How India lost a gas pipeline to China

[Kailash Kumar]

How India lost a gas pipeline to China

The deal to import gas from Myanmar via Bangladesh failed due to political reasons.

Mahendra P. Lama

July 14, 2020

A tripartite ministerial meeting between India, Myanmar and Bangladesh held in Yangon in January 2005 agreed to import natural gas through a pipeline from Myanmar via Bangladesh. Gas was to be brought from the newly explored fields in adjoining Rakhine state of Myanmar. It mentioned that the 'government of Myanmar agrees to export natural gas to India by a pipeline through the territory of Bangladesh and India to be operated by an international consortium... The route of the pipeline may be determined by mutual agreement of the three governments with a view to ensure adequate access, maximum security and optimal economic utilisation'.

Bangladesh and India had the 'right to access the pipeline as and when required, including injecting and siphoning off their own natural gas'. The three governments agreed to establish a Techno-Commercial Working Committee which shall identify areas of cooperation, collaboration and investment to develop natural gas resources, infrastructure and marketing in the region; and, deliberate and advise the three governments on policy issues such as pipeline routing, access-related issues as well as technical and commercial matters.

On primarily three grounds, this trilateral project was considered to be a major policy shift particularly in the Indian approach to issues of cooperation in the region. Firstly, it was a clear move away from the traditional bilateral approach to a new tripartite approach in a project located in a contiguous sub-region. Secondly, this was a deal which was negotiated and managed by the concerned line ministries and ministers-in-charge. And thirdly, this brought together three countries on a specific project from two cross-regional groupings of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) thereby making it an inter-(sub)regional initiative.

The deal, however, could not be implemented purportedly because India actually did not immediately agree to Bangladesh’s three demands—transmission of hydro-electricity from Nepal and Bhutan to Bangladesh through Indian territory; corridor for the supply of commodities between Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh through Indian territory; and adoption of necessary measures to reduce the trade imbalance between the two countries. This was discussed on the sidelines of the tripartite deal, and a formal joint bilateral press statement was even issued.

However, there were serious political reasons why the entire deal collapsed. The then Bangladesh Nationalist Party-led Khaleda Zia government (2001-06) had mostly been against any meaningful cooperation with India as she apprehended that the latter was deeply and historically disposed to the opposition party Awami League led by Sheikh Hasina. Zia had also provided shelter to Indian militants from the north-eastern region and had consistently called them ‘freedom fighters’. She protractedly denied any access to India to the north-eastern region through Bangladesh despite India asking for the same several times.

Leader-centric foreign policy

However, Bangladesh’s three demands related apprehensions were substantially addressed within the next six years when the India-Bangladesh Framework Agreement of 2011 was signed after Sheikh Hasina again became the prime minister of Bangladesh (2006 onwards). The effective implementations of some of the projects related to electricity, unilateral free trade access and land deals did prove that Begum Zia’s regime was actually a critical block in India’s disinterest in this trilateral pipeline project.

In a graphic narration, the then Indian minister for petroleum and natural gas Mani Shankar Aiyar, who was negotiating this deal, recounted, ‘We had done it in one meeting, just one meeting! But back in India there was a problem. I couldn’t go to Dhaka because I was told we had to support Begum Sheikh Hasina and the credit mustn’t go to Begum Khaleda Zia. So please wait, don’t rush into these things. So I sat and waited till September to go. In September, I was received royally by Khaleda Zia, and the entire cabinet came to the dinner given in my honour. However, I found my officers had not worked out a proper agreement. So sitting at that dinner I wrote out the agreement of what were actually the minutes of the previous meeting. After I read the agreement, they said they would study it; but I told them, no, we are going to sign it now because it’s the minutes of something we had agreed upon. Then these are the minutes which would be translated into an agreement. So they all agreed. And I said right there, “Let’s get it typed”. When I reached Delhi, I became furious because the ambassador of India had typed “DRAFT” on the agreement because she was anti-Khaleda Zia and the Ministry of External Affairs was anti-Khaleda Zia. So they destroyed our hopes. The Ministry of External Affairs was adamant that we won’t allow gas to pass through Burma, Bangladesh and then into India’.

China owns the pipeline

This trilateral gas pipeline deal could never be retrieved. China National Petroleum Corporation signed a 30-year hydrocarbons purchase and sale agreement with Daewoo International in December 2008 to draw gas extracted from the Shwe gas project located offshore in the Bay of Bengal. The Shwe gas project off Rakhine (Arakan) state is owned by a joint venture between Daewoo International, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Videsh of India and Gas Authority of India, Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise and Korea Gas Corporation. The 793-km gas pipeline starts at Myanmar’s Ramree Island and ends at Ruili in China’s Yunnan Province. In China, this $1.04 billion gas pipeline runs 1,727 km through Guizhou, Chongqing and Guangxi provinces.

Running parallel with the Myanmar-China Crude Oil Pipeline, this gas pipeline became operational in July 2013, and started delivering natural gas also to the Myanmar market through its off-take stations at Kyaukphyu, Yenangyaung, Taungtha and Mandalay. By 2019, China had imported 3.4 million tonnes of gas from Myanmar valued at $1.76 billion. Ironically, both the natural gas and the oil fields that provided pipeline flows to China had distinct imprints of part ownership of Indian giants like Oil and Natural Gas Corporation and GAIL. China and India were then negotiating to cooperate in securing crude oil resources overseas mainly in Africa. Like other failed projects, the trilateral gas project indeed was another major opportunity lost at the sub-regional level.

https://kathmandupost.com/columns/2020/07/14/how-india-lost-a-gas-pipeline-to-china

 

[Baba_Yaga]

Ever since this LAC episode, almost every idiot with a pen is writing about how this and that was lost to China without regardless of how long ago it was and the major reasons behind it. Even though the idiot writing the article has mentioned that Khalida Zia was one of the major reasons, still doesn't stop him from his long winded rant. Also no mention of the fact that excellent relations with the GCC and cheap gas from Qatar made this deal less important.

Next we'll see some Tom or Dick writing about how the TAPI pipeline was lost to China although it was a doomed project from the start since it passed through Pakistan and they could easily shut off the pipes whenever required.

 

[The Eagle]

May be writer went through the news about Iran dropping India from Chahbahar Rail Project and joins China. That could have made him realize that how India lost gas pipeline to China as well.

 

[Dalit]

Ever since this LAC episode, almost every idiot with a pen is writing about how this and that was lost to China without regardless of how long ago it was and the major reasons behind it. Even though the idiot writing the article has mentioned that Khalida Zia was one of the major reasons, still doesn't stop him from his long winded rant. Also no mention of the fact that excellent relations with the GCC and cheap gas from Qatar made this deal less important.

Next we'll see some Tom or Dick writing about how the TAPI pipeline was lost to China although it was a doomed project from the start since it passed through Pakistan and they could easily shut off the pipes whenever required.

LOL TAPI is a paper pipeline. This will never materialise. A US deep state pipeline.

IPC minus India however is now very much a reality. The Iran Pakistan China pipeline is a huge prospect.

 

[Baba_Yaga]

LOL TAPI is a paper pipeline. This will never materialise. A US deep state pipeline.

IPC minus India however is now very much a reality. The Iran Pakistan China pipeline is a huge prospect.

That's pretty much what I am saying.

 

[Dalit]

That's pretty much what I am saying.

Well that is good. We agree.

 

[Baba_Yaga]

Well that is good. We agree.

I was talking about the fact that old projects are being digged up that had little hope of ever materializing and being portrayed as a great Chinese strategic whatever. This Myanmar pipeline deal didn't go through because of Khaleda Zia adn cheap gas from GCC and the TAPI thing was doomed from the start.

 

[hualushui]

Ever since this LAC episode, almost every idiot with a pen is writing about how this and that was lost to China without regardless of how long ago it was and the major reasons behind it. Even though the idiot writing the article has mentioned that Khalida Zia was one of the major reasons, still doesn't stop him from his long winded rant. Also no mention of the fact that excellent relations with the GCC and cheap gas from Qatar made this deal less important.

Next we'll see some Tom or Dick writing about how the TAPI pipeline was lost to China although it was a doomed project from the start since it passed through Pakistan and they could easily shut off the pipes whenever required.

For Indians, the truth is very cruel

 

[Han Patriot]

That's pretty much what I am saying.

That's what all losers say, when you can't taste grapes, you say it's sour. When you lose land, you say its not yours, not even an inch. Lolol. Your government didn't even dare to admit we were there in the first place. Now with a buffer zone 1-2km into Indian soil, everything is peaceful again. That's after killing 20 and capturing 60.lol

 

[beijingwalker]

How India lost a gas pipeline to China
The deal to import gas from Myanmar via Bangladesh failed due to political reasons.
Friday, July 17, 2020
kathmandu post

A tripartite ministerial meeting between India, Myanmar and Bangladesh held in Yangon in January 2005 agreed to import natural gas through a pipeline from Myanmar via Bangladesh. Gas was to be brought from the newly explored fields in adjoining Rakhine state of Myanmar. It mentioned that the 'government of Myanmar agrees to export natural gas to India by a pipeline through the territory of Bangladesh and India to be operated by an international consortium... The route of the pipeline may be determined by mutual agreement of the three governments with a view to ensure adequate access, maximum security and optimal economic utilisation'.

Bangladesh and India had the 'right to access the pipeline as and when required, including injecting and siphoning off their own natural gas'. The three governments agreed to establish a Techno-Commercial Working Committee which shall identify areas of cooperation, collaboration and investment to develop natural gas resources, infrastructure and marketing in the region; and, deliberate and advise the three governments on policy issues such as pipeline routing, access-related issues as well as technical and commercial matters.

On primarily three grounds, this trilateral project was considered to be a major policy shift particularly in the Indian approach to issues of cooperation in the region. Firstly, it was a clear move away from the traditional bilateral approach to a new tripartite approach in a project located in a contiguous sub-region. Secondly, this was a deal which was negotiated and managed by the concerned line ministries and ministers-in-charge. And thirdly, this brought together three countries on a specific project from two cross-regional groupings of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) thereby making it an inter-(sub)regional initiative.

The deal, however, could not be implemented purportedly because India actually did not immediately agree to Bangladesh’s three demands—transmission of hydro-electricity from Nepal and Bhutan to Bangladesh through Indian territory; corridor for the supply of commodities between Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh through Indian territory; and adoption of necessary measures to reduce the trade imbalance between the two countries. This was discussed on the sidelines of the tripartite deal, and a formal joint bilateral press statement was even issued.

However, there were serious political reasons why the entire deal collapsed. The then Bangladesh Nationalist Party-led Khaleda Zia government (2001-06) had mostly been against any meaningful cooperation with India as she apprehended that the latter was deeply and historically disposed to the opposition party Awami League led by Sheikh Hasina. Zia had also provided shelter to Indian militants from the north-eastern region and had consistently called them ‘freedom fighters’. She protractedly denied any access to India to the north-eastern region through Bangladesh despite India asking for the same several times.

Leader-centric foreign policy

However, Bangladesh’s three demands related apprehensions were substantially addressed within the next six years when the India-Bangladesh Framework Agreement of 2011 was signed after Sheikh Hasina again became the prime minister of Bangladesh (2006 onwards). The effective implementations of some of the projects related to electricity, unilateral free trade access and land deals did prove that Begum Zia’s regime was actually a critical block in India’s disinterest in this trilateral pipeline project.

In a graphic narration, the then Indian minister for petroleum and natural gas Mani Shankar Aiyar, who was negotiating this deal, recounted, ‘We had done it in one meeting, just one meeting! But back in India there was a problem. I couldn’t go to Dhaka because I was told we had to support Begum Sheikh Hasina and the credit mustn’t go to Begum Khaleda Zia. So please wait, don’t rush into these things. So I sat and waited till September to go. In September, I was received royally by Khaleda Zia, and the entire cabinet came to the dinner given in my honour. However, I found my officers had not worked out a proper agreement. So sitting at that dinner I wrote out the agreement of what were actually the minutes of the previous meeting. After I read the agreement, they said they would study it; but I told them, no, we are going to sign it now because it’s the minutes of something we had agreed upon. Then these are the minutes which would be translated into an agreement. So they all agreed. And I said right there, “Let’s get it typed”. When I reached Delhi, I became furious because the ambassador of India had typed “DRAFT” on the agreement because she was anti-Khaleda Zia and the Ministry of External Affairs was anti-Khaleda Zia. So they destroyed our hopes. The Ministry of External Affairs was adamant that we won’t allow gas to pass through Burma, Bangladesh and then into India’.

China owns the pipeline

This trilateral gas pipeline deal could never be retrieved. China National Petroleum Corporation signed a 30-year hydrocarbons purchase and sale agreement with Daewoo International in December 2008 to draw gas extracted from the Shwe gas project located offshore in the Bay of Bengal. The Shwe gas project off Rakhine (Arakan) state is owned by a joint venture between Daewoo International, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Videsh of India and Gas Authority of India, Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise and Korea Gas Corporation. The 793-km gas pipeline starts at Myanmar’s Ramree Island and ends at Ruili in China’s Yunnan Province. In China, this $1.04 billion gas pipeline runs 1,727 km through Guizhou, Chongqing and Guangxi provinces.

Running parallel with the Myanmar-China Crude Oil Pipeline, this gas pipeline became operational in July 2013, and started delivering natural gas also to the Myanmar market through its off-take stations at Kyaukphyu, Yenangyaung, Taungtha and Mandalay. By 2019,China had imported 3.4 million tonnes of gas from Myanmar valued at $1.76 billion. Ironically, both the natural gas and the oil fields that provided pipeline flows to China had distinct imprints of part ownership of Indian giants like Oil and Natural Gas Corporation and GAIL. China and India were then negotiating to cooperate in securing crude oil resources overseas mainly in Africa. Like other failed projects, the trilateral gas project indeed was another major opportunity lost at the sub-regional level.

https://kathmandupost.com/columns/2020/07/14/how-india-lost-a-gas-pipeline-to-china

 

[Joe Shearer]

We had done it in one meeting, just one meeting! But back in India there was a problem. I couldn’t go to Dhaka because I was told we had to support Begum Sheikh Hasina and the credit mustn’t go to Begum Khaleda Zia. So please wait, don’t rush into these things. So I sat and waited till September to go. In September, I was received royally by Khaleda Zia, and the entire cabinet came to the dinner given in my honour. However, I found my officers had not worked out a proper agreement. So sitting at that dinner I wrote out the agreement of what were actually the minutes of the previous meeting. After I read the agreement, they said they would study it; but I told them, no, we are going to sign it now because it’s the minutes of something we had agreed upon. Then these are the minutes which would be translated into an agreement. So they all agreed. And I said right there, “Let’s get it typed”. When I reached Delhi, I became furious because the ambassador of India had typed “DRAFT” on the agreement because she was anti-Khaleda Zia and the Ministry of External Affairs was anti-Khaleda Zia. So they destroyed our hopes. The Ministry of External Affairs was adamant that we won’t allow gas to pass through Burma, Bangladesh and then into India’

I can't use the F word.

the ambassador of India had typed “DRAFT” on the agreement because she was anti-Khaleda Zia and the Ministry of External Affairs was anti-Khaleda Zia. So they destroyed our hopes. The Ministry of External Affairs was adamant that we won’t allow gas to pass through Burma, Bangladesh and then into India’.

Sometimes I wonder whose side these jokers are on. Now one of these geniuses is our External Affairs Minister, Modi's partner in crime in mucking up our relationships with every single neighbour, and another genius, whom I had mistakenly thought a good guy, because of earlier acquaintance, is acting like a little tin god in the aviation ministry.

Just to put things on an even keel, all this happened during a Congress government. These parties are equally dominated by the bureaucrats.

 

[Species]

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

This incident is also a classic example of how interfering in a country's domestic politics is so counterproductive.

I was talking about the fact that old projects are being digged up that had little hope of ever materializing and being portrayed as a great Chinese strategic whatever.

Not really, India has brought the issue of constructing this pipeline several times afterwards during Hasina's reign.

In Hasina's last visit to India, a deal was signed on importing LNG from Chittagong port for Northeast India. Must be the alternative option that India had to take after the pipeline was lost to China.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

LOL TAPI is a paper pipeline. This will never materialise. A US deep state pipeline.

IPC minus India however is now very much a reality. The Iran Pakistan China pipeline is a huge prospect.

TAP pipeline is a good way to ensure independence from ME oil, which could be used to pressure Pakistan. Same for Iranian pressure too.

Central Asia is the key to Pakistan energy independence and also spread of influence. Turks are natural allies of Pakistan, always have been.

 

[cloud4000]

Sometimes I wonder whose side these jokers are on. Now one of these geniuses is our External Affairs Minister, Modi's partner in crime in mucking up our relationships with every single neighbour, and another genius, whom I had mistakenly thought a good guy, because of earlier acquaintance, is acting like a little tin god in the aviation ministry.

Just to put things on an even keel, all this happened during a Congress government. These parties are equally dominated by the bureaucrats.

US President Theodore Roosevelt's foreign policy was simple: "speak softly and carry a big stick."

Unfortunately, India does the opposite -- it speaks loudly and has no stick to speak of. Just look at how India reacted after Galwan: they went on a military shopping spree for fighter jets and light tanks. Yes, they may have gotten support from friends and allies, but I bet you they are asking if India has what it takes to take on China.

The answer is clearly no.

Forget about comparing China and India on military terms, we all know there's a clear disparity there. China has outflanked India both diplomatically and economically. Just look at how China has supplanted India on the Chabahar project. The issue of financing but a monkey wrench in the whole project that a frustrated Iran went elsewhere. The fear of incurring US sanctions did not help matters, but this didn't deter China. Why? Because they have the economic wherewithal to do it.

Modi's government obsession with chest-beating and other superficialities have blinded them to ground realities: that the threat is not Pakistan but China. The sooner they realize that the better India will be.

But turning this ship in the right direction will take time. There's a lot of work to do.

 

[Joe Shearer]

US President Theodore Roosevelt's foreign policy was simple: "speak softly and carry a big stick."

Unfortunately, India does the opposite -- it speaks loudly and has no stick to speak of. Just look at how India reacted after Galwan: they went on a military shopping spree for fighter jets and light tanks. Yes, they may have gotten support from friends and allies, but I bet you they are asking if India has what it takes to take on China.

The answer is clearly no.

Forget about comparing China and India on military terms, we all know there's a clear disparity there. China has outflanked India both diplomatically and economically. Just look at how China has supplanted India on the Chabahar project. The issue of financing but a monkey wrench in the whole project that a frustrated Iran went elsewhere. The fear of incurring US sanctions did not help matters, but this didn't deter China. Why? Because they have the economic wherewithal to do it.

Modi's government obsession with chest-beating and other superficialities have blinded them to ground realities: that the threat is not Pakistan but China. The sooner they realize that the better India will be.

But turning this ship in the right direction will take time. There's a lot of work to do.

Harsh, but exactly what I think, too.