaran.com/index.php?rt=index/frontpage/20140915/01
 

மீன் உற்பத்தி துறையில் இந்தியா 2-வது இடம்

  • September 13, 2014
  • by:  admin 
  • note:  no comments 

koondu fish04சர்வதேச அளவில், மீன் உற்பத்தியில் இந்தியா இரண்டாவது இடத்தில் உள்ளது. முதல் இடத்தில் சீனா உள்ளது. இந்தியாவின் மொத்த மீன் உற்பத்தி சீனாவின் உற்பத்தியில் 10 சதவீத அளவிற்கே உள்ளது என மீன்வளத் துறை ஆய்வாளர்கள் தெரிவித்துள்ளனர்.

மீன், கடல்பாசிகடந்த 2012-ஆம் ஆண்டில் சீனா மொத்தம் 5.70 கோடி டன் அளவிற்கு மீன்கள் மற்றும் கடல்பாசிகளை உற்பத்தி செய்தது. இது அந்நாட்டின் மொத்த கடல் உணவு பொருள்கள் உற்பத்தியில் 63 சதவீதமாகும். கடல்பாசி நீங்கலாக சீனாவின் மீன் உற்பத்தி 4.11 கோடி டன்னாக உள்ளது. அந்த ஆண்டில் இந்தியா 42 லட்சம் டன் மீன்களை உற்பத்தி செய்தது.இந்தியாவில் கடல்வாழ் உயிரினங்கள் மிகவும் குறைவாக உள்ளன. அதே சமயம் சீனாவில் வர்த்தக நோக்கில் 100-க்கும் மேற்பட்ட கடல்வாழ் உயிரினங்கள் வளர்க்கப்படுகின்றன.

இதனால் கடல் உணவுப் பொருள்கள் உற்பத்தியில் அந்நாடு முன்னணியில் உள்ளது. நம் நாட்டில் கடந்த 1991-92-ஆம் ஆண்டில் மீன் உற்பத்தி 41.57 லட்சம் டன்னாக இருந்தது. இது 2012-13-ஆம் ஆண்டில் 90.40 லட்சம் டன்னாக உயர்ந்துள்ளது.இந்திய கடல் பகுதியில் மீன் பிடித்தல் 36 சதவீதம் வளர்ச்சி கண்டுள்ளது. அதே சமயம் உள்நாட்டு நீர்நிலைகள் மற்றும் பண்ணைகளில் மீன் உற்பத்தி 234 சதவீதம் அதிகரித்துள்ளது. இந்தியாவில் மீன் உற்பத்திக்கு வளமான வாய்ப்புகள் உள்ளதை இந்த புள்ளிவிவரங்கள் எடுத்து காட்டுகின்றன.

ஆனால் இந்த துறையில் இந்தியாவின் உற்பத்தி திறன் முழுமையாக பயன்படுத்தப்படவில்லை என்பதை விஞ்ஞானிகள் சுட்டிக் காட்டியுள்ளனர். பொது கொள்கைஇந்த நிலையில் வர்த்தகரீதியில் மீன்களை ஏராளமாக வளர்ப்பதற்கேற்ற வகையில் பொது கொள்கை ஒன்று உருவாக்கப்பட வேண்டும் என இந்த துறையைச் சேர்ந்தவர்கள் எதிர்பார்க்கின்றனர்.

source :http://epaper.dailythanthi.com/showxml.aspx?id=16391010&code=4355

India is No.2 in World Fish Production

  • September 13, 2014
  • by:  admin 
  • note:  no comments 

India way behind China in fish production

PTI Sep 9, 2014, 12.13PM IST

KOLKATA: Though India is considered to be the second largest fish producer in the world, it is still way behind its nearest competitor China, said a fisheries scientist.

“India is the second largest producer of freshwater fish in the world, but compared to China our fish production is only about ten per cent of that country,” Pro Vice- Chancellor of Kerala University of Fisheries & Ocean Studies Prof C Mohanakumaran Nair told PTI.

In 2012 China had produced 570 lakh MT of fish and marine algae, which was 63 per cent of its totalaquaculture production, he said.

Excluding marine algae, China’s production of food fish was 411.08 lakh MT, while India’s had 42.09 lakh MT, just around ten per cent of it, Nair said.

He pointed out that Indian aquaculture was limited to a few species (less than 10) while in China more than 100 species were being commercially cultured.

Describing India as a “sleeping giant” because of its untapped fish production potential, the scientist said, “India’s fish production has been showing a marginal increase every year. From 41.57 lakh tonnes in 1991-92 it has increased to 90.40 lakh tonnes in 2012-13.

“The marine fish capture has increased only by about 36 per cent while there was a 234 per cent rise in the inland fish production. This shows the potential for development in this sector. India is a sleeping giant,” Nair stated.

He also said the country lacked a general policy to utilise its water bodies for aquaculture and thus not utilising its potential properly.

“There is no general policy to utilise the public water bodies for aquaculture including the coastal areas around us,” he said.

According to him, India’s national policy should be focused on increasing production at all levels besides intensifying policy-based aquaculture activities.

 

Link :

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-09-09/news/53730833_1_fish-production-total-aquaculture-production-second-largest-fish-producer

 

 

 

 

“Thorium” and the caption “Nuclear Mine Field”

  • September 8, 2014
  • by:  admin 
  • note:  no comments 
Anitha Thirunavukkarasu shared a link.
1. This has reference to an article authored and posted by one Shri Srinivasan Kalyanaraman on the blog http://www.thecitizen.in/News Detail.aspx? under the labels: “Thorium” and the caption “Nuclear Mine Field”: Jaya Government breaks rules to allow private mining of Atomic Minerals. The author has invited comment on the contents of the article.

2. In deference to his wishes I would like to offer my detailed comments.

3. Before delving at length into the details, I wish to introduce myself as Dr.T.Anitha, a pro-active Environmental Bio-technologist possessing post-graduate degree and doctorate in Environmental Bio-technology and has good many years of experience in this field. Besides, having been associated with this fascinating field I am very well acquainted and conversant with the statutory provisions of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulations) Act 1957, the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 1988, Atomic Energy Act and Rules 1962 also. Further more, I have a good collection of various circulars and executive instructions issued by the Ministry of Mines, Government of India and the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India. Therefore, with the above mentioned background knowledge that I have possessed in this field, when I went through the contents of the article I was utterly disappointed and distraught over many parts of the contents of the said article which are full of factual errors and misinformation. Many of the interpretations of the author expressed in his article only the expose his ignorance or his shallow depth of knowledge in respect of chemical composition of ‘Monazite’, statutory provisions of Mines and Minerals Act and Rules and the circulars of the concerned Departments of Government of India issued from time to time governing the grant of mining leases and the regulatory measures in respect of “beach sand minerals”.

4. With reference to the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulations) Act 1957, the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 and the circulars of Ministry of Mines, Atomic Energy Department of Government of India issued at different appropriate point of time keeping in view the changing need and demand of the situation, the article , per-se lacks material facts. In this context it may not be out of place to mention that I have been watching with curiosity in the past several months that some incorrect and distorted information are doing around in the social media, some news papers, weeklies, etc., about “beach sands” regarding their occurrence, mining and the like. At all those times I did not venture to intervene to reply to those distorted facts for obvious reasons that professional rivalry in this field plays a dominant role in decimating totally this vital ‘mining sector’ itself. Now I have a valid reason to step to offer my comment since this article has addressed as “NaMo, stop the Monazite loot from Tamil Nadu and AP Scrap DAE 18, June, 2006 illegal notification allowing OGL for Atomic Minerals”. Before the authorities in the “power that be” upfront get carried away by the contents of the article which I hope they will not do so in haste I consider it my sacred duty to put the whole gamut of this matter in proper perspective and guide the course of action in proper direction to the best of my conscience and ability.

5. I can say, for certain, that some misguided elements are out in public to disseminate and propagate misguided and false information about this vital mining sector unmindful of what kind of damage that it is likely to cause if the mineral is not put into proper and timely use. Further, it is bound to cause collateral damage and double wham my both to the economy of the country as well as mining sector itself which provides employment opportunities in good numbers to several thousands of skilled, semi skilled and other category of workers both in the mines and the mineral processing units. Therefore, it is the duty of all fair minded persons to stem the spread of this ‘virus and menace’ which will spell disaster.

6. To substantiate my above comment that the article contains misinformation and distorted facts it is my duty to point out that the title itself is erroneous for the reason that the State Government, irrespective of who is at the helm of affairs, has no unilateral statutory powers independent of the parent Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 which are all enacted only by the Parliament and have come into force with the assent of His Excellency, the President of India in respect of all types of “Major minerals” listed in the said Act. However, the State Governments are empowered under section 15 of the said Act to frame and enact their own independent rules only in respect of ‘minor minerals’ such as river sand, gravel blue metal, granites, etc. etc. Adverting to nuclear mine field in particular as reported in the said article, it is informed that State Government of Tamil Nadu under any Chief Minister cannot break rules and allow private mining of Atomic Minerals on their own without following the Act and Rules and the guidelines issued by the Dept. of Atomic Energy and AERB. This is applicable to all State Governments functioning under the Union of India except Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore, whatever mining leases that are being granted they are granted only with the prior approval and concurrence of the concerned Departments and the Ministry of Government of India.

7. Regarding mining of ‘Monazite’ in particular I expatiate as follows upon the correct position with regard to Government of India policy on mining of beach minerals containing ‘prescribed substances and monazite’, the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India has announced its Policy Resolution on exploitation of Beach sand minerals vide its circular No.8/1(i)/97-PSU dated 06.10.1998 and published the same in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary dated 16.10.1998, Part I , Section 1 contents of which are extracted below:
“India has large reserves of beach sand minerals in the coastal stretches around the country. Ilmenite is the largest constituent of the Indian deposits, others being Rutile, Leucoxene, zircon, sillimanite, garnet and monazite. The minerals other than garnet and sillimanite, have been classified as ‘prescribed substances’ under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962”.
“Under the Industrial policy statement of 1991, the mining and production of minerals classified as ‘prescribed substances’ is reserved for the public sector”.
“Considering the growing demand for these minerals and/or their value added products in the domestic as well as international markets and the potential available in the country, setting up of new plants for exploitation of these deposits in fresh locations would be in the interest of the country. Production of various value-added products of these minerals, is, however, highly capital intensive and it may not be possible for only the PSUS (both Central and Stated owned) operating in this filed to set up the new plants on their own. It is, therefore, necessary to allow the private sector to set up such plants within the frame work of some broad guidelines”.
“In view of the background explained above, Government of India has recently approved a policy to encourage further exploitation of these mineral deposits through a judicious mix of public and private participations (including foreign investments)”.
“The other objectives of the policy are maximization of value addition to the raw minerals within the country, up-gradation of the existing process technologies to international standards, attracting funds and new technology necessary for this purpose through participation of the private sector (domestic and foreign) appropriate disposal of the new production facilities with an eye on regional balance and regulating the rate of exploitation reserves last for about hundred years without, of course, adversely affecting the investors’ techno-economic considerations.”

8. In consonance with the above declared revised policy of the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India, it is informed that exploitation of “prescribed substances” including that of ‘Monazite’ has been thrown open to private participation and production and disposal of Monazite, in particular, has been permitted under private sector also since 1998 in accordance with the instructions/directives of AERB.

9. Therefore, it is needless to explain that there is no prohibition or ban on production and disposal of Monazite also by private entities. The only requirement is obtaining proper license from the competent authority. This policy decision has been taken by the concerned Department of Atomic Energy consciously keeping all aspects of “Monazite’ in mind.

10. In respect of Monazite, as per the advice of DAE, Govt., of India implemented Rule 66A a special provisions relating to atomic minerals envisioned in the Rule 66A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. Hence the Beach Mineral mining lessee has to follow Rule 66A only in respect of Atomic Minerals including Monazite. Since monazite also associated with beach minerals, license from AERB is required only for production and disposal of monazite since the mineral monazite already occurs in association with other minerals in the beach sand and the agglomerated beach sand has been already mined with the valid licence for other substances contained in the beach sand.

11. Further, the requirement is that the BSM facilities have to get license from Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB).

12. It is mandatory that all the existing beach sand minerals facilities carrying out mineral processing of beach sand minerals (physical separation and/or chemical processing) are required to obtain licence under rule 3 of the Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules of 2004 from the AERB.

13. Further more, Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India has, as early as 2000 itself, issued a letter D.O.No.7/3(ii)/2000-PSU/537, dated 08.05.2000 of the Officer on special Duty, Department of Atomic Energy, Mumbai addressed to the Director, Department of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai-600 032 wherein it has been mentioned, inter alia, that
“prior to issue of the Resolution of 06.10.1998 a policy of exploitation of beach sand minerals, only public sector undertakings of the Government of India/State Governments were authorized to produce and sell minerals like ilmenite, Rutile, zircon, etc., which have been declared as prescribed substances under the Atomic Energy Act. It was, in this context, that ‘No Objection Certificates’ were issued from this Department to garnet producers. “After issue of the Notification dated 06.10.1998, it is permissible for Indian owned companies also to produce and sell minerals like ilmenite, zircon, etc., with the introduction of the new policy in October, 1998, some companies who have earlier obtained ‘No Objection Certificates’ for production and sale of garnet applied to this Department seeking licence for production and sale of ilmenite also accordingly, licences were issued to the companies. Therefore, now they need not have to handover the ‘tailings’ to IREL. This Department has no objection for those companies utilizing the accumulated tailings for production of Ilmenite, etc., and sell thereof, subject to satisfying the quantities indicated in the licences by them”.

14. In the same year the Ministry of Mines, Government of India has circulated another letter to the Director of Geology and Mining, Guindy, Chennai-600 032 vide No.7(30)/2000-11/IV, dated 16.08.2000 with regard to production of ‘atomic minerals” wherein it has been clarified among other things as follows:

…………. In the view of Department of Atomic Energy, there is no need for separate mining lease for beach minerals occurring naturally with garnet. It may be noted that Rule 66-A of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 which deals with mining of Atomic minerals by holder of mining lease for major minerals Rule 66A read with Rule 27(1)(b) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 clearly prescribes that in the case of atomic minerals, the inclusion of atomic minerals in the mining lease is not required…………” This clarification of the Ministry of Mines, Govt. of India answers and thwarts all the evil designs of the author and the associates.

15. Further, as regards special provisions relating to Atomic Minerals such as Monazite as enshrined in sub rules (i)&(ii) of Rule 66-A(1) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 there is no bar on the part of a holder of mining lessee for major minerals to win and dispose of atomic minerals found associated with the other minerals for which mining lease has already been obtained subject to the conditions stipulated therein.

16. Shri.Srinivasan Kalyanaraman is obviously not aware of the procedure enunciated in the Rule 22(1) of the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960 wherein seekers of a mining lease for all types of major minerals in any land shall make an application only to the State Government through the District Collector concerned as per sub rule (4) of the said rule 22 of the Mineral Concessions Rules, 1960, the State Government alone shall take a statutory decision to grant or refuse to grant a mining lease. This is the unambiguously clear statutory power conferred upon the State Governments by the Central Government through the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. However, in respect of certain category of minerals listed in the First Schedule, prior approval of the Central Government is required. Even then, the mining lease granting power is vested only with the State Governments. It is advisable that Shri. Srinivasan Kalyanaraman is requested to visit the relevant provisions of the Acts and rules governing granting of mining leases and other regulatory measures keep himself abreast of the statutory provisions in force.

17. From the above illustration of facts, it may be discerned that all mis-information and distorted facts presented in the pretext of an article are thus put at rest and nought.

18. Shri. Srinivasan Kalyanaraman is requested to get to know that the nomenclature of ‘prescribed substances’ has been deleted by the Department of Atomic Energy vide Notification dated 20-01-2006 and the nomenclature of the prescribed substances ceases to exist since then and consequently there are no prescribed substances as such now.

19. Regarding fixation of royalty for “Monazite”, it is informed that only Ministry of Mines, Government of India can fix royalty once in three years as per sub section(3) of section 9 of Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 . The State Governments have no statutory powers to fix royalty arbitrarily for any major minerals on their own. In fact, only the Ministry of Mines, Government of India has fixed Rs.125 per Tonne as royalty for ‘Monazite’ and all the State Governments have to follow that rate of royalty only scrupulously. Thiru.S.Kalyanaraman is therefore invited to go through Sl.No.30 of the Schedule II of MMDR Act, 1957 .

20. Shri. Srinivasan Kalyanaraman has not furnished correct information regarding composition of Monazite. He has equated ‘Monazite’ with an ore of “Uranium”. Shri.Srinivasan kaylanaraman is requested to verify from the text book on ‘Mineralogy’ by “Dana” which is acclaimed as the best reference text book on ‘Mineralogy’ prescribed in the colleges offering geology course.

21. In the said book it has been mentioned that ‘Monazite’ is the chief source of ‘Thorium Oxide’ which is used in the manufacture of “incandescent gas light mantles” whereas “Uranium” belongs to an entirely different ‘Uranite Group’ which is a phosphate of cerium metals with essentially contain Ce, La, Di, Po4 and thus each one belongs to different group of ores. It is considered pertinent to inform that the Govt. of Tamil Nadu vie its G.O.Ms.No.288 dated 18-01-1961 Dept. of Industries, Labour and Co-operation has sanctioned the grant to M/s.Palcorporation (Pvt) Ltd , No.71, Amman Sannadhi street, Madurai to mine ‘Uranium’ among other minerals , for a period of 20 years over an extent of 70.78 acres in S.Nos.116, 121, 122, 123/1 and 2, 124, 125, 126/1, 127/2, 128/1, 129/1 and 132 in Panamoopanpatti village, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai district . The said company had been subsequently permitted to sell ‘Uranium’ to foreign countries by the Dept. of atomic Energy vide their letter No.7(1)(29)/99-PSU/512 dated 22.5.2001 on a specific request and application made by the said company to the Dept. It may be noted here that ‘Uranium’ is more potential nuclear and radio-active mineral than ‘Thorium’ content ‘Monazite’ and that high potency radio-active nuclear mineral itself had been permitted to be sold to a private company by the Department of Atomic Energy.

22. It is pertinent to point out here that even M/s.Indian Rare Earths Limited exports monazite only to private parties in other countries.

23. This factual information, I am sure will dispel the scare and misapprehensions created regarding mining and disposal of ‘Monazite’ by private lessees in Tamil Nadu.

24. In the said article Shri Srinivasan Kalyanaraman has reported that the Department of Geology and Mining has granted 16 licences in 2012-2013 allowing private companies to mine atomic mineral ‘Monazite’. Since he has not furnished the list of those 16 licences, I am unable to offer specific comments on each of them. However, I can offer a generalised comment by which I may state that if all 16 licences are already in possession of individual mining leases for other types of major minerals, there is no statutory bar to cause inclusion of ‘Monazite’ also in their existing mining leases as per rule 66-A of the Mineral Concessions Rule, 1960 and also in accordance with the several clarifications and executive instructions given by the Department of Atomic Energy as well as the Ministry of Mines, Government of India in this regard. No separate approval is necessary but only a licence from the AERB for disposal of monazite is required as per AERB guidelines and instructions. In such already existing mining leases, inclusion of any additional mineral including ‘Monazite’ can be absolutely statutorily allowed by the competent authority of the State Governments and there is no illegality in this regard. But actual disposal of Monazite shall be done only in accordance with the direction of AERB. Therefore, inclusion of monazite in the existing mining lease may be ordered by the competent authority of the State Govt. with the imposition of a special condition to obtain a license from AERB before disposal of monazite.

25. As for other contents of this article such as submission of an affidavit by the Department of Atomic Energy in the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in 2013 related to a case by some private company, I would like to state that I have no comments to offer as I am not concerned with those matters and the matter is sub-judice.
General observation and conclusion

a) Once again I would like to state the whole article put up on the blog by Shri.Srinivasa Kalyanaraman contains factual errors and misleading information.
b) It is quite unfortunate that, of late . some people in Tamilnadu have been painting a bad picture about beach sand mining in toto and the functions of the State Govt. in this regard in Tamil Nadu alone . I fail to understand as to why these people have been keeping silence when similar beach sand mining has been permitted in the coastal areas of the states of Orissa, Kerala and Maharashtra, etc., by the respective state governments to private parties.
c) I am sanguine that this reply of mine may at least now throw some light and bring out revelations on what is envisioned in the statutory provisions of the Mines and Minerals Act, 1957 and the existing the Policy of beach sand mining with particular reference to the prescribed substances and monazite thereby setting right the perceptions set in motion in the public by some people.
d) The beach sand minerals ‘as its name itself implies are unique in their occurrence confining to a few coastal zones of the States of Kerala, Orissa, AP, Maharashtra and Gujarat some extent. If these replenishable deposits are not allowed to be exploited at proper time, this will remain unutilised or misused by the locals for construction and other inferior purpose or it will be drawn back to the ocean bed itself by wave action without being available for use in the mineral based industries as well export to foreign countries. Therefore, it is irrational to oppose for the sake of opposing what is better for the progress, prosperity and industrial development of this country at large.

 

Link :  

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003054516493&fref=ts 

 

Translation – Objection to Hindu on 20.8.14

  • August 22, 2014
  • by:  admin 
  • note:  no comments 

Coastal Environment and Ecology Conservation Committee Letter dated 20.08.2014

Sir,
On 19.08.2014, there was an article written by you under the heading “travel in a mysterious area” and I submit my objection to that article as follows.  The 1st photograph in the above said page, is available in Vaippar village Beach.   Algae being separated, the black babool, and there is no residence and the sand is not being quarried will be revealed from that photograph itself. The 2nd photograph is the Karaichuthu Pudur village beach, there also there is no residence, agriculture, and the sand is being spread by the wind will be clearly revealed.

There is no connection whatsoever between the photograph and your article.  But with the ulterior motive, for the money received from Thiru. Dayadevadass and Nila Sea Food company, you have starting from the Indian Rare Earth Limited at Kanyakumari, the target is being made on the V.V.Minerals. The area mentioned by you Neroodi, Midalam all are available in Indian Rare Earth Limited company, Govt., company mining lease area.  IRE Ltd itself mining sand in the sea which is permitted by Central Government.

Without CRZ Clearance and without environmental clearance, without valid mining lease renewal, they are quarrying from 1992 to till now.  You had not written about that and you are writing about the mining operation by V.V.Mineral made in own patta lands with proper permissions and approvals and it alone will reveal that you are writing for the money received by you. You have mentioned that the fishermen are being affected and that they are objecting the same. In real fact, the fishermen themselves are engaged in the mining activity.

Some person like you who are working for the money received from Dayadevadas group, had given their interview, stating that they are objecting the same.  I had enclosed a letter copy obtained from the Indian Rare Earth Limited.  If you see this, you can find out that IRE Ltd employees only 15 persons are engaged, but more than 2000 people are from Kottelpadu, Neroodi, Chinnavilai, Periyavilai which are mentioned by your news item.   You are also saying another big slander as there is an irregularity to the tune of Rs.1 lakh Crore.  If we ask that do you have any proof, you will quote previous news or report of Ashishkumar.

If a corrupted officer gives the wrongful report like this for the purpose of money without any proof, is it fair to release of the same in your magazine without any perusal whatsoever? In your release, if it was mentioned in the note that this news is being published for the money received by us, it is correct or if it is written that it is being published for the money received by your reporter, it is also justified. The objections being made by some persons is mentioned to be objection by the village and the news published as such is with ulterior motive.  If really want to publish the news which will affect the general public, you would have written about the Indian rate Earth Limited which is functioning without the environmental clearance, CRZ Clearance without valid mining lease renewal. All over India, highly radioactivity mineral sand is available in Manavalakurichi (Please refer to the answer to the un-stared question No.3259 in the Rajyasaba of Parliament).  Indian Rare Earth Limited is functioning there. 

The radioactivity sand which is not quarried through IRE Ltd’s own staff. But they are using the fishermen for quarrying the radioactive mineral.  Could you say as to how many fishermen died in this? If the diseases mentioned by you are being caused due to this, there is no need for the cancer hospital at Chennai.  It should be in Kanyakumari.  There should not be cancer in any of the other countries in the world.  Tirunelveli, Kanyakumari, Tuticorin alone mining activities are carried out. When that being so, the disease should not be there in the other districts. Please do not misuse the freedom of Press for the purpose of money.

Please look at the below mentioned websites.

http://www.beachminerals.org

http://www.coastalenvironment.org

http://mraja2013.blogspot.in

If you see the above said websites, you can find out that who is the route cause for submitting false report by Ashish Kumar and who is behind the pre-planned false news spread. All are available in the form of video photo and news.   Please see this, and stop the spreading of the false rumors for the sake of money in future.  Please publish my objection as it is in your newspaper.  

Yours truly  

Sd/- R. Immanuvel

Count per Day

  • 241251Total visitors:
  • 46Visitors today:
  • 659Visitors last week:
  • 329Visitors per month:
  • 1Visitors currently online:

Recent Post

Blog Post

Proudly powered by Powered by WordPress.com. | Copyright @ 2019 WordPress. Developed By Weblizar