|
|
Change Your Life! |
Initiative to resolve conflict over Meghnaghat power plant |
|
News |
May 3, 2000
Dhaka, Apr 2 (UNB)- The Energy Ministry has taken initiative to resolve the conflict between PDB and American firm AES over the project site for Meghnaghat power plant. According to ministry sources, the top officials of the ministry have already sat with the Power Development Board to get their version of the tussle. “We have sat with the PDB and we are going to sit with the AES,” said an official of the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources today (Monday). He said after hearing both sides the ministry would bring them together at a meeting to mediate an end to the lingering dispute. The ministry’s move came when the US power giant sought Energy Ministry's intervention to end the raging conflict. The American energy giant repeatedly declined to take over the project site complaining that it was so poorly prepared that installation of machinery would be impossible. It also complained that the site was not shielded against earthquake risks. PDB dismissed AES allegations of poor development of the site and again asked the US company to take over it and start installation work of the power plant, scheduled to be completed by February 2,2002. On April 26, AES in a letter to the Secretary, Power Division, the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, urged the ministry's help over the prolonged fight between the PDB and the company over makeover of the project site developed by a Chinese firm. Meanwhile, the Power Development Board has got into another conflict with the Bureau of Research, Testing and Consultancy (BRTC) of the Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET) over technical conclusion of the Meghnaghat plant site. The 7-member BRTC, BUET, team conducted a technical survey of the project site at the request of the AES. In a letter to the Vice Chancellor of BUET, the PDB accused the varsity authorities of allowing “AES to use its good name to mitigate the just stand taken by BPDB”. Alleging that AES was believed to have supplied wrong data not confirming to the contract specification as laid down in the Land Lease Agreement (LLA), the power board requested the Vice Chancellor to “reexamine the whole issue and give an independent opinion on the subject”. In separate letter, PDB also proposed the names of four professors who should be included to decide on the matter for assuring “a fair and credible resolution”. Sharply reacting to the letters, the Chairman of the Civil Engineering Department of the BUET, under which the BRTC runs, said: “We strongly condemn BPDB attitude in this respect.” He said: “BPDB’s insinuation by the use of the words fair and credible was objectionable.” Selection of four experts implies that the seven-member BRTC team headed by Prof Md Zoynul Abedin is not capable of carrying out the said consultancy project. As matter of policy, BRTC always engages right expertise for the right job. It is the BUET, not the BPDB, who should know who are the best people for this job, he noted. In response to this letter of the BUET, the BPDB wrote again on April 30 accusing the Head of the Civil Engineering department of having a “mala fide intention and unholy ploy with the contractor (AES).”
|