&w=3840&q=100)
Govt nod needed for foreign contractors in offshore atomic minerals mining
The new rules notified under the Offshore Areas Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 2002, are aimed at unlocking India's offshore atomic mineral potential and also lay down security and environmental safeguards.
These norms will apply only when atomic minerals like uranium or thorium are found in an offshore area, either alone or mixed with other minerals, but only if their concentration is above a certain minimum level, called the threshold value.
If the amount of atomic mineral present is below the threshold, then the area will be regulated under a different set of rules, namely the Offshore Areas Operating Right Rules, 2024. The threshold value is based on the percentage of atomic minerals in the ore.
While central public sector enterprises (CPSEs) or nominated agencies can be granted exploration licences or production leases for atomic minerals found in India's exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Private companies can participate only if expressly nominated by the Centre.
'In case foreign domiciled entities or foreign entities or contractors, personnel, vessels or equipment are engaged or deployed, for undertaking exploration operations, prior approval shall be obtained from the Government authorities,' the rules mandate.
Moreover, licensees would be required to restore affected marine and coastal areas soon after project completion. The licensee shall, within six months after the expiry or termination of the composite licence, take all necessary steps enabling the natural rehabilitation of the seabed affected by exploration operations, the rules specify.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
MV Act changes on the anvil to make guidelines mandatory for states
NEW DELHI: The Centre is working on a proposal to amend the Motor Vehicles (MV) Act to ensure that key guidelines issued by the Union Government become binding on states, government sources said. The move aims to address the current legal ambiguity arising from the concurrent nature of legislation on motor vehicles, where both the Centre and states have law-making powers. Officials say delays or inaction by some states on critical reforms create a legal vacuum, hampering the uniform implementation of road safety and transport policies. 'If states don't act on certain matters, important reforms are left out. The idea is to avoid a situation where nothing moves forward due to jurisdictional gaps,' a source said, adding that discussions are underway and the final proposal is likely to be taken up soon. The proposed changes would make select Central guidelines mandatory, particularly those related to road safety, vehicle regulation, and transport policy.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Uncertainty around US tariffs will not be over after August 1, even with signed trade deals
The US tariff saga has gone through many twists and turns. And many more are likely left. The ratcheting up of tariffs last month is broader and higher than expected. In late May, the view was that while the extant US average tariff rate was around 13-14 per cent, it was headed towards 18-20 per cent. Much of the increase was expected to be focused on ASEAN, where the tariff rate would be raised to that of China's to eliminate transshipment of Chinese exports to the US via the region. While those on Vietnam and Indonesia were in line with expectations, the additional tariffs on Brazil, Canada, and Mexico were not. Nor was the higher 50 per cent rate on copper. However, negotiations are ongoing, including with India, the EU, and Korea. If this week's Japan deal is any guide, tariffs on these economies will likely be half of the threatened levels. But, even at the reduced rate, if these, along with those on EU and the likely extensions of global sectoral tariffs to semiconductors and pharmaceuticals, are realised, then the effective tariff rate could well exceed 20 per cent. All eyes are therefore on August 1, which is the new deadline set by the administration for countries to finalise trade deals. But there is an upcoming and surprisingly overlooked event that could easily make these trade deals moot and plunge the tariff discussions into more uncertainty. On May 28, the US Court of International Trade (USCIT) ruled that tariffs imposed using the provisions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) overstepped the authority granted by the Act. The ruling did not consider the current conditions in the US to be a 'state of emergency,' which is needed to invoke IEEPA, to be convincing nor the use of tariffs to address it. Tariffs could be imposed, if the government so desired, but via the other options at its disposal. Not IEEPA. A federal appeals court granted the government a stay on the order and is slated to begin hearing arguments on the appeal on July 31. All the universal, reciprocal, and fentanyl-related tariffs are based on IEEPA. The tariffs unaffected are the Section 301 tariffs on China imposed under Trump 1.0 and extended by the Biden administration, and the global sectoral tariffs on aluminum, autos and auto parts, copper, and steel that were imposed under Section 232. It is unclear how the appeals court will rule. But regardless of the decision, either party is likely to move the case to the Supreme Court. If the tariffs under IEEPA are eventually disallowed by the US Supreme Court, the government will shift to other options. Tariffs are central to this administration's economic agenda and will thus be pursued. Unlike those under IEEPA, the tariffs under the other options are more cumbersome, limited in scope, and significantly more resource intensive. But they can be implemented in a compressed time frame if the administration so desires. A potential sequence of such actions could be the following. Use Section 122 to impose tariffs of 15 per cent for 150 days on all countries (justified to address balance of payments needs or to prevent a significant depreciation of the dollar). At the same time, ratchet up the tariffs on China that were imposed under Section 301 in Trade War 1.0 by both the Trump and Biden administrations. Keep tariffs on steel and aluminum at 50 per cent (as on copper) and raise that on autos from 25 per cent to 50 per cent. Hasten the ongoing Section 232 (sector specific on grounds on national economic security) investigations into semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and lumber to bring these under the tariff net of 25 per cent – 50 per cent. Use Section 338 to impose tariffs on countries that are deemed to discriminate specifically against US commercial interests (such as digital services taxes by Australia, the EU, Canada, India, and others, although the taxes are imposed on other countries too). Complete Section 301 investigations on large trading partners (some are ongoing, for example, on the EU and Brazil). These investigations are resource intensive as they need to first identify the specific policy of a trading partner that is the basis of 'unfair competition 'and then quantify the 'harm' that such policies impose on US consumers for each product and for each country. The tariff rate needs to be commensurate with the harm caused and, thus, differ, from product to product for each country. Finally, roll all tariffs under Sections 301 and 232. As one can imagine, this is an arduous and uncertain process. However, the direction of travel is more certain — the average effective tariff rate is likely to settle close to 20 per cent. Needless to say, the country- and product-specific impact of Sections 301 and 232 tariffs could be vastly different than under IEEPA. Markets so far have largely shrugged off the announced new tariffs. This is understandable given the quick deescalation after the strong market and corporate reaction to the Liberation Day tariffs; the possibility that the August 1 deadline is postponed; and the eventual negotiated tariff rates could be different from those announced. However, a court ruling on IEEPA could well turn both the August 1 deadline and the trade deals moot, including potentially that with India. If the basis of these deals, that is, IEEPA, is no longer admissible, then we are headed for renegotiations with tariffs under sections 301 and 232. These could be starkly different than those that are being negotiated now. The uncertainty around US tariffs will not be over after August 1, even with signed trade deals. US courts might well upset the best laid plans of mice and men. Continued uncertainty is the only certainty. The writer is Chief Emerging Markets Economist, J P Morgan. Views are personal
Mint
4 hours ago
- Mint
EVs versus hybrids: Niti Aayog enters the chat
Federal think tank Niti Aayog is examining the lifecycle emissions of electric, hybrid and conventional vehicles to determine which technology is the cleanest, two people aware of the matter said. The move comes at a time when automakers have crossed swords on providing hybrids the same incentives as pure EVs. The study, which began earlier this month, is likely to be completed over the next few months, the people cited above said on the condition of anonymity. Varying incentives for EVs and hybrids across states have sparked an intense lobbying in state capitals, even as the Centre remains neutral to technologies in the quest for clean mobility. 'The need for such a study arose as contrasting claims emerged after some studies claimed EVs are more harmful when the entire supply chain and recycling are taken into account," one of the two people cited above said on the condition of anonymity. Green tussle While Maruti Suzuki India and Toyota Kirloskar, which manufacture hybrid models, say they deserve clean mobility incentives, Tata Motors and Mahindra and Mahindra say they should be reserved for the zero-emission EVs they make. EVs have no tailpipe emissions; however, in 2023, a study by the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, showed that their manufacturing, usage and scrapping emit more greenhouse gases than the same processes for hybrid or fossil fuel-based study also said EV charging required coal-fuelled power, adding to EVs' overall carbon vehicles run on a mix of fossil fuels and a battery, and strong hybrids do not have a charging port like EVs and plug-in hybrids. The Niti Aayog study will take into consideration the full life-cycle analysis (LCA) for all types of vehicles. 'That means all vehicles – two wheelers, three-wheelers, four-wheelers, public and cargo transport, everything – and it will also look at all fuel powertrains," said the first person cited above. State moves The Union environment ministry is assisting the study by holding meetings with various stakeholders, the second person added. Email queries to the NITI Aayog and the environment ministry went unanswered. Mint reported on 22 July that while the Centre has maintained its stance of supporting all forms of clean mobility, some states have put their weight solely behind EVs. In a recent amendment to its state EV policy, Chhattisgarh removed incentives for hybrid vehicles. On 22 July, the Delhi government also deferred the enforcement of its controversial EV policy to March 2026, according to a report by news agency PTI, citing transport minister Pankaj Singh. An earlier draft of the Delhi EV policy had proposed equal incentives for hybrids and electric vehicles. 'Analysing use cases of vehicles, as well as the location of the vehicles is critical in an LCA,"said Gurudas Nulkar, professor and director, Centre for Sustainable Development, Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics. 'The results from an LCA of a vehicle in Delhi will be very different from that in, say, Pune. That is because of the location of the two cities—w dDelhi is located in a flat region, while Pune is at the foothills of the Western Ghats. These diverse geographies will impact fuel efficiency." Lifecycle emissions Experts also said an LCA includes the emissions of extraction and transport of crude oil in the case of fossil fuel vehicles, as well as emissions in mining of critical minerals for hybrid and electric vehicles. The LCA of a vehicle where its components are imported will be different from that of a vehicle where parts are sourced locally, said Nulkar, an expert in industrial sustainability and environmental management. 'Similarly, different use cases for vehicles will yield varying results. There may be some cases with hybrids coming on top, and some with electric vehicles coming on top. The data used for most LCAs is secondary data, but it is very important to vet that data with physical visits, for instance, to manufacturing locations."
