Experts warn that the mega project faces major risks from seismic instability, forest loss, cyclones and ecological damage despite its strategic and economic ambitions
Investment of billions in the ambitious Great Nicobar project is fraught with huge risk — the area is located in one of the world’s most dangerously active tectonic zones and is regularly afflicted by powerful cyclones.
Environmentalists say the project will also involve massive destruction of forest cover, including the Galathea National Park, which may adversely impact the lives of indigenous peoples in the region.
Also read | Great Nicobar project: Why it matters, and why it’s controversial
The project will encompass nearly 166 sq km of the island, with forest diversion alone accounting for 130.75 sq km. Government estimates indicate that 7.11 lakh of the nearly 18.65 lakh trees in the area will be cut down in phases to get the project going.
Mega infrastructure proposed
The Rs 1 lakh crore (10 billion US dollar) project envisages the construction of a deep-draft port that could give India’s expanding navy a strategic edge over rivals. The port in question will also be developed into an International Container Transhipment Port (ICTP) that would sharply reduce India’s logistical dependence on Singapore and Colombo.
The port will be flanked by an international airport, a power plant, and a 160-square-kilometre township on Great Nicobar Island.
But while some strategic experts supporting the ambitious project have called it an “unsinkable natural aircraft carrier”, others point to the inevitable contradiction involving the use of a huge container port for military purposes.
Strategic label sparks concerns
Some former Navy and intelligence officials have described the Great Nicobar project as a liability, arguing that it is not advisable to locate an advanced maritime surveillance outpost and a large naval base in a major commercial and tourism hub whose population would inevitably surge with new migrants, possibly including foreigners.
Other critics of the project have accused the Centre of invoking the national security angle to justify massive commercial expansion.
In a recent article, geopolitics analyst Sushant Singh wrote: “The state speaks in the language of maritime competition and national interest, but the project includes a large port, airport, township, and energy infrastructure that would inevitably create opportunities for logistics, construction, land value appreciation, and long-term real estate development. Indian mega-projects often travel under mixed labels because once the security frame is attached, scrutiny becomes harder.”
Also read | NGT clears Great Nicobar mega infra project citing strategic importance
Others supporting this argument say framing any controversial infrastructure project as “strategic” is one sure way of securing clearance by silencing critics.
The geological risk
But apart from strong environmental concerns about destroying a significant biosphere reserve with incomparable biodiversity and turning it into a commercial hub, the real worry over the Great Nicobar project is its location dangerously close to Banda Aceh in Indonesia, the epicentre of the calamitous mega earthquake in 2004, which measured 9.2 on the Richter scale and triggered a devastating tsunami rarely seen in recorded history.
This is the region where the eastern part of the Indian Plate slides beneath Southeast Asia.
The 2004 earthquake struck at a depth of 15-20 kilometres and tore apart nearly 1,200 kilometres of the plate boundary. It displaced trillions of tonnes of rock beneath the sea and trillions of tonnes of water, generating a massive tsunami.
Great Nicobar, located closer to the epicentre than many other affected areas, experienced sudden seismic subsidence of three to four metres. This has become a recurring feature of Great Nicobar, which is hit by micro-tremors quite frequently.
Debate over seismic safety
Geo-scientists say that while Singapore or Hong Kong enjoys the advantages of stable geology, the Great Nicobar region undergoes cyclical movements of slow uplift and sudden subsidence. This could have a huge adverse impact on large infrastructure such as a port, an airport, and a city.
“To build large-scale, permanent infrastructure on such unstable ground is to gamble billions on the illusion that engineering can outwit plate tectonics,” says scientist CP Rajendran. He cites extensive GPS and tide-gauge data to indicate tectonic strain leading to slow uplift followed by the release of piled-up stress during a major earthquake, like the one in 2004, resulting in sudden and substantial subsidence.
Also read | Great Nicobar project an 'ecological disaster': Sonia Gandhi slams Centre
While the Indian government claims that the necessary environmental impact assessment and load-bearing analysis were conducted before the project was finalised, scientists say adequate factoring of the geological risks has not been done.
The energy gamble
One of the factors driving the Great Nicobar project is perhaps the optimism surrounding the hydrocarbon prospects of the Andaman-Nicobar archipelago.
While no massive commercial oil and gas fields are actively producing yet, a major exploration campaign has confirmed significant natural gas reserves, positioning the archipelago as a key asset for India’s long-term energy security.
Some exploratory wells, such as Vijayapuram-2, have confirmed the presence of natural gas in the Andaman deepwater region.
India’s Hydrocarbon Resource Assessment Study estimates that the Andaman basin holds nearly 371 Million Metric Tonnes of Oil Equivalent (MMTOE).
The cost of developing these assets will be substantial, and that may significantly delay exploitation of the available hydrocarbon resources. Here again, scientists say the geological risks will weigh heavily on such projects.
(The Federal seeks to present views and opinions from all sides of the spectrum. The information, ideas or opinions in the articles are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Federal.)
