'Our whole concept of coal mine allocations is wrong'

[The_Showstopper]

Agree.. i didn't mention water because the objection was on power generation.
No doubt, water is very key in coal mining but still not an issue, as pipelines can be built to the distant source.

Pipelines can be built but then again they would need pumping stations and other requirements which do add up the cost so most power plants look for a location where water is in abundance and where transportation of coal is also relatively cost-efficient. But yes at the end of the day, all of this is decided based on which is more cost-efficient...

 

[Span]

Like what? Auction remains the most transparent.

Would you give a jack about the government choosing the 'most transparent' manner but the services like power and other industries being affected adversely? And we're talking complete shut down of so many coal mines and other plants, thereby stripping millions of employment directly and indirectly.

Auction was and is not in public interest. And afaik, that's what the end object of any government government action should be. And so that of any established procedure. Which is what the article was about, the whole concept is wrong.

 

[dray]

That logic in pure is ok for Private goods, for public goods the consideration needs to be different.

Basically you want limited national resources to be handed over to private businesses free of cost with the expectation that the will pass on the 'benefits' to the general public! What do you smoke to remain that optimistic?

The same companies that used to get coal blocks for free are now willing to pay hefty sums for it, that tells the real story. And they cannot charge more for the coal they mine, because coal is not a monopoly business and there are many competitors.

Btw, @Guynextdoor2 I think this topic is not working for you, try to find something that is defendable.

 

[srshkmr]

This is just so stupid....

when will indians learn.....






































to use the words "billion" and "trillion".

desi words cant be replaced so easily

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Would you give a jack about the government choosing the 'most transparent' manner but the services like power and other industries being affected adversely? And we're talking complete shut down of so many coal mines and other plants, thereby stripping millions of employment directly and indirectly.

Auction was and is not in public interest. And afaik, that's what the end object of any government government action should be. And so that of any established procedure. Which is what the article was about, the whole concept is wrong.

Like what? Auction remains the most transparent. No amount of calling my arguments nonsense changes the facts.



Yeah it does, You are nothing if not predictable.

The misconception is that 'action is the most transparent mechanism'. Transparency is about execution. You can have an extremely well defined set of parameters and do a simple first serve or qualified bid. An auction is only the most profit maximizing option. It is as transparent or non-transparent as any others, you can screw around with it to make your people win there too. This is a social good, not a private good so profit maximization is not always the option. Utility maximization usually is.

Basically you want limited national resources to be handed over to private businesses free of cost with the expectation that the will pass on the 'benefits' to the general public! What do you smoke to remain that optimistic?

The same companies that used to get coal blocks for free are now willing to pay hefty sums for it, that tells the real story. And they cannot charge more for the coal they mine, because coal is not a monopoly business and there are many competitors.

Btw, @Guynextdoor2 I think this topic is not working for you, try to find something that is defendable.

You're talking silly now.

 

[dray]

If you were handing out coal blocks for free in past ,where coal prices were skyrocketing, it clearly hints corruption.
However, i also don't believe that anyone is interested to pay cash today, for your coal blocks.

There is nothing left to 'believe', just check the auction figures.

 

[Span]

Basically you want limited national resources to be handed over to private businesses free of cost with the expectation that the will pass on the 'benefits' to the general public! What do you smoke to remain that optimistic?

Let's say you give me a cow for free. It gives 5L milk everyday, worth Rs.120 market price but sell at Rs. 150.
Now there's another guy who also got a cow for free, gives the same amount of milk and he's in direct competition with me. Do you think I'll sell at Rs. 150 or just at a marginal profit price so I can remain in competition?

Couldn't have explained it simpler, that's what you call the market forces coming into play.

And who do you think wins in this situation? The consumer obviously, since the acquisition cost doesn't get passed on to him.

 

[dray]

You're talking silly now.

Smart move! Now just slip out of the argument and save your face.

 

[OTTOMAN]

There is nothing left to 'believe', just check the auction figures.

I'm not checking anything, but i believe you... investor may not build infrastructure immediately, as not many banks would be willing to finance unfeasible projects.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Smart move! Now just slip out of the argument and save your face.

That's even more lame than what you said before.....

 

[Span]

The misconception is that 'action is the most transparent mechanism'. Transparency is about execution. You can have an extremely well defined set of parameters and do a simple first serve or qualified bid. An auction is only the most profit maximizing option. It is as transparent or non-transparent as any others, you can screw around with it to make your people win there too. This is a social good, not a private good so profit maximization is not always the option. Utility maximization usually is.

That pretty much sums it up. Perfectly worded.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

I'm not checking anything, but i believe you... investor may not build infrastructure immediately, as not many banks would be willing to finance unfeasible projects.

Projects become 'fasible' pr 'unfeasible' depending upon many things including how much patronage a business is getting.

 

[Armstrong]

@levina - Apa Jee, you're a civil engineer whats your take on the issue ?

 

[OTTOMAN]

Projects become 'fasible' pr 'unfeasible' depending upon many things including how much patronage a business is getting.

True.. but the only patronage govt. can extend is export subsidies or tax rebates.

@levina - Apa Jee, you're a civil engineer whats your take on the issue ?

Civil engineer has nothing to do with power generation or coal mining.... however civil engineer will be used to do design engineering, planning to build access roads to the mining site, reservoir tanks for water, foundations for pipeline and auxiliary buildings, at max a school and hospital for the workers.

 

[dray]

The reason they're bidding is security of supply of coal. The difference in final price between imported coal and domestically extracted coal is going to be negligible for those who paid the hefty amounts.

It is us who're gonna bear the ultimate cost. And that's not how you promote Make in India campaign, do you?

That argument is not supported by our experience with the auction of other natural resources and their impact on the end user.

Besides, it only looks like that the coal blocks were given free of cost in the previous system, they still had a hefty price tag, only difference is that the price was being paid to the ministers and party funds instead of the government treasury, as in the case of auction.

Finally, even if we assume that your argument is correct, then also I will trust the govt. to subsidize the end user from the auction money, instead of relying on the private businesses to 'pass on' the benefits to the end user.