Bay is ours: Bangladesh win a landmark verdict

Bangladesh has won its maritime suit against Myanmar, which sustained its claim to 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic and territorial rights in the Bay of Bengal rejecting the claims of Myanmar.

http://static.priyo.com/files/image/2012/03/15/20120315-map-460.jpg

The verdict of the court went absolutely in Bangladesh's favour and even beyond, as it gave more than what Bangladesh had asked for. The judgment is final and cannot be appealed against. :cheers:

The verdict of the tribunal gave Bangladesh a substantial share of the outer continental shelf beyond 200 miles, which would open ways for offshore oil and gas exploration in the Bay.

The tribunal also awarded Bangladesh a full 12-mile territorial sea around St Martin's Island, overruling Myanmar's argument that the island be cut in half and shared.

“We have got everything, even more than what we wanted. We are happy, we are absolutely delighted,” cheerful Foreign Minister Dipu Moni told over the phone from Hamburg, Germany, report The Daily Star .

"This is a great day for Bangladesh. All our strategic objectives were achieved," she said, adding that Bangladesh could now proceed with its oil and gas exploration in the area. “In our claims, we wanted around 1 lakh square miles but the tribunal in its verdict gave us 1.11 lakh square miles,” she said.

Yesterday's 151-page judgment was the first by any court or tribunal to delimit the maritime area beyond 200 miles, known as the “outer continental shelf”, and is certain to establish an important precedent.

“Bangladesh's full access to the high seas out to 200 miles and beyond is now recognised and guaranteed with our undisputed rights to the fish in our waters and the natural resources beneath our seabed,” Minister Dipu Moni said.

The tribunal, based in Hamburg, Germany, was established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to adjudicate disputes between states concerning issues covered by the convention, including the delimitation of maritime boundaries.

President of the tribunal Jose Luis Jesus of Cape Verde read out the judgment in the courtroom yesterday around 4:30am Bangladesh time. The 23-member panel of judges of the tribunal delivered its judgment after following a series of procedures and long hearings between September 8 and September 24, 2011, when both the countries presented their arguments.

The verdict, which the judges passed voting 21 to 1, concludes the case initiated by Bangladesh against Myanmar on October 8, 2009, to resolve a longstanding dispute over the maritime boundary.

Sources said Bangladesh lodged cases after India and Myanmar unfairly cut off a significant portion of Bangladesh's maritime area in the Bay.

Bangladesh's objection to Myanmar's claim was lodged with the tribunal and its objection to the Indian claim was filed with the UN's Permanent Court of Arbitration based in The Hague, the Netherlands. The arbitration with India is expected to be settled in 2014.

Bangladesh favours a principle based on "equity" while India and Myanmar favours "equidistance" system to get larger maritime areas.

Under a UN charter, the principle of "equity" takes into account a country's population, economic status and needs, GDP growth, and other issues, while the "equidistance" system marks the boundary through geometric calculations.

According to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, any such dispute should be resolved on the basis of equity, and in the light of relevant circumstances. This makes Bangladesh's demand for equity-based demarcation justified, experts said.

Foreign Minister Dipu Moni, who was present in the courtroom during the judgment, told The Daily Star immediately afterwards that the people of Bangladesh were deeply connected to and dependent on the Bay of Bengal, both as a source of nutrition and for employment.

The legal certainty afforded by this verdict would ensure that “we will be able to maximize the benefit of this important resource for the people of Bangladesh while at the same time ensuring long-term sustainability,” she added.

The foreign minister said energy-starved Bangladesh's exploration for petroleum and natural gas in the Bay, which had been delayed by conflicting boundary claims, could now proceed.

The judgment would now allow Conoco Philips Bangladesh to explore oil and gas for Bangladesh in deep-sea areas previously marked disputed. The oil company conditionally signed a production sharing contract last year leaving out the disputed areas.

The company kept a provision saying that it would explore the disputed areas after the issue had been settled.

“Today's ruling constitutes the equitable solution that Bangladesh has long desired, but was unable to obtain during the 38 years of diplomatic stalemate preceding the lawsuit,” the foreign minister asserted.

“The bold and visionary decision of the prime minister to seek a binding judicial resolution of this longstanding dispute has been vindicated.
“But it is a victory for both states…because it finally resolves, peacefully and according to international law, a problem that had hampered the economic development of both states for more than three [almost four] decades. We salute Myanmar for its willingness to resolve this matter by legal means and for its acceptance of the tribunal's judgment,” she said.

Myanmar wanted its maritime boundary with Bangladesh cut directly across the Bangladesh coastline, severely truncating Bangladesh's maritime jurisdiction to a narrow wedge of sea not extending beyond 130 miles.

Myanmar also claimed that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to award continental shelf rights beyond 200 miles from either state's coast.
The tribunal rejected both these arguments.

“We are very pleased with the expertise, fairness and efficiency of the ITLOS [the tribunal] and its judges,” said Dipu Moni. “The case was resolved, from beginning to end, in a little over two years. This is unprecedented in judicial efficiency in a maritime boundary case.”
As the agent of Bangladesh in the proceedings the foreign minister presided over an eminent legal team, including deputy agent Rear Admiral (retd) Md Khurshed Alam, attorneys James Crawford, Philippe Sands and Alan Boyle of the United Kingdom, Paul Reichler and Lawrence Martin of the United States, and Payam Akhavan of Canada.

Myanmar was represented by its agent Attorney General Tun Shin. Its counsels included Alain Pellet and Mathias Forteau of France, Sir Michael Wood of the United Kingdom and Coalter Lathrop of the United States.

It may be mentioned that the army-backed caretaker regime invited bids for offshore exploration in February 2008 after dividing its sea territory in the Bay into 28 blocks.

But both India and Myanmar raised objections in all most all the blocks bordering “their maritime boundaries” that prevented Bangladesh from exploring for oil-gas. Myanmar even claimed rights to part of an area of Bangladesh and at the peak of the dispute in 2008, a war-like situation developed when both countries sent their navy to the disputed area.

News Source:
The Daily Star

JOY BANGLADESH :banana:

Congratulations Bangladesh!!!

excellent news for sure...now there are serious chances of finding a lot of OIL!:cheers:

Originally Posted by Pakia
Congratulations Bangladesh!!!

Thank you bro :)

^^
Its a very good news Mirza bhai, I just hope that Conoco Philips finds oil and gas. :cheers:

Bangladesh lets ConocoPhillips explore full area of 1 disputed deepwater

ConocoPhillips will now be able to conduct oil and gas exploration in the complete area of deepwater block DS-08-11 as the maritime boundary dispute with neighboring Myanmar is now settled, Petrobangla Chairman Hussain Monsur told Platts Friday.

He said that the US firm will, however, have to wait for another verdict by the international court to resolve a dispute with neighboring India to get full exploration rights for the deepwater gas block DS-08-10.

The verdict is expected in 2014.

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, in a decision in the German city of Hamburg Wednesday, sustained Bangladesh's claims to a full 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone in the Bay of Bengal, and to a substantial share of the outer continental shelf beyond 200 miles, Platts reported earlier quoting a Bangladesh foreign ministry statement.

http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/Oil/8069339

^^
Its a very good news Mirza bhai, I just hope that Conoco Philips finds oil and gas. :cheers:

Say no to Conoco-Philips.

Say no to Conoco-Philips.

In that case, the deep waters in the bay shall remain unexplored (for hydrocarbons), as Bangladesh does not have the technical capability to perform off-shore energy exploration. Although, BAPEX ought to acquire such expertise.

Excellent news indeed. Now we just have to win in our case against India and we will finally be able to get what is rightfully ours. Bangladesh definitely needs it.

^^
India rather wants a 'bilateral' solution rather than court decisions as happened with the Myanmar case. If Bangladesh govt accepts this, then we have no chance, rather India will force itself to grab our maritime boundary and we are gone for sure.

Pursue case for sea boundary with India: Dr. Moin

Dr. Moin Khan, former ministerand members of BNP's national standing committee on Wednesday underscored theneed for national unity to ensure resolution of thorny issues with bigneighbour, India.

Taking part at a roundtable onthe sea boundary issue at the National Press Club as the chief guest he saidthat the people of Bangladesh should remain grateful to the people of India fortheir generous support extended during the war of liberation. But the weakeningof friendship between the two countries should be traced back to policiesadopted by the Indian ministry of external affairs in keeping many bilateralissues unresolved. Former Vice Chancellor of Dhaka University Prof. EmajuddinAhmed presided over the roundtable organised by the Free Thinkers Forum.Alamgir Mohiuddin, editor, Naya Diganta, BNP leaders Ismael Hossain Bengal, ANMRahmatullah spoke at the function moderated by Jahangir Chowdhury, president ofthe forum.

Dr. Moin Khan listed ten factorsthat created distance between the peoples of India and Bangladesh and saidwhile Bangladesh proved true to its commitments the big neighbour did not.Besides, the Farakka Barrage, enclave,corridor, Teesta water sharing, border killings, Tipaimukh Dam issued souredthe relations between the two countries.

He said that Bangladesh shouldstrongly fight the case for demarcation of sea boundary with India because frompast track record it could not be told for sure that the issue can be resolvedbilaterally.

In his presidential address ProfEmajuddin Ahmed said that the interlinking of rivers being pursued at theinstance of the Indian Supreme Court posed a threat to the very existence ofBangladesh.

Alamgir Mohiuddin said that in the past Bangladesh didnot find solutions of problems with India bilaterally.

News Source:
The New Nation

Maritime boundary to be re-demarcated as per ITLOS verdict

Prime Minister’s Adviser Dr Tawfiq-e-Elahi Chowdhury on Tuesday said the government will re-demarcate the country’s maritime boundary on the basis of the ITLOS verdict when the gazette notification in this regard will be published.

He came up with the government plan after a meeting between the Energy Ministry and the Foreign Affairs Ministry at the Energy Ministry’s conference room.

Additional Secretary to Foreign Ministry Khurshid Alam was also present.

When his attention was drawn to some energy experts’ disagreement about the Bangladesh’s win in the legal battle with Myanmar, Khurshid Alam said gas block demarcation was not made on the basis of scientific method during the last international gas block bidding in 2008.

Taking that into consideration, the experts are now disagreeing with the government’s claim of the win.

At the Energy Ministry’s meeting, State Minister for Power and Energy Mohammad Enamul Haque, Energy Secretary Mohammad Mezbauddin, Petrobangla Chairman Dr Hussain Monsur and other top officials were present.

This was the first meeting between the two ministries after the settlement of the maritime boundary case with Myanmar at the ITLOS (International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea). Additional Foreign Secretary Khurshid Alam briefed about the results of the maritime boundary case at the ITLOS with neighbouring Myanmar.

Dr Tawfiq-e-Elahi Chowdhury refrained from making any comment on the disagreement from the opposition and energy experts about Bangladesh’s claim on wining the case.

Asked about the government’s next course of action about the maritime boundary, he said the country’s offshore blocks will be re-demarcated on the basis of the ITLOS Verdict. “We’re now analysing the full verdict and the maritime boundary areas,” he said.

When his attention was drawn to the US-based ConocoPhillips’ request allocating 6 blocks, which the company had won through an international bidding, he did not make any comment.

ConocoPhillips had won the bid for eight blocks. But Bangladesh signed deal for only two blocks out of eight because these blocks were located in disputed areas and a case was pending at the ITLOS. Now Conoco is claiming that the six blocks should be allocated to the company as the case is now settled.

News Source:
UNB

Go for proper maritime policy
Seminar spurs govt on building capacity of navy, coastguard

A national maritime policy is necessary to explore, protect, and make the best use of biological and non-biological resources in the Bay of Bengal, speakers told a seminar yesterday.

It is a must now to enhance the capacity of Bangladesh Navy and the Coast Guard to protect Bangladesh's interests in the Bay, they said.

The speakers suggested the government form a single authority that can be called National Maritime Commission to coordinate its agencies and stakeholders operating in the Bay.

Bangladesh Institute of International Strategic Studies organised the seminar “The Need for a National Maritime Policy of Bangladesh” at its auditorium in the capital.

They also stressed the need for creating opportunities for higher education and research on sea and oceans.

In the keynote speech, Rear Admiral (retd) Mohammad Khurshed Alam said Bangladesh needs to create awareness about maritime management among people.

“We need a policy not just to ensure security and explore resources but to take decisions during disasters, accidents and salvage operations in the sea.”

He said the policy should give emphasis on improvement of navigation of river routes.

“We can carry containers from Dhaka to our Chittagong and Mongla ports at a much cheaper rate through river routes.”

Formulation of a proper maritime policy and its implementation would help achieve that, Khurshed said.

Finance Minister AMA Muhith said Bangladesh needs to make the best use of its sea resources.

“It is not possible for us to explore seabed resources at this moment, as we lack the capacity to do that,” he said.

He said the government would continue to provide financial support to the maritime sector.

Navy Chief Rear Admiral Zahir Uddin said the people are “politically sea blind”, as no governments from 1991 to 2008 gave importance to the Navy.

“The budget for the Navy was always much less than the other two forces.”

However, the present government has been giving emphasis on the Navy, he said.

The Navy chief urged the government to purchase an Oceanographic Survey and Research vessel for $100 million to increase its capacity for sea research.

Maj Gen (retd) AMSA Amin said Bangladesh needs to build awareness among its people about the country's maritime boundary.

Bangladesh lags far behind other South Asian countries such as India and Pakistan in the maritime sector, he said.

The speakers also urged the government to increase the capacity of Bangladesh Shipping Council. The government agency that started its journey with 25 ships after the independence now has only eight ships.

News Source:
Daily Star

All well and good -- however how do you enforce compliance with the verdict??

Myanmar junta is ready with their naval flotilla to scuttle any exploration convoy on the ground (like they did before). How will Bangladesh react? What sort of planning (and means) do we have to protect our maritime rights?

Just being the devil's advocate here...

Myanmar junta is ready with their naval flotilla to scuttle any exploration convoy on the ground (like they did before). How will Bangladesh react? What sort of planning (and means) do we have to protect our maritime rights?

Just being the devil's advocate here...

If they do so now, they will be violating international law. Btw Su Kyi has been elected and Myanmar Junta isnt as strong as before.

In that case, the deep waters in the bay shall remain unexplored (for hydrocarbons), as Bangladesh does not have the technical capability to perform off-shore energy exploration. Although, BAPEX ought to acquire such expertise.

Well to be frank I am against the exploration of coal, oil and gas and am of the opinion that only renewable energy should be concentrated upon. I dunno what to think of this nuke deal our govt. has made with Russia.

Well to be frank I am against the exploration of coal, oil and gas and am of the opinion that only renewable energy should be concentrated upon. I dunno what to think of this nuke deal our govt. has made with Russia.

Dude nuclear energy is one of the cleanest and safest forms of energy. The only reason you hear so much against it is because most people don't understand it and relate it to things such as nuclear bombs. Accidents like fukushima would be impossible in a modern plant and there have been far more coal, oil, gas plant accidents, they just don't get the media coverage because people aren't unreasonably scared of them.

If they do so now, they will be violating international law. Btw Su Kyi has been elected and Myanmar Junta isnt as strong as before.

I'm not sure they'd have any qualms to use force, if they feel it is in their national interest. It would be an interesting situation, though. We would soon find out whether Bangladesh has any true blue friends, whether in the region or across the globe.

Well to be frank I am against the exploration of coal, oil and gas and am of the opinion that only renewable energy should be concentrated upon. I dunno what to think of this nuke deal our govt. has made with Russia.

Problem with renewable energy is that it is far from being mature. There are many technical problems that require practical solutions before they can replace traditional means of energy production and distribution. Moreover, for a country like Bangladesh feasibility i.e. cost effectiveness would be a much bigger consideration.

Originally Posted by manbil777

All well and good -- however how do you enforce compliance with the verdict??

Myanmar junta is ready with their naval flotilla to scuttle any exploration convoy on the ground (like they did before). How will Bangladesh react? What sort of planning (and means) do we have to protect our maritime rights?

Apart from the landmark verdict which Bangladesh won in the Bay of Bengal rejecting the claims of Myanmar, Bangladesh navy is also getting more stronger day by day and the government is in process of making the navy 3 dimensional.

In over words I am not worried about Myanmar.

Dude nuclear energy is one of the cleanest and safest forms of energy. The only reason you hear so much against it is because most people don't understand it and relate it to things such as nuclear bombs. Accidents like fukushima would be impossible in a modern plant and there have been far more coal, oil, gas plant accidents, they just don't get the media coverage because people aren't unreasonably scared of them.

Nukes in town: Be prepared for all hell to break loose

Maha Mirza

*The government of Bangladesh has promised us a safe and risk-free nuke in our backyard.
*The Ruppoor nuclear power plant is designed to add a minimum of 1000 MW electricity to the national grid.
*It will be strong enough to handle a 10 Richter scale earthquake.
*It will be well equipped to prevent any accident.

Really!

All governments lie, indeed. All governments try to hide the hippopotamus under the rug. And when it comes to a nuclear deal, public relation becomes more important than public safety.

The myth of a clean nuke
They say nuclear technology is clean. And the only time a reactor actually releases a bulk of radiation is during an accident.

The truth is every nuclear power plant is capable of an accident.

Every nuclear plant releases radiation during every stage of its production. Workers at all stages of the uranium purification process are exposed to radiation. The fairytale of safe nuclear power is thus mostly based on imperfect assumptions and wishful thinking.

According to environmentalist Dr. Vandana Shiva: Just because we don’t get to see radiation, doesn’t mean that nukes are clean.

The myth of a safe nuke
They say, other than Chernobyl, Three Miles Island, and Fukushima, there has never occurred any serious accident at any other nuclear plants.

However, unfortunately, there is quite a lengthy list of nuclear accidents, which includes explosions, near-meltdowns, burnt cables, electrical errors, faulty installation, underground pipe leakage, accidental release of plutonium sludge, radioactive fluids leaking into drains and ending up into nearby rivers, and so on. Hundreds of nuclear accidents are reported each year only in the United States alone. Between 1993-1995, international researchers pointed out more than hundreds of “hazardous incidents” at nuclear plants in India.[1]

The claim of a ‘safer’ nuke is thus ambitious, obnoxious, and inaccurate.

At a time, when the Germans are getting ready to shut down all their nuclear plants by 2022, the Chinese are putting the construction of all their nuclear power plants on hold, the Indians are relentlessly protesting against it for the last 20 years; somehow, we have managed to come up with a safe nuke!

Are we not sleepwalking towards a disaster?

The myth of a cheap nuke
They say nuclear technology is a good technology with a low cost. The question is, how good and how low?

According to various studies:
- It takes around $800 million to set up a 1000 MW gas based plant.
- It takes around $1400 million to set up a 1000 MW coal fired plant.
- It takes around $2-3 billion (around $2000-3000 million) to set up a 1000 MW nuclear power plant.[2] So it is clear that nukes cost way more in terms of capital investment.

However the biggest argument in defence of nuclear power is that the per unit production cost/fuel cost for a nuclear power plant is actually much lower than a coal based or natural gas based power plant.

In short, in case of a nuke, you put more bucks in the beginning, so that you can save up later. Sounds like a deal, but here is the hitch.

The piece of information they don’t give us:
a) The maintenance cost of such a nuclear power plant is ludicrously high compared to coal/gas/solar plants.[3]

b) The day to day operation of a nuclear plant requires continuous cooling down of the reactor by the use of a titanic amount of water which handsomely skyrockets the operation cost of nuclear energy, deeply challenging the popular myth “Nukes are cheap.”[4]

c) To run a 1000 MW nuclear plant, it requires at least 185 MW electricity. Which means a nuke eats up at least one fifth of its own energy.[5]

d) The waste disposal of a nuclear power plant is costly, complex and chaotically hazardous.

e) In case of an accident (which is almost inherent to nuclear technology) the repair or replacement cost could be a terrible rip-off. (Since 1987 to 2002, at least 6 serious accidents had occurred in different nuclear power plants in India which cost nearly 1 billion dollar to repair).[6]

So the bottom line is: Nukes cost a hell lot, and doesn’t really save a hell lot. Now the question on the table is, is there any comfortable alternative?

The energy debate: Can we have a coal-free, nuke-free future?
It is true that fossil fuels or nuclear power both are capable of producing an enormous amount of energy which is crucial for rapid industrialisation and heavy manufacturing. It is true that in an exponentially expanding growth economy, solar and wind offer no practical alternative to fossil fuel and nuclear power. It is also true that the adoption of renewable energy, such as the construction of a 1000 MW equivalent PV solar panel (equivalent to a Ruppoor Nuclear plant) may turn out to be costlier than a nuclear power plant (at this point).

However, the good news is, the Sun is taking over! In the last few years the cost of solar energy have been falling fabulously low, while the cost of nuclear energy have been flying terribly high. [7] The most recent cost projection for a brand new nuclear reactor is pointed out to be at least four times higher than the earlier projections. [8]

http://opinion.bdnews24.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/nuclear2.JPG

Meanwhile the renewable energy scientists have already declared that the historic “solar-nuclear-cost-crossover-moment” has finally been reached (which simply means, the per unit production cost for solar photovoltaics is finally becoming cheaper than nukes). [9][10]

In addition, here are some recent headlines:
Prices of solar panels falling: By 2013 they will be half of what they cost in 2009 (The Guardian, June, 2011).

Solar, once the most expensive of the “renewables,” has become cheaper than nuclear plants. (NC Warn, July 2011).

A sharp 70 percent reduction in the cost of solar panels since 2009 (Clean Technica.com, December 2011).

The Europeans have already shown in practicality, renewable energy can actually take the load away from the national grid only if the right amount of money is put into it. For instance, in the year of 2011 alone, as much as 7,400 MW of electricity has been produced in Germany (equivalent to seven Ruppoor power plant) based on solar technology only. [11] Certainly, the Germans are wholeheartedly shifting their resources from nukes to solar.

Therefore, it doesn’t sound too complicated when the energy scientists say: Europe can go ‘100% renewable’ by the mid century, and ultimately phase out ‘dirty’ energy. [12]

In short, if we are so equipped to accommodate a super expensive nuke, and if we are already super-subsidising the short-term, oil-based quick-rental power plants; it only makes super-sense to shift our resources to solar, which is super safe, sustainable, long-term and also, on the way to be super-cheap! And most importantly, it doesn’t leak (it emits neither carbon, nor radiation).

The nature of the beast we have come to call growth
However, the real danger still exists, and that is our obsession for Growth. In general a country’s energy appetite gets fatter and fatter in direct proportion to its economic growth. To keep up with the ‘growth’ ladder, human civilisation has moved from wood to coal, coal to oil, and ultimately oil to nukes. The age of easy oil is over. We have already burnt too much of fossil fuels (up to a point that it dug a hole in the ozone layer), the natural gas bases are shrinking as well.

Too many of us are consuming too many resources too fast in the name of economic growth. The expansion of the global nuclear industry (based on today’s apparent affluence of Uranium) is therefore, the inevitable by-product of the hysterical expansion of the “growth” economy.

The Roman civilisation ran on slavery. The 21st century civilisation runs on energy. And the universal energy law runs on a simple algebra: The more and more you dig, the less and less you get. The less and less you get, the more and more energy you require to dig deeper and deeper. It comes to a point where digging deeper requires more energy than what it actually gets from digging. The end game is simple: sooner or later the global enterprise of “digging & drilling” will be asking for a bail out. Indeed, the earth’s natural resources are finite. If we keep digging for them, we will eventually exhaust them.
It has become a matter of simple commonsense.

If we simply choose to “grow”, which is the default position of our politicians and economists, no combination of nukes, fossil fuel, solar, and wind will be able to sustain such an arrogant economy. The ones who desire Bangladesh to be a middle-income economy by 2020, or aspire to have an India-like-super-duper-growth-rate, need to ask a simple question: Do we have the fuel to fuel a fat economy?

Therefore, it is vital to look beyond the very wasteful system of economic growth. It is vital to stop the chaotic expansion of the urban base. It is vital to rethink and reorganise the grammar of economics. Rapid urbanisation and gigantic development projects do not necessarily raise the quality of life of people. The ‘50s Nehruvian vision of big development projects had ultimately come to be known as “anti-people”, due to its built-in characteristic of destruction and displacement. India’s monstrous nuclear power industry has ultimately been tagged as friends of ‘Industrial India’ but enemy of the common men. A long and brutal history of economic growth tells us, a double digit growth does not ensure quality of water, freshness of air, fertility of seeds and soils, health of human beings.

A big economy eats up big energy, a small economy eats up smaller.
Therefore, it is important to look for small and localised solutions, rather than humongous, highly centralised, and filthy rich projects.

Ultimately, ‘decentralisation’ is the key to energy distribution. Thus, the alternative lies in thousands of tiny projects of renewable energy. The alternative lies in preserving our agriculture, our rivers, our rural communities, and our ‘smaller’ ways of lives. As Gandhi once said: “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed”. Interestingly, the Gandhian way of ‘sane’ consumption is becoming more relevant than ever.

Lastly: nuclear energy is neither cheap, nor clean, nor safe. It is a brutal and wasteful technology which doesn’t do “Gandhi” very well.

———————–
Maha Mirza is a researcher and activist. She is a graduate in economics and international political economy.

Footnotes:
1. Benjamin K. Sovacool. A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia, Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 40, No. 3, August 2010, p. 380.
2. Risto and Aija. Comparison of Electricy generation costs. Lappeenranta University of Technology. Lappeenranta, 2008.
3. Cooper, Mark. The Economics of Nuclear Reactors: Renaissance or Relapse. Vermont Law School, 2009.
4. Blackburn and Cunningham. Solar and Nuclear Costs —The Historic Crossover, Solar Energy is Now the Better Buy. NC Warn. 2010.
5. Renewableenergyworld.com
6. Cost comparison of energy supply technologies:http://www.unenergy.org/Popup%20pages/Comparecosts.html
7. Battle of the Grids, a 2011 report, by Greenpeace International.

http://opinion.bdnews24.com/2011/12/22/nukes-in-town-be-prepared-for-all-hell-to-break-loose/

Nukes in town: Be prepared for all hell to break loose

Maha Mirza

*The government of Bangladesh has promised us a safe and risk-free nuke in our backyard.
*The Ruppoor nuclear power plant is designed to add a minimum of 1000 MW electricity to the national grid.
*It will be strong enough to handle a 10 Richter scale earthquake.
*It will be well equipped to prevent any accident.

Really!

All governments lie, indeed. All governments try to hide the hippopotamus under the rug. And when it comes to a nuclear deal, public relation becomes more important than public safety.

The myth of a clean nuke
They say nuclear technology is clean. And the only time a reactor actually releases a bulk of radiation is during an accident.

The truth is every nuclear power plant is capable of an accident.

Every nuclear plant releases radiation during every stage of its production. Workers at all stages of the uranium purification process are exposed to radiation. The fairytale of safe nuclear power is thus mostly based on imperfect assumptions and wishful thinking.

According to environmentalist Dr. Vandana Shiva: Just because we don’t get to see radiation, doesn’t mean that nukes are clean.

The myth of a safe nuke
They say, other than Chernobyl, Three Miles Island, and Fukushima, there has never occurred any serious accident at any other nuclear plants.

However, unfortunately, there is quite a lengthy list of nuclear accidents, which includes explosions, near-meltdowns, burnt cables, electrical errors, faulty installation, underground pipe leakage, accidental release of plutonium sludge, radioactive fluids leaking into drains and ending up into nearby rivers, and so on. Hundreds of nuclear accidents are reported each year only in the United States alone. Between 1993-1995, international researchers pointed out more than hundreds of “hazardous incidents” at nuclear plants in India.[1]

The claim of a ‘safer’ nuke is thus ambitious, obnoxious, and inaccurate.

At a time, when the Germans are getting ready to shut down all their nuclear plants by 2022, the Chinese are putting the construction of all their nuclear power plants on hold, the Indians are relentlessly protesting against it for the last 20 years; somehow, we have managed to come up with a safe nuke!

Are we not sleepwalking towards a disaster?

The myth of a cheap nuke
They say nuclear technology is a good technology with a low cost. The question is, how good and how low?

According to various studies:
- It takes around $800 million to set up a 1000 MW gas based plant.
- It takes around $1400 million to set up a 1000 MW coal fired plant.
- It takes around $2-3 billion (around $2000-3000 million) to set up a 1000 MW nuclear power plant.[2] So it is clear that nukes cost way more in terms of capital investment.

However the biggest argument in defence of nuclear power is that the per unit production cost/fuel cost for a nuclear power plant is actually much lower than a coal based or natural gas based power plant.

In short, in case of a nuke, you put more bucks in the beginning, so that you can save up later. Sounds like a deal, but here is the hitch.

The piece of information they don’t give us:
a) The maintenance cost of such a nuclear power plant is ludicrously high compared to coal/gas/solar plants.[3]

b) The day to day operation of a nuclear plant requires continuous cooling down of the reactor by the use of a titanic amount of water which handsomely skyrockets the operation cost of nuclear energy, deeply challenging the popular myth “Nukes are cheap.”[4]

c) To run a 1000 MW nuclear plant, it requires at least 185 MW electricity. Which means a nuke eats up at least one fifth of its own energy.[5]

d) The waste disposal of a nuclear power plant is costly, complex and chaotically hazardous.

e) In case of an accident (which is almost inherent to nuclear technology) the repair or replacement cost could be a terrible rip-off. (Since 1987 to 2002, at least 6 serious accidents had occurred in different nuclear power plants in India which cost nearly 1 billion dollar to repair).[6]

So the bottom line is: Nukes cost a hell lot, and doesn’t really save a hell lot. Now the question on the table is, is there any comfortable alternative?

The energy debate: Can we have a coal-free, nuke-free future?
It is true that fossil fuels or nuclear power both are capable of producing an enormous amount of energy which is crucial for rapid industrialisation and heavy manufacturing. It is true that in an exponentially expanding growth economy, solar and wind offer no practical alternative to fossil fuel and nuclear power. It is also true that the adoption of renewable energy, such as the construction of a 1000 MW equivalent PV solar panel (equivalent to a Ruppoor Nuclear plant) may turn out to be costlier than a nuclear power plant (at this point).

However, the good news is, the Sun is taking over! In the last few years the cost of solar energy have been falling fabulously low, while the cost of nuclear energy have been flying terribly high. [7] The most recent cost projection for a brand new nuclear reactor is pointed out to be at least four times higher than the earlier projections. [8]

http://opinion.bdnews24.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/nuclear2.JPG

Meanwhile the renewable energy scientists have already declared that the historic “solar-nuclear-cost-crossover-moment” has finally been reached (which simply means, the per unit production cost for solar photovoltaics is finally becoming cheaper than nukes). [9][10]

In addition, here are some recent headlines:
Prices of solar panels falling: By 2013 they will be half of what they cost in 2009 (The Guardian, June, 2011).

Solar, once the most expensive of the “renewables,” has become cheaper than nuclear plants. (NC Warn, July 2011).

A sharp 70 percent reduction in the cost of solar panels since 2009 (Clean Technica.com, December 2011).

The Europeans have already shown in practicality, renewable energy can actually take the load away from the national grid only if the right amount of money is put into it. For instance, in the year of 2011 alone, as much as 7,400 MW of electricity has been produced in Germany (equivalent to seven Ruppoor power plant) based on solar technology only. [11] Certainly, the Germans are wholeheartedly shifting their resources from nukes to solar.

Therefore, it doesn’t sound too complicated when the energy scientists say: Europe can go ‘100% renewable’ by the mid century, and ultimately phase out ‘dirty’ energy. [12]

In short, if we are so equipped to accommodate a super expensive nuke, and if we are already super-subsidising the short-term, oil-based quick-rental power plants; it only makes super-sense to shift our resources to solar, which is super safe, sustainable, long-term and also, on the way to be super-cheap! And most importantly, it doesn’t leak (it emits neither carbon, nor radiation).

The nature of the beast we have come to call growth
However, the real danger still exists, and that is our obsession for Growth. In general a country’s energy appetite gets fatter and fatter in direct proportion to its economic growth. To keep up with the ‘growth’ ladder, human civilisation has moved from wood to coal, coal to oil, and ultimately oil to nukes. The age of easy oil is over. We have already burnt too much of fossil fuels (up to a point that it dug a hole in the ozone layer), the natural gas bases are shrinking as well.

Too many of us are consuming too many resources too fast in the name of economic growth. The expansion of the global nuclear industry (based on today’s apparent affluence of Uranium) is therefore, the inevitable by-product of the hysterical expansion of the “growth” economy.

The Roman civilisation ran on slavery. The 21st century civilisation runs on energy. And the universal energy law runs on a simple algebra: The more and more you dig, the less and less you get. The less and less you get, the more and more energy you require to dig deeper and deeper. It comes to a point where digging deeper requires more energy than what it actually gets from digging. The end game is simple: sooner or later the global enterprise of “digging & drilling” will be asking for a bail out. Indeed, the earth’s natural resources are finite. If we keep digging for them, we will eventually exhaust them.
It has become a matter of simple commonsense.

If we simply choose to “grow”, which is the default position of our politicians and economists, no combination of nukes, fossil fuel, solar, and wind will be able to sustain such an arrogant economy. The ones who desire Bangladesh to be a middle-income economy by 2020, or aspire to have an India-like-super-duper-growth-rate, need to ask a simple question: Do we have the fuel to fuel a fat economy?

Therefore, it is vital to look beyond the very wasteful system of economic growth. It is vital to stop the chaotic expansion of the urban base. It is vital to rethink and reorganise the grammar of economics. Rapid urbanisation and gigantic development projects do not necessarily raise the quality of life of people. The ‘50s Nehruvian vision of big development projects had ultimately come to be known as “anti-people”, due to its built-in characteristic of destruction and displacement. India’s monstrous nuclear power industry has ultimately been tagged as friends of ‘Industrial India’ but enemy of the common men. A long and brutal history of economic growth tells us, a double digit growth does not ensure quality of water, freshness of air, fertility of seeds and soils, health of human beings.

A big economy eats up big energy, a small economy eats up smaller.
Therefore, it is important to look for small and localised solutions, rather than humongous, highly centralised, and filthy rich projects.

Ultimately, ‘decentralisation’ is the key to energy distribution. Thus, the alternative lies in thousands of tiny projects of renewable energy. The alternative lies in preserving our agriculture, our rivers, our rural communities, and our ‘smaller’ ways of lives. As Gandhi once said: “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed”. Interestingly, the Gandhian way of ‘sane’ consumption is becoming more relevant than ever.

Lastly: nuclear energy is neither cheap, nor clean, nor safe. It is a brutal and wasteful technology which doesn’t do “Gandhi” very well.

———————–
Maha Mirza is a researcher and activist. She is a graduate in economics and international political economy.

Footnotes:
1. Benjamin K. Sovacool. A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia, Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol. 40, No. 3, August 2010, p. 380.
2. Risto and Aija. Comparison of Electricy generation costs. Lappeenranta University of Technology. Lappeenranta, 2008.
3. Cooper, Mark. The Economics of Nuclear Reactors: Renaissance or Relapse. Vermont Law School, 2009.
4. Blackburn and Cunningham. Solar and Nuclear Costs —The Historic Crossover, Solar Energy is Now the Better Buy. NC Warn. 2010.
5. Renewableenergyworld.com
6. Cost comparison of energy supply technologies:http://www.unenergy.org/Popup%20pages/Comparecosts.html
7. Battle of the Grids, a 2011 report, by Greenpeace International.

http://opinion.bdnews24.com/2011/12/22/nukes-in-town-be-prepared-for-all-hell-to-break-loose/

Though I may not be the best person to explain this because I am just a fresh electrical engineering graduate but from my understanding solar energy is currently the most EXPENSIVE mode of generating electricity. Solar cells in my humble opinion are over rated and only feasible/viable in off-grid areas. As technology improves the efficiency of photo voltaic cells are increasing but at a much lower rate than that is required for large scale production. It may take decades or even more for solar energy to compete with fossil fuel based electricity generation in terms of price. In the present context it is a gross overstatement to compare solar energy with any other form of electricity generation. Coming to generating electricity from nuclear technology, it is actually very safe as third-generation nuclear reactors have natural coolants and multiple fail-safe mechanisms to prevent any radioactive material from escaping. Then again no technology in the world is 100% safe but nuclear technology is now the closest you can get to it. Can you imagine fuel the size of a small briefcase can keep a city powered up for months! A couple of kilograms of Uranium can actually do that! Thats just crazy!

I am just graduating from a chemical engineering program and have a specialization in energy generation (this includes all forms) so I’ve had quite a few relevant courses regarding this topic and I find that the courses in university tend to be a lot more neutral and objective when it comes to this topic when compared to articles you find online. Here is my understanding of some of the issues you pointed out.

Nukes in town: Be prepared for all hell to break loose

Maha Mirza

*The government of Bangladesh has promised us a safe and risk-free nuke in our backyard.
*The Ruppoor nuclear power plant is designed to add a minimum of 1000 MW electricity to the national grid.
*It will be strong enough to handle a 10 Richter scale earthquake.
*It will be well equipped to prevent any accident.

Really!

All governments lie, indeed. All governments try to hide the hippopotamus under the rug. And when it comes to a nuclear deal, public relation becomes more important than public safety.

Being critical of the government is fine, but it should be informed criticism. The anti nuclear lobby has a lot of garbage information circling without any proper expertise just based upon public paranoia. When we are critical, we should be aware of these biases and question the credentials of the sources.

The myth of a clean nuke
They say nuclear technology is clean. And the only time a reactor actually releases a bulk of radiation is during an accident.

The truth is every nuclear power plant is capable of an accident.

Every nuclear plant releases radiation during every stage of its production. Workers at all stages of the uranium purification process are exposed to radiation. The fairytale of safe nuclear power is thus mostly based on imperfect assumptions and wishful thinking.

According to environmentalist Dr. Vandana Shiva: Just because we don’t get to see radiation, doesn’t mean that nukes are clean.

There is no doubt that workers throughout the process are exposed to radiation. Nobody is disputing that. What is being disputed is the level of exposure. Every human being on this planet is exposed to radiation and have been from longer before nuclear technology was developed.

On average a normal human being is exposed to 2.4mSv/year of radiation while a nuclear plant worker is exposed to 20mSv/year of radiation. The safety levels (Industry generated not government) is typically around 200mSv thus well within the safety limits.

Research has also indicated that to increase your chance of death by one in a million caused by nuclear radiation, you would have to constantly live next to a nuclear plant for 150 years. 150 YEARS!!


The myth of a safe nuke
They say, other than Chernobyl, Three Miles Island, and Fukushima, there has never occurred any serious accident at any other nuclear plants.

However, unfortunately, there is quite a lengthy list of nuclear accidents, which includes explosions, near-meltdowns, burnt cables, electrical errors, faulty installation, underground pipe leakage, accidental release of plutonium sludge, radioactive fluids leaking into drains and ending up into nearby rivers, and so on. Hundreds of nuclear accidents are reported each year only in the United States alone. Between 1993-1995, international researchers pointed out more than hundreds of “hazardous incidents” at nuclear plants in India.[1]

The claim of a ‘safer’ nuke is thus ambitious, obnoxious, and inaccurate.

The number of incidents at nuclear plants is dwarfed by the number of incidents that have occurred in fossil fuel based plants. Many more people have directly died due to explosion at fossil fuel plants than have in nuclear plants. The only reason we hear a lot more about nuclear plants and their risks is because people are unfamiliar with it and are afraid of what they don’t understand. While with fossil fuels, they are more ready to accept the risks since they face those risks everyday. That does not mean it is more dangerous. As for leaks, the amount of fossil fuel leakage is absolutely monstrous compared to nuclear leaks. And before you claim that nuclear leaks are more dangerous, it is not. Fossil fuels are toxic and contain additives that pose risks of bioaccumulation due to their hydrophobic nature thus accumulate in the lipid structures of animals. Again, nuclear leaks are not good, but we have to keep perspective of the relative scales here. Without scale, the numbers have no meaning. There are many thousands of incidents with regards to fossil fuels every year in the US alone just to give you some perspective.

On top of that, this totally ignores the damage that fossil fuel alternatives do to the environment. Not only does it cause acid rain, groundlevel ozone, and particulate matter pollution in the surrounding area, it also generates a ton of greenhouse gases. These have associated health risks that far outweigh the risks posed by nuclear power to public health. These pollutants contaminate food sources, damage agriculture, increase the rates of asthma, just to name a few health concerns.


At a time, when the Germans are getting ready to shut down all their nuclear plants by 2022, the Chinese are putting the construction of all their nuclear power plants on hold, the Indians are relentlessly protesting against it for the last 20 years; somehow, we have managed to come up with a safe nuke!

Are we not sleepwalking towards a disaster?

The Germans are shutting down their plants solely due to the public reaction after the Fukushima incident, and not because of science. The Fukushima incident has been hijacked by anti-nuclear lobbyists to forward their own causes. In reality, something like Fukushima could never have occurred in Germany. Germany firstly does not suffer from magnitude 9.0 earthquakes, nor does it suffer from tsunamis. But more importantly, the Fukushima plant was over 40 years old and even during the time of construction, there were concerns raised about its design where the cooling system shuts down when the plant stops generating power.

Modern nuclear reactor design would never allow for such a system and plants today are incredibly safe in comparison. I know you would have concerns about a place like Bangladesh and following regulations but in reality, such dangerous reactors are just not made anymore. They are not permitted. And also keep in mind, that even after such a shitty design, it took a once in a lifetime event to cause an incident at the reactor.
The German case is more an example of politics, rather than engineering or science. The public does not understand these systems, the activists took advantage of the situation, and Merkel saw this as a way of scoring some easy points.


The myth of a cheap nuke
They say nuclear technology is a good technology with a low cost. The question is, how good and how low?

According to various studies:
- It takes around $800 million to set up a 1000 MW gas based plant.
- It takes around $1400 million to set up a 1000 MW coal fired plant.
- It takes around $2-3 billion (around $2000-3000 million) to set up a 1000 MW nuclear power plant.[2] So it is clear that nukes cost way more in terms of capital investment.

The initial set up costs is ignoring one big thing. Fossil fuels are way more expensive per unit energy in comparison to nuclear fuels. The cost of running a fossil fuel plant in the long run is way more than a nuclear plant. And the amount of energy nuclear fuel carries per unit volume is immense. Not to mention the fact that is significantly cleaner

Just to give you some numbers
*(1 gm U-235) x (6.02x1023 atoms / 1 gm-mole) x (1gm-mole U-235 / 235 gm) = 2.6x1021 atoms
*(2.6x1021 atoms) x (200 MeV / 1 atom)= 5.13x1023 MeV
*(5.13x1023 MeV) x (3.83x10-14 cal ./ 1 MeV)= 1.96x1010 cal.

Just to put it in perspective

• Compare this number with the amount of energy from 1 gm of trinitrotoluene (TNT):
*1 gm TNT releases 1000 cal.
*1 ton TNT releases 9.8x108 cal.

• So, to compare 1 gm U-235 to 1 ton of TNT:
*1.96x1010 cal. / 9.1x108 cal.= 21 tons of TNT

I will get to the rest later, I promise, I just need to get back to studying for my exam tomorrow

Bangladesh's conquest of the sea: A daunting prospect

"Viewpoints"

Dr. Rashid Askari, Bangladesh

'The conquest of the sea' by Bangladesh (March 14, 2012) is an event quite worthy of going down in the annals of Bangladesh history. On this day Bangladesh, as a littoral state, has secured her rights to territorial waters of 111,000 square kilometres in the Bay of Bengal, and in addition, won another 200 miles towards the continental shelf.

It is a resounding victory by all implications of the term, even if Bangladesh earns it deservedly after a win- win settlement by international arbitration. It will sure pave the way for an equitable compromise with India on maritime boundaries. To ensure the rightful possession of a vast maritime boundary after a long period of territorial dispute and a pretty long legal battle must have cause to rejoice. It was really a big cause for concern that the exploitation of the vast deposits of petroleum and natural gas in our sea has long been beyond our reach. Now the ball is in Bangladesh's court. This sure will add a new feather to the cap of the present government. But it is better to think of utilizing this marine achievement most pragmatically than to keep basking in the triumphant success.

There is still cause for greater alarm even after the battle is won. The hawk-eyed global economic powers are combing through the lands and waters across the globe for mineral extraction. It would be very tough on our part to make the best use of the hard-earned maritime resources for our own interest escaping the prying eyes of the profit-sucking financial vampires and predatory economic imperialists. But the task is not as such impossible. The first thing we have to do for the conservation and protection of our oceanic resources is to master the knowledge about it. The offshore oil and gas production is no easy task. It is more challenging than land-based installations. A cursory glimpse into the world maritime resources would reveal the gravity of the subject.

Economy is the chief determining factor in the present world of power politics, and petroleum greases its wheels. The deposits of petroleum and natural gas under the seafloor are the most important fuels of the contemporary world economy. Lots of minerals- metallic and nonmetallic-- can be extracted from the seawater itself, from offshore alluvial deposits, or from the continental shelf. Hydrocarbon fuels are the most precious among the nonmetallic minerals. They are generally located in deep waters. Other minerals of commercial value, such as, ilmenite (a mixture of iron and titanium oxide), tin, monazite (a rare earth), zircon, and chromites can also be found in near-shore sand bodies.

As far as the ocean oil is concerned, the Persian Gulf is the largest oil-producing region in the world. People are lately focusing more on offshore oil exploration. The major sites of exploration activity are the northwestern coast of Australia, the Andaman Sea, the coast of Africa, south of the Equator, and the southwestern coast of Madagascar. Searching for offshore petroleum and natural gas has also been going on in the Bay of Bengal Both which is believed to have very large reserves. But apart from the countries of the Persian Gulf, only India is producing a large quantity of oil from its offshore areas. So Bangladesh as a similar littoral country has immense potential for exploring petroleum and natural-gas from the waters of the Bay of Bengal it has newly possessed.

Metal-bearing deposits on the deep-sea floor, consisting of nodules, crusts, and accumulations of metallic sulfides from deep vents, are also of great economic value. Mining for the nodules which contain manganese, iron, copper, nickel, titanium, and cobalt, and small traces of other metals can also contribute to the economy of the developing countries like Bangladesh.

The Bay of Bengal has a special tropical marine ecosystem, and an abundance of wetlands, marshes, and mangroves which may help increase the productivity of near-shore fish species. The exploitation of these resources can be carried out even by small-scale fisheries. The major coastal species like shrimp, croakers, snappers, skates, and grunts are usually caught by littoral countries, and the pelagic fish like tuna, billfish and the like which are found in tropical and subtropical waters are caught mostly by the world's major fishing nations ( Japan, South Korea, and Russia etc). Shrimp is the most important commercial species for coastal countries, and India is having the largest catch of it. In addition, small quantities of sardines, mackerel, and anchovies can also be exploited by the littoral states. Since Bangladesh now can claim sovereignty over resources of an exclusive economic zone in the Bay of Bengal, it has become possible for her to increase national income by selling their fishing rights to the major fishing nations which have the capital and technology to exploit pelagic resources.

But to select the right buyers of the fisheries and the exploiters of oil and gas is really a difficult task many countries/companies are jockeying for it. Some have already come up with lucrative proposals. We, however, should not give consent under any ostentatious offer, nor should we succumb to any geopolitical pressure. We ought to make discreet enquiries before signing any contract. We have to negotiate the contract most sensibly and carefully to get it done until Bangladesh attains the quality to do it herself.

But the matter is not the concern of a layman. It is rather a matter of expertise to deal properly with it. The first thing Bangladesh should do is to establish a National Institute of Oceanography in Bangladesh. India has their National Institute of Oceanography founded in 1966, and been conducting research and other development programmes in coordination with the littoral countries like Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Sri Lanka, and the countries on the periphery of the Bay of Bengal like Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Maldives. Now Bangladesh should immediately set up an independent institute for the promotion of necessary research and developments in this regard. We can greatly benefit from the example of India and other successful offshore oil-exploring countries.

The process of offshore drilling for extracting oil and gas resources from underground locations may, however, include higher risks of accidents, spills and fires. One of the reasons for this danger is the use of lots of complex equipment which are strung over a long area terminating at about 20,000 feet or more below the sea floor. Another reason for danger is the harsh offshore environments that cause the drilling equipment a lot of engineering problems. Besides, severe weather, ice, and storms often pose serious threats to the functionality of the rigs. The inexperience of the oil extraction companies adds many other problems to the whole operation. Whatever the risks may be, the game, at the end of the day is worth much more than the candle.

Bangladesh is, however, new to this game herself. But she can learn the game a great deal by watching the other players. Our research activities should be prosecuted in order to collect information on mineral resources of the deep ocean floor. We should take the most recent and technologically advanced scientific explorations which have provided insights into the marine geology, geophysics, and resource potentials of the ocean. Our universities can also contribute a great deal to the furtherance of oceanographic and related knowledge. The students should be motivated to study the sea with a view to helping to dig out their own submarine treasure. Our naval force should be strengthened to raise the level of vigilance in the maritime boundaries. Above all there should be a holistic national policy on the protection and utilization of our maritime resources. If we can put our sea venture to a good use, it will be a dream come true, or else it's a pipe dream. So our victory over the sea will rest more on making the best use of it than on mere possession. It is a daunting prospect.

News Source:
bangladesh-web.com