Residents Demand Answers On Xayaburi Dam

[webfact]

Residents demand answers on Xayaburi

SUPALAK GANJANAKHUNDEE

THE NATION

Phuket

PHUKET: -- The topic of Laos's controversial Xayaburi dam yesterday warmed up an international conference here on transboundary river management as dozens of Mekong residents and conservationists demanded a halt to its construction.

They called on governments in the Lower Mekong basin - Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam - to immediately address the ambiguities that have left the future of Xayaburi dam and other projects in mainstream Mekong unanswered.

The group representing residents of eight Thai provinces along the river, from Chiang Rai to Ubon Ratchathani, was allowed to get into the conference venue and have a brief meeting with Mekong River Commission (MRC)'s chief executive officer Hans Guttman.

Niwat Roykaew, chairman of the Chiang Khong Conservation Group, told Guttman that the local residents would have no choice but to shut down the Mekong Friendship bridges between Thailand and Laos if the MRC failed to comply with its own regulations to force Laos to halt the project construction.

The 1995 agreement to establish the MRC required members to notify and consult other members if it wanted to utilise water from the mainstream - but such a pact had no jurisdiction over the decision of a sovereign state.

Guttman told them that the MRC would coordinate with member countries to convey to them the concerns of local people. Indeed the Laos government has not made a final decision on the dam, he said. Work at the site, such as a road, was now just in preparation and there was no construction going on in the river, he said.

Laos has proposed building the Xayaburi Dam on mainstream Mekong approximately 150 kilometres downstream from Luang Prabang. The 1,260MW electricity generated would mostly be exported to Thailand.

Conservationists said the dam would block the migration of fish and many endangered species in the Mekong River and could affect fisheries and the livelihood of local residents. Downstream countries like Cambodia and Vietnam are also worried about the negative impact of the dam would have on their food production.

The MRC ministerial council at their meeting in Seam Reap last December decided to delay the project and asked for a comprehensive study of dam construction planned for the Mekong mainstream.

The study would begin this year and provide information on its findings every year, according to Guttman. In particular, the MRC needs details of the impact on fish migration and navigation in the Mekong if dams are built in the mainstream, he said.

Thai construction firm Ch Karnchang, however, announced last month that it had signed a Bt51.8-billion construction contract with Xayaburi Power, the company that holds a concession from the Lao authorities.

Meanwhile, Natural Resource and Environment Minister Preecha Rengsomboonsuk said Thailand would take into account local people's concerns and seek a proper solution for the matter.

Laos has guaranteed several times in MRC meetings that its study indicated that the Xayaburi dam would cause no serious damage to communities or the environment, he said.

"If there was any damage [likely], they would not build the dam," Preecha said.

Laos Vice-Minister of Energy and Mines Viraphonh Viravong yesterday declined to comment on the issue.

More than 300 river managers, leaders and other stakeholders from around the world are participating in a three-day conference in Phuket to discuss ways transboundary rivers can meet growing food, water and energy needs while minimising negative consequences. The summit kicked off yesterday.

They gave no specific answer to the Xayaburi dam question, but plan to discuss the issue at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro next month.

-- The Nation 2012-05-02

[PoodMaiDai]

"Thai" and "Conservationists" usually don't pair well.

Considering so many need that river, that's a pretty bold thing to do knowing other countries will get shafted.

[sparebox2]

Dam is need to control flood.

No Dam could mean bigger flood this year.

[folium]

Dam is need to control flood.

No Dam could mean bigger flood this year.

As mismanagement of the release of floodwaters from the Bhumibol and Sirkit dams contributed materially to the lower Chao Phraya valley flooding last year, that's hardly a reassurance or a valid excuse for a decision (and Xayaburi will be the first of a tleast 11 dams to be built on the main course of the river) that will materially impact the lives and livelihoods of millions of people living on the lower Mekong especially around Tonle Sap and the delta.

[hellodolly]

Dam is need to control flood.

No Dam could mean bigger flood this year.

As mismanagement of the release of floodwaters from the Bhumibol and Sirkit dams contributed materially to the lower Chao Phraya valley flooding last year, that's hardly a reassurance or a valid excuse for a decision (and Xayaburi will be the first of a tleast 11 dams to be built on the main course of the river) that will materially impact the lives and livelihoods of millions of people living on the lower Mekong especially around Tonle Sap and the delta.

Especially on the Tonle Sap. At the high point of the Mekong river there is so munch water that the Tonle Sap reverses it's flow and more than doubles the size of it's head water's. This would change the dynamics of the life style there that generations of people have lived with and as it would be taking away from it the results would not be good.

[Time Traveller]

Dam is need to control flood.

No Dam could mean bigger flood this year.

The Xayaburi dam is being built for hydro electricity, not to control floods. At least read the article before posting stupid comments. And BTW often dams cause flooding, not prevent it.

[jonclark]

Dam is need to control flood.

No Dam could mean bigger flood this year.

The Dam is in Laos not Thailand, Wasn't aware Laos was under the threat of flood this year??

[folium]

Dam is need to control flood.

No Dam could mean bigger flood this year.

The Dam is in Laos not Thailand, Wasn't aware Laos was under the threat of flood this year??

That's the other big issue, namely that the Mekong is shared between 6 countries (China, Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia & Vietnam) and in true style "sh1t rolls downhill" or in this case flows downhill with the actions of one nation having a material impact on its downstream neighbour. That's why Vietnam is spitting teeth as it benefits the least and potentially comes off the worst due to this likely cascade of dams.

Also for Sparebox2, even with the Chinese sub contrcators that will be used to build Xayaburi they would be pretty pushed to get it finished for this flood season, let alone next year's.

[OzMick]

The Laos people are building a hydro-electric dam which, while not reducing the total flow in the Mekong, will provide them with almost free electric power, and hard currency from selling some of that power to Thailand. Thailand will use this power to replace more expensive power generated from non-renewable hydrocarbons, a resource which is rapidly diminishing and reportedly causing environmental problems.

Those downstream can protest, demand answers, and whine as much as they like - it will not change a thing unless they are offering the Laos some benefit and least comparable to they will achieve with the dam.

They had better learn to live with it because hydro-power is going to be much more common in the future. As much as many don't like dams, they still want electricity and the alternatives are few. Hydro-power is cheap, clean and reliable - solar power that works at night.

Once hydrocarbons are eliminated the alternatives are nukes, solar power (which works around 8 hours/day and the only currently available storage method is pumping water uphill from one dam to another) and wind power (low output, fickle, and low energy return ratio). Geothermal output is miniscule, and there is yet to be a wave-power system that doesn't self destruct in short order.

[jonclark]

Dam is need to control flood.

No Dam could mean bigger flood this year.

The Dam is in Laos not Thailand, Wasn't aware Laos was under the threat of flood this year??

That's the other big issue, namely that the Mekong is shared between 6 countries (China, Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia & Vietnam) and in true style "sh1t rolls downhill" or in this case flows downhill with the actions of one nation having a material impact on its downstream neighbour. That's why Vietnam is spitting teeth as it benefits the least and potentially comes off the worst due to this likely cascade of dams.

Also for Sparebox2, even with the Chinese sub contrcators that will be used to build Xayaburi they would be pretty pushed to get it finished for this flood season, let alone next year's.

If your interested here's a link to a summary report of and strategic Environmental Assessment carried out by the MRC

http://www.internati...ver-s-fate-2634

One of the main points of the report is that the economic benefits of the dam construction, increase energy y to stimulate economies *(Thailand and Laos mainly) will be offset by a dramatic reduction in the local river economies of all countries (including Thailand and Laos) which use the Mekong. So the net economic effect will be marginal combined with significant irreversible ecological damage.

Edited May 2, 2012 by jonclark

[OzMick]

Dam is need to control flood.

No Dam could mean bigger flood this year.

The Dam is in Laos not Thailand, Wasn't aware Laos was under the threat of flood this year??

That's the other big issue, namely that the Mekong is shared between 6 countries (China, Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia & Vietnam) and in true style "sh1t rolls downhill" or in this case flows downhill with the actions of one nation having a material impact on its downstream neighbour. That's why Vietnam is spitting teeth as it benefits the least and potentially comes off the worst due to this likely cascade of dams.

Also for Sparebox2, even with the Chinese sub contrcators that will be used to build Xayaburi they would be pretty pushed to get it finished for this flood season, let alone next year's.

VN is in the unfortunate position of having much of its farmland on the Mekong delta, which will reduce in size as peak flood flows are reduced. OTOH it's a bit rich to say to upstream countries to keep on allowing your topsoil wash away to feed our delta, and do without the electricity as well.

Wars have been fought over much less.

Edited May 2, 2012 by OzMick

[folium]

Dam is need to control flood.

No Dam could mean bigger flood this year.

The Dam is in Laos not Thailand, Wasn't aware Laos was under the threat of flood this year??

That's the other big issue, namely that the Mekong is shared between 6 countries (China, Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia & Vietnam) and in true style "sh1t rolls downhill" or in this case flows downhill with the actions of one nation having a material impact on its downstream neighbour. That's why Vietnam is spitting teeth as it benefits the least and potentially comes off the worst due to this likely cascade of dams.

Also for Sparebox2, even with the Chinese sub contrcators that will be used to build Xayaburi they would be pretty pushed to get it finished for this flood season, let alone next year's.

VN is in the unfortunate position of having much of its farmland on the Mekong delta, which will reduce in size as peak flood flows are reduced. OTOH it's a bit rich to say to upstream countries to keep on allowing your topsoil wash away to feed our delta, and do without the electricity as well.

Wars have been fought over much less.

The really crass element in this whole affair is the underhand manner of proceeding. The first EIA (see link above on Jonclark's post #10) was suppressed by the MRC as it did not provide the "right" answers. Laos then commissioned Poyry (an ever-obliging environmental consultant, which BTW also signed off on SinoForest's allleged forest assets which actually appear not to exist), to produce another EIA. This was done in record time and produced exactly the result paid for/required.

Its lack of credibility and international pressure led the MRC to call on Laos to suspend any work on Xayaburi until another Japanese sponsored EIA was undertaken.

Obviously there is an important role for hydro to play in the energy mix going forward but pushing through projects without credible EIA is the ultimate in short-sightedness and as noted can be the cause of potential conflict where a resource is shared between nations.

[rogerdee123]

The Laos people are building a hydro-electric dam which, while not reducing the total flow in the Mekong, will provide them with almost free electric power, and hard currency from selling some of that power to Thailand. ...........

........

Do you really believe this?

[OzMick]

Dam is need to control flood.

No Dam could mean bigger flood this year.

The Dam is in Laos not Thailand, Wasn't aware Laos was under the threat of flood this year??

That's the other big issue, namely that the Mekong is shared between 6 countries (China, Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia & Vietnam) and in true style "sh1t rolls downhill" or in this case flows downhill with the actions of one nation having a material impact on its downstream neighbour. That's why Vietnam is spitting teeth as it benefits the least and potentially comes off the worst due to this likely cascade of dams.

Also for Sparebox2, even with the Chinese sub contrcators that will be used to build Xayaburi they would be pretty pushed to get it finished for this flood season, let alone next year's.

If your interested here's a link to a summary report of and strategic Environmental Assessment carried out by the MRC

http://www.internati...ver-s-fate-2634

One of the main points of the report is that the economic benefits of the dam construction, increase energy y to stimulate economies *(Thailand and Laos mainly) will be offset by a dramatic reduction in the local river economies of all countries (including Thailand and Laos) which use the Mekong. So the net economic effect will be marginal combined with significant irreversible ecological damage.

Without bothering to read it, can I guess that the "significant irreversible ecological damage" will not mention the offset of NOT burning more than a million tonnes of anthracite / year, every year, for the life of the dam?

[OzMick]

The Laos people are building a hydro-electric dam which, while not reducing the total flow in the Mekong, will provide them with almost free electric power, and hard currency from selling some of that power to Thailand. ...........

........

Do you really believe this?

What part of it is difficult to believe? Investors build the dam with little or no cost to the Laos, in return they pay a concession fee for every Mw/hr generated. It is normal to take part of that payment as minimum cost or free power.

[folium]

For those interested here are the ealier posts on this topic:

http://www.thaivisa....50#entry5112151

http://www.thaivisa...._1#entry4900882

http://www.thaivisa...._1#entry4895791

ttp://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/497287-laos-aims-to-build-mekong-dam-this-year-testing-its-neighbours/page__st__50__p__4894923__hl__xayaburi__fromsearch__1#entry4894923

Edited May 2, 2012 by folium

[folium]

What part of it is difficult to believe? Investors build the dam with little or no cost to the Laos, in return they pay a concession fee for every Mw/hr generated. It is normal to take part of that payment as minimum cost or free power.

The only contentious part of your statement could be about not reducing total flow.

While at the moment this cascade of dams is focused on HEP generation, if large scale water extraction is then added to make the dams multifunctional in terms of irrigation, supplying residential/industrial users etc, you could have a Hoover Dam, Colorado river situation (albeit unlikely to that degree where the Colorado in some years fails to reach the Gulf), or a Murray-Darling scenario.

[jonclark]

Without bothering to read it, can I guess that the "significant irreversible ecological damage" will not mention the offset of NOT burning more than a million tonnes of anthracite / year, every year, for the life of the dam?

I think you are missing the point. The construction of the dam will lessen one form of ecological damage, but create a new ecological problems. Taking from Peter to pay Paul is not a solution and is a weak argument for the dams construction. Because lets be honest it people like you and I and the many millions of others who have energy rich lifestyles and demand this extra energy and cause pollution, not the farmers, fisherman and communities along the Mekong who have a much lower carbon footprint, yet who we are expecting them to suffer the consequences so we can smugly feel good that we are not producing CO2.

As you also pointed out in a previous post the flow in terms of volume will not be changed, however the sediment content will be changed as during the storage of the water behind the dam the sediment will fall out. When the water is discharged the reduction in sediments = a reduction in the nutrient content of the water. Nutrients which have created rich farmland along the margin. Whilst nature currently does this fertilization for free, after the dams construction the farmers eventually will need to pay using chemical fertilizers to maintain crop yields These fertilizers which eventually leaches back into the river and if used extensively can result in eutrophication

[folium]

Looks like Cambodia is losing patience with Laos and is threatening to take the matter to court.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/NE03Ae01.html

[OzMick]

Without bothering to read it, can I guess that the "significant irreversible ecological damage" will not mention the offset of NOT burning more than a million tonnes of anthracite / year, every year, for the life of the dam?

I think you are missing the point. The construction of the dam will lessen one form of ecological damage, but create a new ecological problems. Taking from Peter to pay Paul is not a solution and is a weak argument for the dams construction. Because lets be honest it people like you and I and the many millions of others who have energy rich lifestyles and demand this extra energy and cause pollution, not the farmers, fisherman and communities along the Mekong who have a much lower carbon footprint, yet who we are expecting them to suffer the consequences so we can smugly feel good that we are not producing CO2.

As you also pointed out in a previous post the flow in terms of volume will not be changed, however the sediment content will be changed as during the storage of the water behind the dam the sediment will fall out. When the water is discharged the reduction in sediments = a reduction in the nutrient content of the water. Nutrients which have created rich farmland along the margin. Whilst nature currently does this fertilization for free, after the dams construction the farmers eventually will need to pay using chemical fertilizers to maintain crop yields These fertilizers which eventually leaches back into the river and if used extensively can result in eutrophication

Countries have a choice - to become industrialised and move into the 21st century or remain poor and primary industry based. The choice is theirs and should not be influenced by outside agitators who enjoyed the benefits of an upbringing in an industrialised society. If that sounds personal, so does your claiming falsely that I live a high energy consuming lifestyle.

BTW flood fertillisation is as old as the ancient Egyptians and should be just as dead. For every farmer a flood benefits, thousands suffer misery. And educated use of feritilizer should not increase nutrient levels any more than the sediment reduction reduces.

[OzMick]

Looks like Cambodia is losing patience with Laos and is threatening to take the matter to court.

http://www.atimes.co...a/NE03Ae01.html

And what will ANY court do about it if the Laos ignore their ruling.

[jonclark]

Without bothering to read it, can I guess that the "significant irreversible ecological damage" will not mention the offset of NOT burning more than a million tonnes of anthracite / year, every year, for the life of the dam?

I think you are missing the point. The construction of the dam will lessen one form of ecological damage, but create a new ecological problems. Taking from Peter to pay Paul is not a solution and is a weak argument for the dams construction. Because lets be honest it people like you and I and the many millions of others who have energy rich lifestyles and demand this extra energy and cause pollution, not the farmers, fisherman and communities along the Mekong who have a much lower carbon footprint, yet who we are expecting them to suffer the consequences so we can smugly feel good that we are not producing CO2.

As you also pointed out in a previous post the flow in terms of volume will not be changed, however the sediment content will be changed as during the storage of the water behind the dam the sediment will fall out. When the water is discharged the reduction in sediments = a reduction in the nutrient content of the water. Nutrients which have created rich farmland along the margin. Whilst nature currently does this fertilization for free, after the dams construction the farmers eventually will need to pay using chemical fertilizers to maintain crop yields These fertilizers which eventually leaches back into the river and if used extensively can result in eutrophication

Countries have a choice - to become industrialised and move into the 21st century or remain poor and primary industry based. The choice is theirs and should not be influenced by outside agitators who enjoyed the benefits of an upbringing in an industrialised society. If that sounds personal, so does your claiming falsely that I live a high energy consuming lifestyle.

BTW flood fertillisation is as old as the ancient Egyptians and should be just as dead. For every farmer a flood benefits, thousands suffer misery. And educated use of feritilizer should not increase nutrient levels any more than the sediment reduction reduces.

Not talking about flood fertilization!!! As for the rest of your 'points' no point replying as they have very little do with the dams construction. The solution probably lies somewhere in the middle; reducing the demand for energy in all sectors of society, using current energy sources more efficiently and cleanly and using a wider range of alternative energy sources appropriately, according to social and environmental requirements.

[OzMick]

Without bothering to read it, can I guess that the "significant irreversible ecological damage" will not mention the offset of NOT burning more than a million tonnes of anthracite / year, every year, for the life of the dam?

I think you are missing the point. The construction of the dam will lessen one form of ecological damage, but create a new ecological problems. Taking from Peter to pay Paul is not a solution and is a weak argument for the dams construction. Because lets be honest it people like you and I and the many millions of others who have energy rich lifestyles and demand this extra energy and cause pollution, not the farmers, fisherman and communities along the Mekong who have a much lower carbon footprint, yet who we are expecting them to suffer the consequences so we can smugly feel good that we are not producing CO2.

As you also pointed out in a previous post the flow in terms of volume will not be changed, however the sediment content will be changed as during the storage of the water behind the dam the sediment will fall out. When the water is discharged the reduction in sediments = a reduction in the nutrient content of the water. Nutrients which have created rich farmland along the margin. Whilst nature currently does this fertilization for free, after the dams construction the farmers eventually will need to pay using chemical fertilizers to maintain crop yields These fertilizers which eventually leaches back into the river and if used extensively can result in eutrophication

Countries have a choice - to become industrialised and move into the 21st century or remain poor and primary industry based. The choice is theirs and should not be influenced by outside agitators who enjoyed the benefits of an upbringing in an industrialised society. If that sounds personal, so does your claiming falsely that I live a high energy consuming lifestyle.

BTW flood fertillisation is as old as the ancient Egyptians and should be just as dead. For every farmer a flood benefits, thousands suffer misery. And educated use of feritilizer should not increase nutrient levels any more than the sediment reduction reduces.

Not talking about flood fertilization!!! As for the rest of your 'points' no point replying as they have very little do with the dams construction. The solution probably lies somewhere in the middle; reducing the demand for energy in all sectors of society, using current energy sources more efficiently and cleanly and using a wider range of alternative energy sources appropriately, according to social and environmental requirements.

Currently 87% of the world's energy comes from rapidly diminishing sources of fossil fuels, 6% each from nukes and hydro, and less than 1% from ALL other alternative energy sources. Demand continues to grow.

Have a look at the table below which gives the multiples of energy returned for energy invested. Hydro is the clear winner.

"High per-capita energy use has been considered desirable as it is associated with a high standard of living based on energy-intensive machines. A society will generally exploit the highest available EROEI energy sources first, as these provide the most energy for the least effort. With non-renewable sources, progressively lower EROEI sources are then used as the higher-quality ones are exhausted.

For example, when oil was originally discovered, it took on average one barrel of oil to find, extract, and process about 100 barrels of oil. That ratio has declined steadily over the last century to about three barrels gained for one barrel used up in the U.S."

I understand there are valid reasons why people don't like dams. But most of it is backed by ignorance of the world's energy situation.

[sparebox2]

Dam means FREE electricity.

You people no like freebies?

PS: Go take down the solar panel off your roof.

Edited May 3, 2012 by sparebox2

[sprq]

Dam is need to control flood.

No Dam could mean bigger flood this year.

Total ignorance.

[sprq]

Dam means FREE electricity.

You people no like freebies?

PS: Go take down the solar panel off your roof.

Yes, you need a spare box, one with a brain in it.

[folium]

No one rational is denying that HEP will play a role in the transition from carbon but the old cliche that "the best omlette is made by breaking the least eggs" holds true. Proper EIAs need to be conducted for major hydro projects and sometimes the costs will outweigh the benefits. However environmental concerns can be trumped by economic, financial and political factors.

In the case of Xayaburi, sure Cambodia's legal option if executed will achieve little more than embarrassment for Laos, more significant is Vietnamese opposition. But what we are seing here is a continuation of a trend of Laos realigning itself away from Vietnam and Russia and move toward Thailand and China. These dams are all part of that process and are thus likely to happen irrespective of any EIA that may or may not be undertaken.

For the 17m Vietnamese in the Mekong delta and 3m Cambodians relying on the Tonle Sap such a political realignment is going to carry a hefty cost in terms of their livelihoods and lifestyles.

[folium]

While containing nothing new, the article below is a tidy summary of where we are in relation to the construction of the Xayaburi Dam.

http://www.economist.com/node/21554253

[rogerdee123]

The Laos people are building a hydro-electric dam which, while not reducing the total flow in the Mekong, will provide them with almost free electric power, and hard currency from selling some of that power to Thailand. ...........

........

Do you really believe this?

What part of it is difficult to believe? Investors build the dam with little or no cost to the Laos, in return they pay a concession fee for every Mw/hr generated. It is normal to take part of that payment as minimum cost or free power.

The part that is the most difficult to believe is the "Lao People" part (i.e. while perhaps not as bad as Cambodia, the mafia type politico's that rule in Lao are not the "Lao People", of which 90 percent have no knowledge of this dam ... similar to all the other boondoggle 'investments' that the Govt is responsible for, most of which only generate new houses and new cars for the ruling elite.

Among the real Lao people who know about this dam are those who have been forceably moved from the building site as well as all the other villages upstream that will be moved in the future, although many of those villages still have no information about this dam.

Another part that is difficult to believe is the "no cost to the Lao" ..... i.e. you're only talking about the joint-venture construction costs, Laos (or "Lao People") will pay heavily for this.

The other part difficult to believe is the "minimum cost or free power" .... take a look at the cost/benefit analysis of dams already in operation (not the pie in the sky projections made by the construction companies and consultants prior to operation) in Laos ... and also take a look at electricity prices, before and after the dams.

THis is probably another build/operate/transfer deal whereby although the Govt of Laos doesn't have to put money up front ... and the foreign owners get the revenue generated for x(20?) number of years in return for their investment in the dam ... cheaper or free electricity (for Lao) as a result of this dam will never happen. Please let me know when you see the price of electricity decrease in Laos, particularly as a result of this or any other large hydro-electric project like this..

[lovelaos]

Dam is need to control flood.

No Dam could mean bigger flood this year.

The Dam is in Laos not Thailand, Wasn't aware Laos was under the threat of flood this year??

Laos is under the threat of flood every year.