Taking serious note of the issue of land subsidence on account of gas extraction, the high court in its ruling on 29 June 2009 asked the Union ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) to set up an expert sub-committee to examine, among other environmental aspects, the core issue of land subsidence. The sub-committee was headed by R.K. Garg and comprised Rajat Roy Choudhary, Dr B. Sengupta, Prof G.S. Roonwal and Dr P.L. Anjurai. The last-named represented the MoEF and was designated member-convenor. The sub-committee constituted by the MoEF held its first meeting on 17 September 2009 in New Delhi with presentations from representatives of the ONGC as well as the directorate general of hydrocarbons. On 8 October 2009, members of the sub-committee held discussions in Hyderabad, the capital of Andhra Pradesh, with all the operators in the KG Basin namely, RIL, GSPC, Cairn Energy, and ONGC. Committee members also visited the exploration-cum-production sites both onshore and offshore on 9 and10 October that year as well as particular villages where there had been subsidence of land and which were close to the oil and gas fields.
The MoEF sub-committee submitted its report on 23 October 2009. Its ‘observations and findings’ make interesting reading. The report states that in the Cambay Basin gas field of Gujarat, where two studies were carried out by the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Mumbai and the Central Mining Research Institute (CMRI), Dhanbad, average subsidence over the study area was found to be 49 mm, while subsidence within the reservoir boundary was found to be 81 mm over a period of two years. It also mentions ‘two subsidence bowls’ adding that a ‘big subsidence bowl was observed in the area where more numbers of gas extracting wells are situated… Hence, land subsidence found … (using the) GPS (global positioning systems) method might be due to extraction of gas.’ The report also makes the point that ‘observed subsidence cannot be attributed to ground water extraction’ and adds that the ‘rate of subsidence in the area has not been established.’
Having made these observations, the MoEF report argued (apparently contradicting itself) that ‘it appears that (the) KG basin is not prone to land subsidence as a result of oil and gas extraction’.
The sub-committee also found that ‘salinity in the ground water in the coastal areas has been observed in many places’ attributing it mainly to extensive aquaculture. To buttress its point the sub-committee quoted a paper entitled ‘Remote sensing and GIS applications in the identification of aquaculture hot spots at village level’ published in the Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing, Vol.31, No. 2, 2003, by K. Nageswara Rao, G. Murali Krishna. D. Ramprasad Naik and B. Hema Malini.
Nageswara Rao, in the ISPRS technical paper quoted earlier in this chapter warns of the threat of land subsidence and rise in water levels along the Andhra Pradesh coastline, in particular the KG basin, in view of global warming. The paper states:
If the sea-level rises by ~0.6 m (as predicted by IPCC, 2007), a total of 3,139 sq km along the entire 1,030-km-long AP coast will be affected. The low-lying Krishna-Godavari delta region in the central part of the AP coast would be worst affected with as much as 1706 sq km area including about 894 sq km under various types of agricultural activities lying within 2.1 m elevation.
As early as 1998, Prof Krishna Rao had warned in an article published in the 25 March issue of Current Science:
Geologically the region appears to be fragile with a thick pile of argillaceous sediments dipping towards the sea and underlain by faults. It is a delta land on the coast at an elevation of 3 to 10 ft above mean sea level. Subsidence of the region even by a small amount of this would devastate the whole region due to changing of the courses of the two mighty rivers.
The article further stated:
If horizontal slip and slow continuous creeping against claystone and shale at depth happens, as has been reported in some oil fields, it would be catastrophic.
It concluded by asserting:
The country cannot afford to lose such a developed area on purely economic considerations.
Asked to explain the issue in as simple a language as possible, Prof Krishna Rao said:
The KG deltas are on an elevation varying between one metre and ten metres above the mean sea level. Subsidence even by a small amount would devastate the region by changing the course of the two mighty rivers, and sea water incursions along the coast would occur.
Prof Krishna Rao expressed satisfaction over the MoEF sub-committee’s report, which, he says, vindicates his stand on subsidence though some may disagree with his interpretation of the report’s ‘conclusions and recommendations’ which read as follows:
i. There is no direct evidence available to the committee to indicate any land subsidence in the gas field or the adjoining areas in the KG basin. From geological considerations also, this region does not appear to be prone to significant land subsidence. It is, however, suggested that an expert organisation like the Indian School of Mines may be entrusted with a detailed study on existing or likely land subsidence in this region.
ii. The problem of underground water getting saline in certain locations has been observed. The exact reason needs to be studied. Some studies have suggested that extensive aquaculture in the region could be a factor. This could also be due to construction of dams in the upstream and erosion of part of the delta. A survey of the whole delta region needs to be carried out.
iii. Since land subsidence has been reported and observed in the areas where extensive extraction of underground water, oil and gas or mining in various parts of the world including India (coal mines) has been carried out, this aspect needs to be taken into consideration while taking up any project on underground extraction.
iv. Measurement of ground level as baseline data has therefore to be included in the EIA (environmental impact assessment) study and periodical monitoring of the level needs to be carried out, during the operational phase.
v. In case, geological factors indicate likelihood of land subsidence and consequential impacts, remedial measures need to be planned by the project proponent. Provision of such measures needs to be taken into consideration while evaluating the projects for environmental clearance.
vi. A study on the likely impact of off-shore extraction of oil/gas, if any, on land close to the coast in respect of land subsidence or movement or groundwater quality, should be taken up.
Like many government fact-finding reports this one too is apparently ambivalent and does not take a clear stand. Key issues have been buried in words and couched in obfuscating language. It is invariably bound to be interpreted as a ‘neither-here-nor-there’ kind of report. Yet, Prof Krishna Rao takes heart from certain words and phrases in the report and feels consoled when he reads ‘between’ the lines.
On the first point, he said: ‘Look at the words ‘significant land subsidence’ which imply that land subsidence is there. In the same point (i) he underscored the word ‘existing’ which he says is again an acknowledgement of land subsidence. On point (ii) he said that the ‘NGRI (National Geophysical Research Institute) in Hyderabad has confirmed the mixing of old sea water, lying deep below, with the shallow fresh ground water, which confirms subsidence.’ Point (iii), he exulted, is a ‘wonderful point’ validating his demand. On point (iv) he displayed his exasperation saying: ‘This has still not been done….If the government was sincere and concerned about the people, it would have by now followed its own recommendations and come to know the rate of “sinking” that has taken place. We have the technology.’
He added with resignation: ‘That opportunity has been missed.’ Prof Krishna Rao is no stranger to what he believes is a tragedy unfolding in front of his eyes. He has a stake in it.
I hail from there...I am one of the several victims. There is already an apparent rise of high tide water in the drains by one metre to 1. 5 m and sea water is entering our fields due to subsidence of the land, since sea level remains constant.’
He laments that paddy yields are decreasing ‘by around four quintals per hectare per year in parts where soil salinity is h
igh’.
It appears that initial environmental clearances were issued through manipulative methods by treating oil and gas exploration as ‘industrial activity’ instead of ‘mining activity’ thereby limiting environmental parameters to pollution aspects instead of concentrating on ‘land subsidence’ which is a crucial parameter in mining activity. The high court pointed out that even in processing of the applications at the initial stage the applicants were allowed to skip the ‘land subsidence’ column.
So what happened after the MoEF report was submitted in October 2009? Did it gather dust? Did it become one more government report whose recommendations were ignored, not implemented, or implemented in a lackadaisical manner?
On a trip to New Delhi as an expert appointed by the Union Public Service Commission in June 2012, Prof Krishna Rao rued: ‘We presume the MoEF sub-committee’s report was presented to the high court… but no one really knows. The case is lying dormant…there has been no movement of late….’
The geologist acknowledged that he often found himself isolated with little or no support from even his professional colleagues. What about local politicians? ‘It is surprising, no politician is coming forward….not even one from the Left parties. They talk of food security…this issue will seriously impact food security of the country; the area produces one crore tonne of rice annually.’
A lonely Prof Krishna Rao told the lead writer of this book in Visakhapatnam that he is not sure if the ‘silence’ about the land subsidence issue is ominous, by design, whether those who may have protested have been ‘bought’ by up interested people and whether the case pending in the Andhra Pradesh High Court will be followed to its logical conclusion. In a sense, Prof Krishna Rao is not exactly alone. With him is Dr E.A.S. Sarma, a former bureaucrat. Dr Sarma is that rare breed of bureaucrat who has been fighting corruption throughout his professional career and thereafter. He holds two post-graduate degrees, one in nuclear physics from Andhra University and the other in public administration from Harvard University in the US, besides a doctorate from the prestigious IIT, Delhi. An officer of the 1965 batch of the Indian Administrative Service, he was transferred no less than 26 times in three and half decades of his career as a civil servant. He is of the view that an honest bureaucrat cannot be influenced to act in a corrupt manner—the worst that can happen to such an officer is that he will be transferred.
It is said that during 1994–95 when the Telugu Desam Party government was in power in Andhra Pradesh and wanted to set up a number of power projects without any competitive bidding, Dr Sarma strongly opposed the policy, but could not influence the state government. He went on leave and applied for a post in New Delhi which he got. It was claimed at that time that had Dr Sarma gone along with Telegu Desam Party chief N. Chandrababu Naidu, he would have risen to the position of chief secretary in the Andhra Pradesh government.
The last bureaucratic job he held was that of secretary, economic affairs, in the ministry of finance, from which post he retired prematurely. It is said that representatives of certain big business houses were overjoyed to learn about his departure from the Ministry of Finance. After he left the government, Dr Sarma served for a brief while as the head of the Administrative Staff College of India, Hyderabad, before becoming an activist to help those fighting against the establishment of projects affecting the environment, including power projects along the coast and illegal mining in tribal areas. The Supreme Court upheld a PIL filed by Dr Sarma and others declaring unconstitutional the Salwa Judum or a private army to fight Maoists in the central Indian state of Chhattisgarh. He had earlier served as a member of a group constituted by the Planning Commission to study developmental challenges in areas dominated by left-wing extremists.
Soon after Dr Sarma quit the finance ministry during the term of the National Democratic Alliance government headed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the lead author of this book interviewed him for a television programme and asked him a number of questions relating to his decision to leave his job and whether this was on account of pressure mounted by representatives of big business groups, including the Ambani group. His answers were factually correct. He did not deny that certain corporate interests may have been displeased by some his actions. But he repeatedly asserted that he had no evidence to suggest that the Ambanis—or, for that matter, any other corporate conglomerate—wanted him out as secretary, economic affairs.
Following the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s directive to the MoEF, Dr Sarma (who is convener of a society called Forum for Better Visakha), which is a coalition of civil society organisations and concerned citizens) wrote a series of letters to various authorities, including the prime minister of India and the chief secretary of Andhra Pradesh. Although none of his letters elicited any response of worth, Dr Sarma persevered. In a letter dated 9 November 2010 to S.V. Prasad, chief secretary, government of Andhra Pradesh, he wrote:
I have forwarded here some disturbing pictures taken by Prof G. Krishna Rao, a retired professor of geology who has carried out invaluable research on the possibility of land subsidence caused by natural gas development.
I have written several letters to the Chief Minister and state government officials on the likely disaster that the ongoing gas development projects in (the) KG basin will cause to the fertile land stretches of the Godavari districts that constitute the lifeline for the state’s economy… During the (Andhra Pradesh High Court) proceedings, it came to light that neither the Ministry of Petroleum nor the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) had bothered to look into the possibility of land subsidence, while pushing through clearances for the gas development projects. The state government has remained blissfully indifferent to the likelihood of land subsidence, despite being repeatedly cautioned about it by technical experts and the farmers of the KG basin.
The MoEF expert group’s report has not ruled out land subsidence in the KG basin. In fact, it has indicated that it could occur.
Irrespective of the matter pending before the Hon’ble High Court, we expected the state government to feel concerned about the disaster that is waiting to happen and take a serious note of it. We are surprised that the state has not shown even an iota of anxiety!
I hope that the state is not too caught up in its undue obsession with Reliance to feel helpless in addressing this impending disaster!
There was no response from the chief secretary to Dr Sarma’s letter. On 16 December 2010, he wrote another letter to him:
I forward here a disturbing scientific finding analysed and highlighted by Prof G. Krishna Rao, a retired professor of geology on evidence of land subsidence in the KG Basin due to pressure loss from gas development. I had earlier sent you his preliminary report with a set of photographs on the subject. I am not sure whether anyone in the state government has cared to understand its significance.
You may be aware that on a writ filed by Prof Krishna Rao and the farmers of KG Basin, the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court had earlier ordered a fresh environment impact assessment of the gas development project in KG Basin. The findings from it indicate possible land subsidence. The latest report forwarded here corroborates the earlier conclusions.
Land subsidence which is clearly evident will destroy the fertile agricultural lands in the KG Basin, turn the ground water aquifers saline and cripple the economy of the State.
I hope the state government will take this seriously for the sake of the people and act on it quickly!
Again there was no response. On 3 May 2012, Dr Sarma wrote to the secretary, ministry of environment and forests and secretary, ministry of petroleum, government of India, enclosing his earlier letters, stating:
I have corresponded with the state government, (the) MoEF and (the) Ministry of Petroleum on the question of land subsidence in KG Basin as a result of natural gas development by RIL (Reliance Industries Limited) and its adverse impact on agricultural activity in the fertile ‘rice bowl’ .... My repeated requests to the state government to intervene in the matter h
ave drawn a blank.
Recently, Prof G. Krishna Rao, a retired professor of geology, who is also a petitioner in WP No. 13341/2008, has collected extensive evidence on the land subsidence that has taken place in the KG Basin. I have enclosed here a copy of his note along with relevant pictures of the coastline.
From the foregoing material, it is evident that:
There is increasing ground level evidence of land subsidence taking place in (the) KG basin as a result of gas development by RIL.
Such land subsidence has already started affecting the irrigation drainage channels in the basin and the agricultural activity, quite significantly, as corroborated by the ‘crop holiday’ announced by the farmers of the Godavari districts during 2011. The farmers have already started feeling the increased cost burden that could be indirectly attributed to land subsidence. Such land subsidence has also affected the quality of the ground water aquifers in the area by increasing their salinity
Instead of addressing the root cause of the deterioration of agricultural activity, the state government is in a hurry to incur infructuous expenditure on ‘modernisation’ of the irrigation system that will benefit only the contractors.
GAS WARS: CRONY CAPITALISM AND THE AMBANIS Page 26
