www.nareshminocha.com

Home Page Beez5

Don’t let ONGC Petro Additions Ltd turn into a Failure

Created on 19 May 2023

(OPaL-image courtesy: narendramodi.in )

“This plant has emerged and earned the important place in SEZs (Special Economic Zones) of the world,” stated Prime Minister Narendra Modi on 7th March 2017 while dedicating to the Nation ONGC Petro Additions Limited (OPaL), Dahej, Gujarat.

A press release available at cmogujarat.gov.in quotes PM as saying that OPaL “has created employment opportunities for lakhs of youth residing across India. This is the biggest success in the history of India ever.” A PIB release quoted him as saying: “OPaL is like an anchor industry. It is the largest petrochemical plant in the country.”

So far so good. A lot has changed since PM’s 2017 speech. A shuddhi yagya, (purification worship) on OPaL is thus required to respect his call for constructive criticism, articulated time & again. The Yagna should also be performed keeping in view Mr. Modi’s passion and vision for exports.

Yagna should also help resolve long-pending matter of transforming OPaL from a tripartite joint venture (JV) into ONGC subsidiary. In the JV, the original promoter Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) has 49.36% stake, GAIL (India) Ltd has 49.21% stake. The balance 1.43% shares are held by Gujarat State Petroleum Corporation Limited (GSPC).

OPaL’s delayed financial restructuring is intertwined with indecision on its conversion into ONGC subsidiary or induction of private strategic partner(s). Indecisiveness on this matter conflicts with the Government’s repeated claims that it believes in speed and scale in the decision-making process. More on OPaL’s financial crisis later in this column.

The multi-facet Yagna can help prevent OPaL from going down in the history as the biggest failure on certain counts - the chief being exports, which is its foremost objective. The company’s own estimates show a negative net forex exchange (NFE) earnings of Rs 18856.83 crore over 10 years ending 30th July 2025.

Revisit Hazardous Industries’ fate in wake of Vedanta Gridlock

Created on 08 July 2018

(Edited Image courtesy: Youtube & Vedanta)

1) Is a preventive maintenance system in place, including review thereof? 2) Is Identification and prioritization done for all equipment / system requiring preventive maintenance based on criticality? 3) Is there an established procedure for capturing maintenance needs based on condition of each equipment? 4) Are responsibilities assigned and frequencies established? 5) Is there a system in place to report in writing, on a day-to-day basis, all observed substandard actions or hazard conditions?

Many more such questions would have been fired by chemicals safety regulator at the police and other government officials, who currently control Vedanta’s copper-cum-chemicals complex (formerly Sterlite) at Tuticorin inTamil Nadu This would have happened only if we had a statutory, preventive chemical safety statutory framework.

The five questions are verbatim production from the 59-pages‘Chemical Plant Safety & Security Rating System’ drafted by UPA Government in September 2013.

Neither this proposal nor the proposed safety regulator named Chemical Standard Development Organisation (CSDO) envisioned by the draft National Chemical Policy (NCP-2012) have been finalized & implemented.

Would latest litigation over safety of Tuticorin Complex arisen, if the two proposals had been put in action? How long can India avoid the need for a regulator on the lines of US Chemical Safety Board (CSB)? CSB enjoys statutory protection from interference from any executive arm or other regulators.

Modi Government’s failure on policy-cum-regulatory front has thus made Indian chemical industry vulnerable to belligerent activism. This has resulted in bizarre governance & tight-rope justice on account of many public interest litigations (PILs) from anti-Vedanta camp over a decade.

Tear gas story

Created on 13 January 2014

Industrial licensing throws up another bizarre case (Posted at nareshminochapolity.blogspot.com on 11 January 2014)

It can happen only in India that embraced industrial liberalization in mid-1991 and later underwent many reforms: A leading company applies for an industrial licence that has both civilian and defence applications. The key regulator says it should not be given licence as it is an arm. The Defence Ministry says the product in question is a dual use item, which does not require a defence industrial licence.

The irony is that the inter-agency discussion over the application has overlooked the fact the company is already manufacturing and marketing the same product to different Government entities for over two years. The opposing regulator had earlier approved the product from the technical angle!

The company has flaunted its unlicensed product on its website and in the annual report. It says it acquired the technology from a Defence laboratory. The only other manufacturer, a government entity, is producing the item for decades without a licence.

An inter-ministerial Industrial Licensing Committee (ILC) discussed the case twice last year but deferred it for want of comments from all relevant authorities. It is yet to take a fresh call on the application.

Coal Strike Call-off Rings in Several Bitter Truths for all

Created on 15 January 2015

Image Courtesy: The Singareni Collieries

The abrupt abortion of the coal strike has virtually drawn curtains over the 15-years stand-off between the trade unions and the Government over allowing private sector to mine coal for sale in the open market.

The strike call-off served as the face-saver both for the unions and the Government. Face-saver for the NDA Government because it neither made any sincere effort to avert strike nor declared it illegal.

NDA’s approach towards the coal strike threat in 2015 is substantially different from the one it adopted in 2002 when it was also in the power.

An analysis of the strike threats during the two periods would show how NDA Governments reacted in contrasting ways in 2002 and 2015, thereby raising issues about its self-certification for smart governance.

The withdrawal of agitation under the garb of an agreement dated 7th January 2015 served as a face-saver for the unions. If the strike would have run its full course, it might have proved to be an attempt to derail SC-mandated coal reforms.

In any case, the public is in no mood to support ideological agitation that results in economic and social hardships. The trade unions knew that they would not be able to withstand the Government crackdown if the strike had led to power outages and load-shedding.

The call-off of the five-day strike mid-way offers important lessons for all stakeholders –the Executive, the Legislature, the Judiciary and the trade unions.