Economic Some naval hydrographers and experts suggest that the project is unlikely to be financially viable or serve ships in any significant way. The time savings for ships sailing from Kanyakumari or Tuticorin is between 10 and 30 hours. Ships from destinations in the Middle East, Africa, Mauritius and Europe, would save an average of 8 hours using the canal. At the present tariff rates, ships from Africa and Europe will lose on every voyage because the savings in time for these ships are considerably lower than what is calculated in the DPR. This loss is significant because 65% of the canal's projected users are from Africa and Europe. If tariffs are lowered to a point where ships from Africa and Europe will not lose money from using the canal, the IRR of the project falls to 2.6%. This is a level at which even public infrastructure projects are rejected by the government. The canal is designed for ships of 30,000 metric tonnes and lighter. Most new ships weighing more than 60,000 tonnes and tankers weighing above 150,000 tonnes cannot use this canal.
Costs of project Axis Bank Ltd. was appointed "loan arranger" for the project in 2005.Since its inception in 2004, costs have risen to at least , interest rates have risen and old loan terms have lapsed. The loan sanctions, valid only up to , lapsed. To secure more money, Sethusamudram Corp. Ltd would have to draw up new reports, sit with parliamentary committees and receive fresh approval. The project cost which originally were will grow by almost , a shipping ministry source said.
Environmental impact The project would disturb the ecological balance and destroy corals and kill marine life. The area is an important fishing ground for Tamil Nadu and the
Gulf of Mannar Marine National Park is in the vicinity of the proposed project. Tsunami expert Professor
Tad Murtywho advised the Government of India on the tsunami warning systemhas said that the planned route may result in increased impact from tsunami waves. He wrote, "During the
Indian Ocean tsunami of 26 December 2004, the southern part of Kerala was generally spared from a major tsunami, mainly because the tsunami waves from Sumatra region travelling south of the Sri Lankan island, partially diffracted northward and affected the central part of the Kerala coast. Since the tsunami is a long gravity wave (similar to tides and storm surges) during the diffraction process, the rather wide turn it has to take spared the south Kerala coast. On the other hand, deepening the Sethu Canal might provide a more direct route for the tsunami and this could impact south Kerala." On 21 April 2010, the
Supreme Court of India decided to delay the project until an
Environmental impact analysis on the feasibility of a route through Dhanuskodi instead of Rama's Bridge had been carried out.
Religion Opposition to the project came from some Hindu groups that want to preserve
Rama’s Bridge as they believe it was created by
Rama as described in the ancient epic
Ramayana. == References ==