Laos aims to build Mekong dam this year, testing it's neighbours

[OzMick]

What exactly has the US done re the dam Laos plans to build on the Mekong? Or will you join the other Aussie in silence in answering this question?

"US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for a pause in construction of dams on the river "until we are all able to do a better assessment of the likely consequences".

"

"Laos has no right to go forward on the project by itself," said Ame Trandem, Southeast Asia programme director for International Rivers, a Berkeley, California-based non-profit group"

[OzMick]

The MRC (which is largely funded by the Australian government, which rather begs the question why they are getting involved but then again you only seem to be interested in criticizing the US) is widely seen as too keen to duck contentious issues as it cannot satisfy all the objectives of its constituent members.

Throwing in N Vietnamese dams is somewhat irrelevant and again you are wrong. Much of the eastern section of the Red River delta dyke network was bombed by the USAF as highlighted by Jane Fonda.

Advocating US isolationism is a sad approach to geopolitics. Who would you like to see fill the void? Many Asian nations, having witnessed Chinese rhetoric and action in the South China Sea, are quite keen for the US to maintain its interest in SE Asia.

Also perhaps you should look to your own fair country and its wanton destruction of the Murray-Darling river Basin and Great Barrier Reef. Neither are a great advertisement for managing resources.

Right, we're stuffing up our own natural resources while your lot throw the world into a recession, again. And the big one is still coming when you default on your debt. Who would I like to fill the void? Does it matter when the void is coming anyway?

My only criticism of the US was that it is none of their business, and that would be better off minding their own. Like many others on this forum, I have seen my nett worth seriously decline over the last few years, and it was pretty clear where the problems originated.

The EASTERN section of the dyke network was bombed - and the dams were left intact.

The MRC is a toothless tiger - the most powerful country in the debate virtually ignores it, and now 1 of the 4 signatories is joining the dam building. Why is Australia involved - probably because it is a dialogue partner to ASEAN.

[folium]

What exactly has the US done re the dam Laos plans to build on the Mekong? Or will you join the other Aussie in silence in answering this question?

"US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for a pause in construction of dams on the river "until we are all able to do a better assessment of the likely consequences".

"

"Laos has no right to go forward on the project by itself," said Ame Trandem, Southeast Asia programme director for International Rivers, a Berkeley, California-based non-profit group"

Why let facts get in the way of a little Yank bashing?

What Clinton actually said in Bali was:

"There’s just one issue I want to mention briefly before concluding, and that is the very serious question of new dams on the main Mekong stem. This is a serious issue for all the countries that share the Mekong River, because if any country builds a dam, all countries will feel the consequences in terms of environmental degradation, challenges to food security, and impacts on communities. I want to urge all parties to pause on any considerations to build new dams until we are all able to do a better assessment of the likely consequences."

Nothing too outrageous there and she is not alone in expressing concern:

On April 23 2011, at a meeting in Phnom Penh, the Prime Ministers of Vietnam and Cambodia jointly expressed concern about the Xayaburi Dam’s transboundary impacts to fisheries and agriculture. Subsequently, at the 18th ASEAN summit in Jakarta on 7 May 2011, the Lao Prime Minister agreed to a request by Vietnam’s Prime Minister to temporarily suspend the Xayaburi Dam and commission a review of the project’s documents by an international consultancy firm under the framework of the MRC.

A month later on June 8, 2011(in a letter that has since been leaked) the Lao Government informed the Xayaburi project developer Ch. Karnchang that the Mekong River Commission’s (MRC) regional decision-making process was now complete and that the impact assessment had been undetaken, giving Ch. Karnchang the green light to proceed with the project.

The MRC itself, however, is yet to officially announce the regional process as complete. Previously, at a Special Joint Committee Meeting on April 19, the four member governments agreed to defer the decision on the project to a Ministerial level meeting, likely to take place in October or November 2011. At this Special Joint Committee meeting, whilst Laos proposed to proceed with the dam, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam called for an extension to the decision-making process citing concerns about transboundary impacts and knowledge gaps requiring further study and consultation. Vietnam also recommended that the decision on the Xayaburi Dam and other proposed mainstream dams be deferred for a period of ten years.

Furthermore this "extensive" one month review of the implications of the dam was carried out by the Poyry group, a Finnish company with an interesting track record in SE Asia. One notable event recently was their role in auditing the claimed forestry resources of Sino Forest, a Toronto listed company whose shares have now been suspended as they appear to have grossly overstated their forest acreage. Poyry claim they were fed inaccurate data for their audits. Appears to be a classic case of "who pays the piper...."

Thus Poyry's report on the Xayaburi dam might be looked at in a rather different light.

So your carping about Clinton all seems a little misplaced.

[rogerdee123]

It is quite common and acceptable knowledge that dams on the upper Mekong will have the knock-on effect of an inflow of seawater up the mouth of the Mekong in Southern Vietnam, i.e. the Mekong Delta which is the rice basket of Vietnam. This is a huge issue for Vietnam.

Vietnam is strongly opposed to the dam for this reason and has made many public announcements press releases about it. But .... have you heard any of these?

Cambodia is also opposed to the dam and has also said so publicly ... because of the unknown effect on the Tonla Sop ...... have you heard of these protests? This is where a personality like Hillary Clinton comes in handy for countries like Vietnam and Cambodia on this issue. She can make headlines and draw attention to the issue .... much better than her counterparts in VN and Cambodia.

The point is ..... the Mekong runs thru these countries and so these countries have a right to protest. But the Cambodian foreign Minister and Vietnamese foreign Minister, can't get the headlines that the US Govt and Hillary Clinton can get. So ... assuming the US has weighed the positives and negatives of the diplomatic fall-out ..... the US Foreign Minister (Sec of State) is practicing good diplomacy by joining in with Vietnam and Cambodia on this issue.

IN truth, Laos has 5 dams planned for the Mekong and there are lots of multinationals itching to get these lucrative construction contracts. (i.e. Lots of BIG money changing hands under the table). People familiar with the issue know this. If this first dam can't be stopped on principle, i.e. the existing agreements which by the way Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and THailand have signed ..... the proverbial "Dam will break" (pardon the pun). Laos has signed this agreement yet it's flaunting it. Thailand has signed this agreement, yet a Thai company is the major dam construction contractor. These agreements are under the Mekong River Commission's umbrella and the MRC receives funding from several international sources. Thus the MRC, which supposedly regulates development on the Mekong River, is an international institution and it's international members or "partners" have a right to involve themselves in these issues.

As someone has said in this forum, the future wars may be fought over water. This could therefore potentially be an international security issue. So doesn't the international community have a right, if not a responsibility, to chime in and try to influence what is widely seen as a big mistake with potentially huge negative implications for the region?

China can also say (for instance) that the international community has no business commenting on the Chinese arms flowing into Burma/Myanmar ... or take the South China Sea (or the "East Sea" as the Vietnamese call it). This sea also doesn't border the US or Australia but the implications of conflict in this area are significant for both countries.

There are several issues here ....

one is the effect of the dam on the river and how that affects people downstream.

Another is whether the US (or the international community) as a right to voice their comments or opposition.

Another is the legal issue regarding the agreements agreeing not to construct dams on the Mekong that have been signed by Laos and Thailand .... and if we say, those agreements are meaningless, then the Mekong River Commission is likewise meaningless and anyone is free to dam the Mekong, divert the water, dump chemical waste, etc etc into it.

Edited September 12, 2011 by rogerdee123

[folium]

The MRC (which is largely funded by the Australian government, which rather begs the question why they are getting involved but then again you only seem to be interested in criticizing the US) is widely seen as too keen to duck contentious issues as it cannot satisfy all the objectives of its constituent members.

Throwing in N Vietnamese dams is somewhat irrelevant and again you are wrong. Much of the eastern section of the Red River delta dyke network was bombed by the USAF as highlighted by Jane Fonda.

Advocating US isolationism is a sad approach to geopolitics. Who would you like to see fill the void? Many Asian nations, having witnessed Chinese rhetoric and action in the South China Sea, are quite keen for the US to maintain its interest in SE Asia.

Also perhaps you should look to your own fair country and its wanton destruction of the Murray-Darling river Basin and Great Barrier Reef. Neither are a great advertisement for managing resources.

Right, we're stuffing up our own natural resources while your lot throw the world into a recession, again. And the big one is still coming when you default on your debt. Who would I like to fill the void? Does it matter when the void is coming anyway?

My only criticism of the US was that it is none of their business, and that would be better off minding their own. Like many others on this forum, I have seen my nett worth seriously decline over the last few years, and it was pretty clear where the problems originated.

The EASTERN section of the dyke network was bombed - and the dams were left intact.

The MRC is a toothless tiger - the most powerful country in the debate virtually ignores it, and now 1 of the 4 signatories is joining the dam building. Why is Australia involved - probably because it is a dialogue partner to ASEAN.

Ah so that's what all this rant is about. You have lost some money and the USA is to blame, so you sound off about a speech given by Clinton.

I am not an American so please skip all the wild accusations about defaulting on debts etc

Quite right "The MRC is a toothless tiger" and one that is largely funded by the "interfering" (to use your expression) Australian government.

"Why is Australia involved - probably because it is a dialogue partner to ASEAN" ....as has the USA since 1977, so that might explain their participation.

"now 1 of the 4 signatories is joining the dam building"....actually only Vietnam has no plans to dam the Mekong. Laos & Thailand have every intention of doing so and Hun Sen in Cambodia has until recently been very keen on a dam to produce HEP from the Mekong.

Perhaps if you can get over your American issues you might like to read this from the Australian newspaper (unless of course they too are part of the American led conspiracy to plunge us all into the void).

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/mekong-dam-plans-threatening-the-natural-order/story-e6frg6ux-1226083709322

[kerryk]

The MRC (which is largely funded by the Australian government, which rather begs the question why they are getting involved but then again you only seem to be interested in criticizing the US) is widely seen as too keen to duck contentious issues as it cannot satisfy all the objectives of its constituent members.

Throwing in N Vietnamese dams is somewhat irrelevant and again you are wrong. Much of the eastern section of the Red River delta dyke network was bombed by the USAF as highlighted by Jane Fonda.

Advocating US isolationism is a sad approach to geopolitics. Who would you like to see fill the void? Many Asian nations, having witnessed Chinese rhetoric and action in the South China Sea, are quite keen for the US to maintain its interest in SE Asia.

Also perhaps you should look to your own fair country and its wanton destruction of the Murray-Darling river Basin and Great Barrier Reef. Neither are a great advertisement for managing resources.

Right, we're stuffing up our own natural resources while your lot throw the world into a recession, again. And the big one is still coming when you default on your debt. Who would I like to fill the void? Does it matter when the void is coming anyway?

My only criticism of the US was that it is none of their business, and that would be better off minding their own. Like many others on this forum, I have seen my nett worth seriously decline over the last few years, and it was pretty clear where the problems originated.

The EASTERN section of the dyke network was bombed - and the dams were left intact.

The MRC is a toothless tiger - the most powerful country in the debate virtually ignores it, and now 1 of the 4 signatories is joining the dam building. Why is Australia involved - probably because it is a dialogue partner to ASEAN.

Asian Development Bank, World Bank, ASEAN, Australia, Belgium, Denmark, European Commission, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, and the USA agree with and fund the MRC. These countries and banks don't think it is toothless. These countries and banks all think it is their business.

But you know more than the Asian Development Bank, World Bank, ASEAN, Australia, Belgium, Denmark, European Commission, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland and the USA. They should all mind their own business!

I think in reality your purpose was another US bashing thread and that you probably were surprised that Australia in particular was a staunch advocate of the MRC and quite a bit more vocal than the US on this issue. Even your above post tries to drag the debate off topic mentioning your personal finances which you blame on the US.

Your bias is so severe that I think you have lost any credibility you may once have had. If you stay on topic you will find it much more difficult to bash the US on most issues. By the way, the topic of this thread is dam building on the Mekong and Asian Development Bank, World Bank, ASEAN, Australia, Belgium, Denmark, European Commission, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, and the USA are not in favor of the current dam without more study.

[kerryk]

More western colonist trying to tell asians what to do

Asian Development Bank, ASEAN, Japan, Laos, Thailand and Cambodia are colonials? Wow I learn something every day.

[who]

Hate to change the subject from American bashing but I wonder if the proposed dam_n will have negative consequences to the food supply of downstream nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mekong, The Mekong River Commission, a panel of the region's nations, has accused China of blatantly disregarding the nations downstream in its plans to dam the river in an effort to stop the dams, but to no avail. Cambodia is by far the most exposed, depending on a fine balance of water flow, fearing scenarios of mass famine and devastating floods, the likes of which destroyed the Angkor kingdom 700 years ago.

When China builds all the damns and Vietnam and Cambodia go into starvation mode who you all going to ask to get China to stop? Australia.

.

---- Re: "mass famine and devastating floods, the likes of which destroyed the Angkor kingdom 700 years ago." Where can I get further info on this subject? I would like to know more about it. ----

.

[who]

Currently, the two biggest rice-exporting countries in the world are Thailand and Vietnam. They also both do a lot of business with the US. A couple more dams on the Mekong might greatly reduce Vietnam's rice output.

In the not-to-distant future, food production will be a major concern. Hungry people tend to be a politically destabilizing force! As the world biggest superpower, the US is more interested in stability than instability. So anything that threatens the production of oil or food is going to be something that the US will be meddling in.

I'm not saying that this is right or wrong, just the reality of the situation.

.

---- "A couple more dams on the Mekong might greatly reduce Vietnam's rice output" Just how would this happen ? ----

.

[folium]

Hate to change the subject from American bashing but I wonder if the proposed dam_n will have negative consequences to the food supply of downstream nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mekong, The Mekong River Commission, a panel of the region's nations, has accused China of blatantly disregarding the nations downstream in its plans to dam the river in an effort to stop the dams, but to no avail. Cambodia is by far the most exposed, depending on a fine balance of water flow, fearing scenarios of mass famine and devastating floods, the likes of which destroyed the Angkor kingdom 700 years ago.

When China builds all the damns and Vietnam and Cambodia go into starvation mode who you all going to ask to get China to stop? Australia.

.

---- Re: "mass famine and devastating floods, the likes of which destroyed the Angkor kingdom 700 years ago." Where can I get further info on this subject? I would like to know more about it. ----

.

Read Jared Diamond's excellent book; "Collapse. how Societies Choos to Fail or Succeed"

USD 11 on Kindle - bargain for a brilliant read.

[folium]

Currently, the two biggest rice-exporting countries in the world are Thailand and Vietnam. They also both do a lot of business with the US. A couple more dams on the Mekong might greatly reduce Vietnam's rice output.

In the not-to-distant future, food production will be a major concern. Hungry people tend to be a politically destabilizing force! As the world biggest superpower, the US is more interested in stability than instability. So anything that threatens the production of oil or food is going to be something that the US will be meddling in.

I'm not saying that this is right or wrong, just the reality of the situation.

.

---- "A couple more dams on the Mekong might greatly reduce Vietnam's rice output" Just how would this happen ? ----

.

Dams will choke off sediment flow to Mekong delta by a factor of probably 60%, possibly more.

Sediment deposits in the delta explain its amazing fertility and high crop yields. Less sediment = lower yields.

Also Mekong delta is in a race with the erosive power of the sea, less deposits= more erosion therefore less Mekong Delta.

Throw in rising sea levels and shrinking delta and you get increased ingress of sea water, increasing levels of salinity and less rice yield

At present the delta produces over half Vietnam's total rice yield. Hence Vietnamese opposition to Mekong dams, and why they appreciate Clinton's speech generating publicity re the issue.

Edited September 13, 2011 by folium

[otherstuff1957]

^ Thanks, Folium that's exactly what can happen. in addition to those, the reduction in the water flow could lead to a build-up of pollutants and excess nutrients that are currently being flushed out to sea.

[folium]

^ Thanks, Folium that's exactly what can happen. in addition to those, the reduction in the water flow could lead to a build-up of pollutants and excess nutrients that are currently being flushed out to sea.

My, you sound like a geography teacher!!

[otherstuff1957]

^ Thanks, Folium that's exactly what can happen. in addition to those, the reduction in the water flow could lead to a build-up of pollutants and excess nutrients that are currently being flushed out to sea.

My, you sound like a geography teacher!!

Yes, Geography & Science. 555

[daiwill60]

India damned the Bramhaputra River many years ago and it has caused all sorts of problems for its neighbour Bangladesh which lies at the the mouth of the river, (I don't need to go into these problems they've been publicised enough over the years), but summarised they are not enough water when needed and too much when it is not needed. When the water is needed in Bangladesh, India diverts the water into one of the major ports to flush the build of silt sediments. And when the water is not needed in Bangladesh it lets the water flow downstream = floods for Bangladesh. There has been much bickering and treaty signing over the years, and to the best of my knowledge the situation is now stabilised.

However, one of the other factors involved in excessive water flow during rainy seasons, which was and still is a major contributory factor involved in flood events of downstream low lying countries is deforestation, therefore any impact studies should be bearing this in mind, one would hope, before giving any such plans for HEP's the green light, and recommending that the concerned Governments work a lot harder to stop this behaviour.

China has had severe problems with dam collapses and pollution events following its committment to HEP generation, and really should not have been allowed to build the 3 Gorges Dam in my opinion, as it was badly criticised and embroiled in all sorts of financial shenanigans (with Canada for one oddly enough, and the World Bank) from the word GO, and yet in spite of all this, and the displacement of 100's of thousands of people from heavily idustrialised areas with a lot of ground pollution problems and the threat to the unique river dolphin of the Yangtse River and many other species downstream and possible earthquake risks in the area, the project went ahead , and now China and other people are finally realising the costs of what they have done.

Moral of Story == Gov't s will bend rules to suit or piss off someone else. Regardless of environmental consequences and for the benefit of profit projects go ahead. Opinions are only wanted when they are asked for .

DO I NEED TO QUOTE FUKASHIMA AS AN EXAMPLE , NO SURELY NOT

BSc Environmental Sciences 1998

Sorry guys, no American or Aussie bashing here , just trying to bring the subject more in line with subject matter that should be being discussed.

Edited September 25, 2011 by daiwill60

[folium]

India damned the Bramhaputra River many years ago and it has caused all sorts of problems for its neighbour Bangladesh which lies at the the mouth of the river, (I don't need to go into these problems they've been publicised enough over the years), but summarised they are not enough water when needed and too much when it is not needed. When the water is needed in Bangladesh, India diverts the water into one of the major ports to flush the build of silt sediments. And when the water is not needed in Bangladesh it lets the water flow downstream = floods for Bangladesh. There has been much bickering and treaty signing over the years, and to the best of my knowledge the situation is now stabilised.

However, one of the other factors involved in excessive water flow during rainy seasons, which was and still is a major contributory factor involved in flood events of downstream low lying countries is deforestation, therefore any impact studies should be bearing this in mind, one would hope, before giving any such plans for HEP's the green light, and recommending that the concerned Governments work a lot harder to stop this behaviour.

China has had severe problems with dam collapses and pollution events following its committment to HEP generation, and really should not have been allowed to build the 3 Gorges Dam in my opinion, as it was badly criticised and embroiled in all sorts of financial shenanigans (with Canada for one oddly enough, and the World Bank) from the word GO, and yet in spite of all this, and the displacement of 100's of thousands of people from heavily idustrialised areas with a lot of ground pollution problems and the threat to the unique river dolphin of the Yangtse River and many other species downstream and possible earthquake risks in the area, the project went ahead , and now China and other people are finally realising the costs of what they have done.

Moral of Story == Gov't s will bend rules to suit or piss off someone else. Regardless of environmental consequences and for the benefit of profit projects go ahead. Opinions are only wanted when they are asked for .

DO I NEED TO QUOTE FUKASHIMA AS AN EXAMPLE , NO SURELY NOT

BSc Environmental Sciences 1998

Sorry guys, no American or Aussie bashing here , just trying to bring the subject more in line with subject matter that should be being discussed.

Just to underline the multiple nature of the threat to the long term health of the Mekong due to chronic short sightedness of some of the bordering countries, what is happening at Hongsa in Laos represents another dimension.

Hongsa will be a lignite strip mining and power plant site generating some 1800 MW by 2015 at a cost of some $3.7billion. Majority owned by Thai companies Banpu & RATC (having eased out the original Thai company, see New York based law suits), 95% of the electricity will be sent to Thailand. Funding is via Thai/Chinese banks and the construction will be done by Chinese contractor CNEEC. This explains all the road building from Luang Prabang to Hongsa.

Hongsa has been developing as an ecotourist spot based around the Sayaburi elephant festival and the large local elephant population (sadly only around 500 now due to the destructive logging of the area), but these are likely to be early casualties of strip mining and power generation. Lignite is one of the dirtiest and least efficient fossil fuels. Banpu's similar lignite operation at Mae Moh, near Lampang, has been highly controversial due to the degree of pollutants generated, and the subsequent cost of retrofitting some pollution control has meant Banpu has been very interested in developing similar projects in more "amenable" locations such as Hongsa.

Sayaburi or Xayaburi province in Laos is likely to be in the press again this week as the Mekong River Commission meets in Siem Reap Dec 7-9 to discuss the Xayaburi dam on the main course of the Mekong river (downstream from Hongsa). The same nexus of Thai/Chinese construction/banking interests, insatiable Thai electricity demands, tame environmental assessments and huge scope for financial gain means that consensus may be achieved opening the way to Laos building 8 such dams on the main course of the river with significant impacts on the environment, wildlife and 60 million people downstream whose livelihoods and nutrition depend on the river, but seem to carry little weight against the gravy train of vested interests.

Shortsightedness seems to know no bounds. Enjoy the Mekong valley while you can.

Edited December 5, 2011 by folium

[geriatrickid]

Currently, the two biggest rice-exporting countries in the world are Thailand and Vietnam. They also both do a lot of business with the US. A couple more dams on the Mekong might greatly reduce Vietnam's rice output.

In the not-to-distant future, food production will be a major concern. Hungry people tend to be a politically destabilizing force! As the world biggest superpower, the US is more interested in stability than instability. So anything that threatens the production of oil or food is going to be something that the US will be meddling in.

I'm not saying that this is right or wrong, just the reality of the situation.

Finally, an intelligent assessment. Thank you

Hunger is a major cause of war and political instability. Vietnam and Thailand are key players in feeding the world. If anything happens to these two food exporters, millions could starve or otherwise suffer.

The USA is one of the largest famine relief donors in the world. I think that gives it a right to speak out.

[Scully]

Last time I looked China had built four dams on the mekong, only another four to go. The Chinese class the river as their own as its running through their country, so they can do what they like?. Hilary Clinton also had something to say about this but with a country like China she soon backed down.

China have made many homeless, jobless and with little future due to large scale flooding for it's dams. None of what I said is true obviously ask any Chinese person who reads the government controlled media.

[toybits]

Dams with transnational impact? What about the Pak Moon Dam? While it is built entirely on the Thai side wouldn't you also say that it has transnational Impact? Afterall - it also does affect fish migration, the natural flow of water leading to the Mekong River is also affected, etc.

Is this Laos Dam a run-of-river dam on the Mekong itself or on a tributary within Laos?

[NxaiPan]

Dams with transnational impact? What about the Pak Moon Dam? While it is built entirely on the Thai side wouldn't you also say that it has transnational Impact? Afterall - it also does affect fish migration, the natural flow of water leading to the Mekong River is also affected, etc.

Is this Laos Dam a run-of-river dam on the Mekong itself or on a tributary within Laos?

Xayaburi dam will be the first dam (outside China, where there are already 3 and 2 more under construction, see map) on the main course of the Mekong not a tributary.

The concern is that Xayaburi, if approved by the MRC (who cannot stop construction, but countries are expected to reach consensus on any project that impacts other countries represented by the MRC; China & Myanmar are not members but have observer status), will become a precedent and will trigger the remaining dams planned for Laos and potentially Cambodia, along the main river.

[Oberkommando]

Article from International Rivers pointing out this dam will be Thai financed, Thai built and 95% of energy will be consumed by Thai customers.

http://www.internationalrivers.org/en/blog/kirk-herbertson/2011-12-5/guilty-getaway-driver-thailand%E2%80%99s-role-xayaburi-dam

[folium]

Article from International Rivers pointing out this dam will be Thai financed, Thai built and 95% of energy will be consumed by Thai customers.

http://www.internati...le-xayaburi-dam

Nice little piece from the WSJ summarizing the situation and what is at stake this week in Siem Reap if the MRC nods through the Xayaburi project.

http://blogs.wsj.com/searealtime/2011/12/05/southeast-asia-set-to-square-off-again-on-xayaburi/?mod=google_news_blog

Classic piece of Thai cash-induced myopia.

"Thailand's energy minister, Preecha Rengsomboonsuk told reporters last week that the dam is Laos's internal affair and Thailand won't intervene. Laos, he said, will have to take care of the environmental impact by itself."

Seems to overlook the fact that the dam impacts 3 other countries (Thailand, Cambodia & Vietnam), that the actual environmental impacts have not yet been properly identified, and also Laos lacks the means to address most of the likely impacts on its own. For exactly these reasons this is why the MRC was set up and that's why Thailand is a member of the MRC, not some disinterested, self-serving observer.

Edited December 6, 2011 by folium

[NxaiPan]

Article from International Rivers pointing out this dam will be Thai financed, Thai built and 95% of energy will be consumed by Thai customers.

http://www.internati...le-xayaburi-dam

Nice little piece from the WSJ summarizing the situation and what is at stake this week in Siem Reap if the MRC nods through the Xayaburi project.

http://blogs.wsj.com...oogle_news_blog

Classic piece of Thai cash-induced myopia.

"Thailand's energy minister, Preecha Rengsomboonsuk told reporters last week that the dam is Laos's internal affair and Thailand won't intervene. Laos, he said, will have to take care of the environmental impact by itself."

Seems to overlook the fact that the dam impacts 3 other countries (Thailand, Cambodia & Vietnam), that the actual environmental impacts have not yet been properly identified, and also Laos lacks the means to address most of the likely impacts on its own. For exactly these reasons this is why the MRC was set up and that's why Thailand is a member of the MRC, not some disinterested, self-serving observer.

The following link highlights the problems already created by dams on the Upper Mekong in China and tributaries of the Lower Mekong in Laos.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-26/china-hydropower-dams-in-mekong-river-give-shocks-to-60-million.html

This will all seem small beer once the Laos government/Thais start building major dams on the main course of the river, starting with Sayaburi if consensus is achieved this week. All it takes is greed and short-sightedness and the Mekong will be transformed with potentially grave consequences.