Features
The convoluted LNG–NG story: What do we need? LNG or NG or neither?
By Eng. Parakrama Jayasinghe
parajaysinghe@gmail.com
I am not a fan of natural gas either in its gaseous state NG or the liquefied state LNG, both of which are very much under discussion now locally and at COP 26 in Glasgow. At the same time, I would like to consider myself a realist with the wellbeing and needs of Sri Lanka receiving the highest priority.
Natural gas, mostly Methane (CH4), is present in deep underground strata in large pockets or closer to the surface in a more dispersed manner, emanating from decaying biomass and also unfortunately emitted by ruminating bovine.
Those who enjoyed this natural but diminishing fossil fuel resource in their own territorial land mass or with access to neighbours in the same land mass could do so in it’s gaseous state, commence exploiting by laying extensive gas pipe lines sometimes running thousands of kilometres
But in recent decades , with larger volumes being discovered (with the USA and Canada exploiting environmentally disastrous tar sands and fracking practices), the lure of this seemingly economical and decidedly less polluting fossil fuel, has attracted even those countries not endowed with any indigenous gas resources on their own or neighbours with such resources accessible by pipelines. This has led to the development of the process of liquefaction of the NG by cooling down to about – 160 degrees under high pressure, purely for the purpose of economically acceptable logistics for transport mainly by sea, creating the LNG concept and market.
However, since NG can be used only in its gaseous form, at the recipient’s end re-gasification facilities are required and were implemented on land close to the point of use or in logistical distribution terminals. The oil and gas industry using their ingenuity came up with a further twist by development of the Floating Storage and Re Gasification Units (FSRU), designed to serve those who could not deploy the land based re-gasification facilities located on land as these could be quite expensive. As the name suggests, these are designed as floating vessels moored close to the point of use, and the LNG is delivered to the FSRUs by bulk NG carriers. The re-gasified NG is delivered in relatively short pipelines to the land based consumption units for example power plants.
This is decidedly a simple explanation for the understanding of laymen. There are extensive and detailed explanations given in several articles by Eng. Nalin Gunasekera, a renowned international expert on the subject, in the Daily News of 3, 4 and 5 November and the Sunday Island of 7 November 2021, for those interested in gaining a more in depth understanding of the issues associated with these systems.
However, my purpose in writing this comment is not to discuss such technical intricacies but to examine how Sri Lanka should evaluate the options and the best approach for our benefit if we are to consider either LNG or NG. As already mentioned, given the choice, I would not like having to use NG in any form. It is a fossil fuel and it is now recognised as a very significant contributor to Global Warming, being 80 times more potent than CO2 in the short term. But it has the advantage of being a cleaner burning fuel, devoid of a plethora of dangerous and toxic pollutants released to the entire exosphere.
What are Sri Lanka’s Options ?
Some important issues must be recognised prior to seeking a reply to this query. Viz:
We have now firmly established the target of 70% renewable energy contribution for power generation by 2030
The current forecasts the 30% contribution by fossil fuels in 2030 is 8997 GWh Vs the current contribution of 9000 GWh ( CEB 2020 statistics), which leaves no room for any additional fossil power plants, except as replacements for any due to be retired shortly. The 350 MW Sobhadhanawi plant can be justified only in this context.
The 900 MW Lak Vijaya coal power plant may have a residual economic life of about 25 years.
The price of coal has sky rocketed, reportedly to over $ 240 per ton at source and no suppliers even at that price to Sri Lanka
The price of crude oil too has shot up to $ 85 per BBL and seems to hold at that level.
As such, using NG to meet the 30% gap appears to be an option and environmentally less damaging at least at point of use, provided the cost of generation is acceptable.
The comparison between the CEB tender for the FSRU only, without considering the LNG supply cost and mechanism, with the NFE proposal, which includes a monopoly on supply of LNG at unknown prices, is most illogical and has no meaning, at all. Talk about comparing one rotten apple with an even more rotten orange.
In spite of the grave doubts cast by Eng. Nalin Gunesekera, there is a possibility of attracting investors to develop the Mannar gas resource due to reasons given later on
Where does that leave us? Have we no options at all?
To start with, there can be no justification to continue with this love affair with LNG, given that it will compel Sri Lanka to continue purchase of a fossil fuels with scarce Dollars and at prices on which we have absolutely no control. The attraction of $ 250 Million for the sale of a valuable national asset is no justification, however tight the present foreign exchange situation is, a hollow relief as it will result in draining out several billions of dollars in a few short years.
Next, an FSRU is an inevitable appendage to go with the LNG supplies. Eng. Gunasekera has gone to great lengths to explain the complexities of this system and the high degree of expenditure required for its implementation and operation as well as the great many risks involved in the whole deal. He comes from an expert with decades of experience in this sector, and we will indeed be fool hardy to ignore his warnings and fall into a trap, from which we have no escape.
The whole process of this attempt to get NG as an alternative source of fuel, without anyone competent, establishing the possible means of supply, and compounding the problem by awarding a contract for the construction of a power plant is laughable, if not for the tragic mess that has landed Sri Lanka in. This is even more tragic considering that there has been no in depth re-evaluation on financial and economic feasibility based on current supply and price issues, done before deciding to make an award for a project tendered for in 2016. Sri Lanka having painted itself into a corner, the solution is not to get blackmailed but to dump the LNG and FSRU options even at this late stage. It has been calculated by the SLSEA that even with the most optimistic assumptions on current prices of LNG the cost of generation with LNG will be of the order of Rs 35.00 per kWh. This can only go up with continued depreciation of the rupee and the price trends of the LNG.
Just for comparison, the Siyambaladuwa solar project is expected to generate electricity at Rs 11.00 per kWh and the Mannar Wind Plant is generating at less than Rs 10.00 per kWh. The current cost of adding batteries to make these firm sources of electricity generation is only Rs 8.50 per kWh and is expected to decline sharply in the coming years to Rs. 3.50 per kWh by 2025.
What about Yugadhanawi Power Plant and the supposed share sale of 40% shares to the New Fortress Energy ( NFE)? If this deal is already confirmed and the $ 250 Million is already received, then this share deal on its own would be carried out. But there cannot be any additional conditions such as a monopoly of supply of LNG, attached to this sale. Such conditions are totally illegal and we can only hope that the present litigation will support this point of view.
At present, the Yugadhanawi plant operates at about 30% plant factor. Let it continue to do so using the furnace oil, even though the cost of FO also may have gone up in recent times. The impact on the national economy and the CEB cash flow would be much less worrisome than the proposed misadventure with LNG.
What is the fate of Mannar Oil and Gas Resource?
Although Eng. Gunasekera is of the view that its proven potential is far too little to attract any investors, he has hedged his bets by a surprising comment on the possibility of this resource being supplementary to FSRU and LNG. Given the dire warnings he has sounded against any attempt to implement the FSRU, perhaps he may have an inkling that the Mannar resource may stand on its own.
However, I would like to take a more optimistic view of the possibility and the need for a successful development agreement (taking due notice of warnings given on this count too due to Sri Lanka’s poor record of international negotiations) for two reasons:
It is now becoming impossible to operate the Lak Vijaya coal power plant due to cost of coal.
We don’t seem to have the courage to look beyond the 70% RE target and therefore should look for a least damaging solution, both economically and environmentally.
Both these objectives are served by successful development of the Mannar gas field with the potential of gaining both more economically and financially as the estimated potential of 9 Trillion Cubic Feet of Gas from the currently explored blocks; this is many times our own potential consumption and will yield a substantial surplus.
The World Scene on Natural Gas
I must justify my claim to be a realist in hoping for an acceptable agreement for this development in spite of my opposition to any form of fossil fuels. The fact remains that it is only now that the CEB has accepted the 70% RE goal. So, we need to look for the least damaging means of meeting the balance 30%. In the world scene, in spite of the agreement that NG is a very potent GHG due to leakages at points of extraction, storage and transport, it remains a highly sought after fuel. While there is a widespread agreement to eventually end the use of coal, in some countries even as early as 2025, there is no such agreement in respect of NG.
Even at the current COP 26 summit dubbed as the Green Washing Festival by Greta Thunberg, the commitment is only to reduce the methane emissions by 30% by year 2030, that too with out several major producers and users of NG including India, Russia and China
So, the demand and use of NG shall remain high and even escalate as replacement of coal in the foreseeable future. The largest increase is also expected to be in the Asian region. Coupled with this is the fact that there is a great gap between the quoted prices in different NG markets such as Henri Hub and the Japan Korea Market as shown in the graphs.
As such, developing our own resource is attractive and very much in centre stage of the high demand area.
So, while Sri Lanka has committed to reach Zero Carbon status by 2050, there is no reason why we should not aim at the least environmentally damaging and potential economically attractive option of opening up this resource as the transition solution.
The Worst Case Scenario?
What if we are not successful in getting an acceptable agreement and have to do without any gas?
This may be a reality considering the discussions going on at COP 26 against funding for any new fossil fuels. Many including me would view this as the best option in the long run.
Sri Lanka has enough and more indigenous RE resources and the 100% RE option is not impossible. The issue would be more of a financial problem than technical with the need for capital to import the necessary capital goods. There is hope generated at COP 26 on this count too. The project is already at the planning or implementation stage and such as the 100 MW solar and Wind Projects up to some 177 MW of major hydro projects would help bridge this gap in addition to the projected wind, biomass and solar potential .
The tantalising potential of doubling the generation capacity of the Victoria project on which feasibility studies have already been done needs urgent consideration.
Conclusion
The bottom line is clear. There are more than enough reasons for dumping the FSRU option before any more ill-considered commitments are made.
The possibility of attracting credible investors to develop the Mannar resource is reported to be very real and imminent. Therefore, a short sighted commitment to implement FSRUs and therefore the import of LNG would be most foolhardy.
There is the need for much more proactive measures to harness our own RE resources, not limiting such actions to mere rhetoric. The only ingredient lacking is the confidence as well as foresight of the energy authorities, blind to the world trends, both technically and commercially.
A time-targeted action plan towards the 70% RE is urgently needed with much greater emphasis on the next few years’ goals and activities. These would be invaluable in making adjustments to the plans for the next stage, say up to 2027. It is most likely that much more challenging targets could be set with the technical advances and the learning during the first stage.
Can we adopt this “Can Do” attitude at least now?
by Dr Gotabhya Ranasinghe
Senior Consultant Cardiologist
National Hospital Sri Lanka
When we sought a meeting with Hon Dr. Ramesh Pathirana, Minister of Health, he graciously cleared his busy schedule to accommodate us. Renowned for his attentive listening and deep understanding, Minister Pathirana is dedicated to advancing the health sector. His openness and transparency exemplify the qualities of an exemplary politician and minister.
Dr. Palitha Mahipala, the current Health Secretary, demonstrates both commendable enthusiasm and unwavering support. This combination of attributes makes him a highly compatible colleague for the esteemed Minister of Health.
Our discussion centered on a project that has been in the works for the past 30 years, one that no other minister had managed to advance.
Minister Pathirana, however, recognized the project’s significance and its potential to revolutionize care for heart patients.
The project involves the construction of a state-of-the-art facility at the premises of the National Hospital Colombo. The project’s location within the premises of the National Hospital underscores its importance and relevance to the healthcare infrastructure of the nation.
This facility will include a cardiology building and a tertiary care center, equipped with the latest technology to handle and treat all types of heart-related conditions and surgeries.
Securing funding was a major milestone for this initiative. Minister Pathirana successfully obtained approval for a $40 billion loan from the Asian Development Bank. With the funding in place, the foundation stone is scheduled to be laid in September this year, and construction will begin in January 2025.
This project guarantees a consistent and uninterrupted supply of stents and related medications for heart patients. As a result, patients will have timely access to essential medical supplies during their treatment and recovery. By securing these critical resources, the project aims to enhance patient outcomes, minimize treatment delays, and maintain the highest standards of cardiac care.
Upon its fruition, this monumental building will serve as a beacon of hope and healing, symbolizing the unwavering dedication to improving patient outcomes and fostering a healthier society.We anticipate a future marked by significant progress and positive outcomes in Sri Lanka’s cardiovascular treatment landscape within the foreseeable timeframe.
by Fr. Emmanuel Fernando, OMI
Jesuit Fr. Aloysius Pieris (affectionately called Fr. Aloy) celebrated his 90th birthday on April 9, 2024 and I, as the editor of our Oblate Journal, THE MISSIONARY OBLATE had gone to press by that time. Immediately I decided to publish an article, appreciating the untiring selfless services he continues to offer for inter-Faith dialogue, the renewal of the Catholic Church, his concern for the poor and the suffering Sri Lankan masses and to me, the present writer.
It was in 1988, when I was appointed Director of the Oblate Scholastics at Ampitiya by the then Oblate Provincial Fr. Anselm Silva, that I came to know Fr. Aloy more closely. Knowing well his expertise in matters spiritual, theological, Indological and pastoral, and with the collaborative spirit of my companion-formators, our Oblate Scholastics were sent to Tulana, the Research and Encounter Centre, Kelaniya, of which he is the Founder-Director, for ‘exposure-programmes’ on matters spiritual, biblical, theological and pastoral. Some of these dimensions according to my view and that of my companion-formators, were not available at the National Seminary, Ampitiya.
Ever since that time, our Oblate formators/ accompaniers at the Oblate Scholasticate, Ampitiya , have continued to send our Oblate Scholastics to Tulana Centre for deepening their insights and convictions regarding matters needed to serve the people in today’s context. Fr. Aloy also had tried very enthusiastically with the Oblate team headed by Frs. Oswald Firth and Clement Waidyasekara to begin a Theologate, directed by the Religious Congregations in Sri Lanka, for the contextual formation/ accompaniment of their members. It should very well be a desired goal of the Leaders / Provincials of the Religious Congregations.
Besides being a formator/accompanier at the Oblate Scholasticate, I was entrusted also with the task of editing and publishing our Oblate journal, ‘The Missionary Oblate’. To maintain the quality of the journal I continue to depend on Fr. Aloy for his thought-provoking and stimulating articles on Biblical Spirituality, Biblical Theology and Ecclesiology. I am very grateful to him for his generous assistance. Of late, his writings on renewal of the Church, initiated by Pope St. John XX111 and continued by Pope Francis through the Synodal path, published in our Oblate journal, enable our readers to focus their attention also on the needed renewal in the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka. Fr. Aloy appreciated very much the Synodal path adopted by the Jesuit Pope Francis for the renewal of the Church, rooted very much on prayerful discernment. In my Religious and presbyteral life, Fr.Aloy continues to be my spiritual animator / guide and ongoing formator / acccompanier.
Fr. Aloysius Pieris, BA Hons (Lond), LPh (SHC, India), STL (PFT, Naples), PhD (SLU/VC), ThD (Tilburg), D.Ltt (KU), has been one of the eminent Asian theologians well recognized internationally and one who has lectured and held visiting chairs in many universities both in the West and in the East. Many members of Religious Congregations from Asian countries have benefited from his lectures and guidance in the East Asian Pastoral Institute (EAPI) in Manila, Philippines. He had been a Theologian consulted by the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences for many years. During his professorship at the Gregorian University in Rome, he was called to be a member of a special group of advisers on other religions consulted by Pope Paul VI.
Fr. Aloy is the author of more than 30 books and well over 500 Research Papers. Some of his books and articles have been translated and published in several countries. Among those books, one can find the following: 1) The Genesis of an Asian Theology of Liberation (An Autobiographical Excursus on the Art of Theologising in Asia, 2) An Asian Theology of Liberation, 3) Providential Timeliness of Vatican 11 (a long-overdue halt to a scandalous millennium, 4) Give Vatican 11 a chance, 5) Leadership in the Church, 6) Relishing our faith in working for justice (Themes for study and discussion), 7) A Message meant mainly, not exclusively for Jesuits (Background information necessary for helping Francis renew the Church), 8) Lent in Lanka (Reflections and Resolutions, 9) Love meets wisdom (A Christian Experience of Buddhism, 10) Fire and Water 11) God’s Reign for God’s poor, 12) Our Unhiddden Agenda (How we Jesuits work, pray and form our men). He is also the Editor of two journals, Vagdevi, Journal of Religious Reflection and Dialogue, New Series.
Fr. Aloy has a BA in Pali and Sanskrit from the University of London and a Ph.D in Buddhist Philosophy from the University of Sri Lankan, Vidyodaya Campus. On Nov. 23, 2019, he was awarded the prestigious honorary Doctorate of Literature (D.Litt) by the Chancellor of the University of Kelaniya, the Most Venerable Welamitiyawe Dharmakirthi Sri Kusala Dhamma Thera.
Fr. Aloy continues to be a promoter of Gospel values and virtues. Justice as a constitutive dimension of love and social concern for the downtrodden masses are very much noted in his life and work. He had very much appreciated the commitment of the late Fr. Joseph (Joe) Fernando, the National Director of the Social and Economic Centre (SEDEC) for the poor.
In Sri Lanka, a few religious Congregations – the Good Shepherd Sisters, the Christian Brothers, the Marist Brothers and the Oblates – have invited him to animate their members especially during their Provincial Congresses, Chapters and International Conferences. The mainline Christian Churches also have sought his advice and followed his seminars. I, for one, regret very much, that the Sri Lankan authorities of the Catholic Church –today’s Hierarchy—- have not sought Fr.
Aloy’s expertise for the renewal of the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka and thus have not benefited from the immense store of wisdom and insight that he can offer to our local Church while the Sri Lankan bishops who governed the Catholic church in the immediate aftermath of the Second Vatican Council (Edmund Fernando OMI, Anthony de Saram, Leo Nanayakkara OSB, Frank Marcus Fernando, Paul Perera,) visited him and consulted him on many matters. Among the Tamil Bishops, Bishop Rayappu Joseph was keeping close contact with him and Bishop J. Deogupillai hosted him and his team visiting him after the horrible Black July massacre of Tamils.
Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement
By Gomi Senadhira
senadhiragomi@gmail.com
“You might tell fairy tales, but the progress of a country cannot be achieved through such narratives. A country cannot be developed by making false promises. The country moved backward because of the electoral promises made by political parties throughout time. We have witnessed that the ultimate result of this is the country becoming bankrupt. Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet.” – President Ranil Wickremesinghe, 2024 Budget speech
Any Sri Lankan would agree with the above words of President Wickremesinghe on the false promises our politicians and officials make and the fairy tales they narrate which bankrupted this country. So, to understand this, let’s look at one such fairy tale with lots of false promises; Ranil Wickremesinghe’s greatest achievement in the area of international trade and investment promotion during the Yahapalana period, Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (SLSFTA).
It is appropriate and timely to do it now as Finance Minister Wickremesinghe has just presented to parliament a bill on the National Policy on Economic Transformation which includes the establishment of an Office for International Trade and the Sri Lanka Institute of Economics and International Trade.
Was SLSFTA a “Cleverly negotiated Free Trade Agreement” as stated by the (former) Minister of Development Strategies and International Trade Malik Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate on the SLSFTA in July 2018, or a colossal blunder covered up with lies, false promises, and fairy tales? After SLSFTA was signed there were a number of fairy tales published on this agreement by the Ministry of Development Strategies and International, Institute of Policy Studies, and others.
However, for this article, I would like to limit my comments to the speech by Minister Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate, and the two most important areas in the agreement which were covered up with lies, fairy tales, and false promises, namely: revenue loss for Sri Lanka and Investment from Singapore. On the other important area, “Waste products dumping” I do not want to comment here as I have written extensively on the issue.
1. The revenue loss
During the Parliamentary Debate in July 2018, Minister Samarawickrama stated “…. let me reiterate that this FTA with Singapore has been very cleverly negotiated by us…. The liberalisation programme under this FTA has been carefully designed to have the least impact on domestic industry and revenue collection. We have included all revenue sensitive items in the negative list of items which will not be subject to removal of tariff. Therefore, 97.8% revenue from Customs duty is protected. Our tariff liberalisation will take place over a period of 12-15 years! In fact, the revenue earned through tariffs on goods imported from Singapore last year was Rs. 35 billion.
The revenue loss for over the next 15 years due to the FTA is only Rs. 733 million– which when annualised, on average, is just Rs. 51 million. That is just 0.14% per year! So anyone who claims the Singapore FTA causes revenue loss to the Government cannot do basic arithmetic! Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I call on my fellow members of this House – don’t mislead the public with baseless criticism that is not grounded in facts. Don’t look at petty politics and use these issues for your own political survival.”
I was surprised to read the minister’s speech because an article published in January 2018 in “The Straits Times“, based on information released by the Singaporean Negotiators stated, “…. With the FTA, tariff savings for Singapore exports are estimated to hit $10 million annually“.
As the annual tariff savings (that is the revenue loss for Sri Lanka) calculated by the Singaporean Negotiators, Singaporean $ 10 million (Sri Lankan rupees 1,200 million in 2018) was way above the rupees’ 733 million revenue loss for 15 years estimated by the Sri Lankan negotiators, it was clear to any observer that one of the parties to the agreement had not done the basic arithmetic!
Six years later, according to a report published by “The Morning” newspaper, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) on 7th May 2024, Mr Samarawickrama’s chief trade negotiator K.J. Weerasinghehad had admitted “…. that forecasted revenue loss for the Government of Sri Lanka through the Singapore FTA is Rs. 450 million in 2023 and Rs. 1.3 billion in 2024.”
If these numbers are correct, as tariff liberalisation under the SLSFTA has just started, we will pass Rs 2 billion very soon. Then, the question is how Sri Lanka’s trade negotiators made such a colossal blunder. Didn’t they do their basic arithmetic? If they didn’t know how to do basic arithmetic they should have at least done their basic readings. For example, the headline of the article published in The Straits Times in January 2018 was “Singapore, Sri Lanka sign FTA, annual savings of $10m expected”.
Anyway, as Sri Lanka’s chief negotiator reiterated at the COPF meeting that “…. since 99% of the tariffs in Singapore have zero rates of duty, Sri Lanka has agreed on 80% tariff liberalisation over a period of 15 years while expecting Singapore investments to address the imbalance in trade,” let’s turn towards investment.
Investment from Singapore
In July 2018, speaking during the Parliamentary Debate on the FTA this is what Minister Malik Samarawickrama stated on investment from Singapore, “Already, thanks to this FTA, in just the past two-and-a-half months since the agreement came into effect we have received a proposal from Singapore for investment amounting to $ 14.8 billion in an oil refinery for export of petroleum products. In addition, we have proposals for a steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million), sugar refinery ($ 200 million). This adds up to more than $ 16.05 billion in the pipeline on these projects alone.
And all of these projects will create thousands of more jobs for our people. In principle approval has already been granted by the BOI and the investors are awaiting the release of land the environmental approvals to commence the project.
I request the Opposition and those with vested interests to change their narrow-minded thinking and join us to develop our country. We must always look at what is best for the whole community, not just the few who may oppose. We owe it to our people to courageously take decisions that will change their lives for the better.”
According to the media report I quoted earlier, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) Chief Negotiator Weerasinghe has admitted that Sri Lanka was not happy with overall Singapore investments that have come in the past few years in return for the trade liberalisation under the Singapore-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement. He has added that between 2021 and 2023 the total investment from Singapore had been around $162 million!
What happened to those projects worth $16 billion negotiated, thanks to the SLSFTA, in just the two-and-a-half months after the agreement came into effect and approved by the BOI? I do not know about the steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million) and sugar refinery ($ 200 million).
However, story of the multibillion-dollar investment in the Petroleum Refinery unfolded in a manner that would qualify it as the best fairy tale with false promises presented by our politicians and the officials, prior to 2019 elections.
Though many Sri Lankans got to know, through the media which repeatedly highlighted a plethora of issues surrounding the project and the questionable credentials of the Singaporean investor, the construction work on the Mirrijiwela Oil Refinery along with the cement factory began on the24th of March 2019 with a bang and Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and his ministers along with the foreign and local dignitaries laid the foundation stones.
That was few months before the 2019 Presidential elections. Inaugurating the construction work Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said the projects will create thousands of job opportunities in the area and surrounding districts.
The oil refinery, which was to be built over 200 acres of land, with the capacity to refine 200,000 barrels of crude oil per day, was to generate US$7 billion of exports and create 1,500 direct and 3,000 indirect jobs. The construction of the refinery was to be completed in 44 months. Four years later, in August 2023 the Cabinet of Ministers approved the proposal presented by President Ranil Wickremesinghe to cancel the agreement with the investors of the refinery as the project has not been implemented! Can they explain to the country how much money was wasted to produce that fairy tale?
It is obvious that the President, ministers, and officials had made huge blunders and had deliberately misled the public and the parliament on the revenue loss and potential investment from SLSFTA with fairy tales and false promises.
As the president himself said, a country cannot be developed by making false promises or with fairy tales and these false promises and fairy tales had bankrupted the country. “Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet”.
(The writer, a specialist and an activist on trade and development issues . )
US sports envoys to Lanka to champion youth development
Rahuman questions sudden cancellation of leave of CEB employees
