olelog

Tommy Steel was a popular idol when I was a teenager. One of his songs that I remember was, “water water everywhere, not a drop to drink”. At the time I didn't realize that these words were probably taken from the famous poem The Rime of the Ancient Mariner by Samuel Taylor Coleridge -

"Water, water everywhere,
And all the boards did shrink
Water, water everywhere
Nor any drop to drink."

Indeed there is so much water on our earth, and still not enough drinking water for everybody.



Our earth is a blue planet, a water planet. Approximately 75% of the surface is covered by water, and water-rich clouds fill the sky, but all is not well.

A recent study shows that freshwater is flowing into Earth's oceans in greater amounts every year thanks to more frequent and extreme storms linked to global warming. All told, 18 % more water fed into the world's oceans from rivers and melting polar ice sheets in 2006 than in 1994, with an average annual rise of 1.5 %. Precipitation is increasing in the tropics and the Arctic with heavier, more punishing storms. Meanwhile, hundreds of millions of people live in semiarid regions, and those are drying up.

Furthermore we use far too much groundwater, and according to a new study most of the groundwater we use end up in the oceans, so much so that this added groundwater may contribute with as much as 25% (or 0.8 mm) to the yearly sea level rise. The new assessment shows the highest rates of depletion in some of the world’s major agricultural centres, including north west India, north eastern China, north east Pakistan, California’s central valley, and the mid western United States. Although there is a general consensus that we use too much groundwater, some scientists find the new assessment exaggerated.

Groundwater represents about 30% of the available fresh water on the planet, with surface water accounting for only one percent. The rest of the potable, agriculture friendly supply is locked up in glaciers or the polar ice caps. This means that any reduction in the availability of groundwater supplies could have profound effects for a growing human population.

• http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-10/uoc--fsf100410.php
• http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Water/
• http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2010/2010-30.shtml
• http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Alarming_Increase_In_Flow_Of_Water_Into_Oceans_999.html

In Norwegian:
http://www.forskning.no/artikler/2010/september/266226

This post is my contribution to Blog Action Day 2010 - Water

Shakespeare's Hamlet said, “Nothing is good nor bad, but thinking makes it so”, and indeed people think differently about “oil sands”. The Guardian obviously has its doubts, as it just (on 18 August 2010) wrote, ”Think twice about visiting Canada until it abandons tar sands destruction“. It is in fact not a question of to be or not to be, but rather a question of abundant energy or a clean environment (including clean water). It takes up to four barrels of water to produce just one barrel of tar sands crude oil. Producing a barrel of tar sands oil releases three times more carbon than conventional oil.

We have apparently passed the global “peak oil”, that is the point when oil production has reached its maximum and begins to decline. Some years ago it was believed that this would automatically lead to further development of renewable energy sources, but just now it has rather forced the oil industry to drill dangerous and expensive deep wells in the middle of the ocean (with possible disastrous results as in the Gulf of Mexico) or for instance process huge amounts of oil sands in Canada.



Oil sands (also known as extra heavy oil, bituminous sands, or tar sands) are a type of bitumen deposit. Historically, oil sand was indeed incorrectly referred to as tar sand due to the now outdated and largely ineffective practice of using it for roofing and paving tar (oil sand will not harden suitably for these purposes). The sands are naturally occurring mixtures of sand, clay, water, and bitumen, an extremely dense and viscous form of petroleum. Making liquid fuels from oil sands requires energy for steam injection and refining. This process generates two to four times the amount of greenhouse gases per barrel of final product as the production of conventional oil. If combustion of the final products is included, the so-called "Well to Wheels" approach, oil sands extraction, upgrade and use emits 10 to 45% more greenhouse gases than conventional crude oil.

The Athabasca oil sands deposit in northeastern Alberta, Canada, is the largest reservoir of crude bitumen in the world and the largest of three major oil sands deposits in Alberta. Together, these oil sand deposits lie under 141,000 km² of sparsely populated boreal forest and muskeg (peat bogs) and contain about 1.7 trillion barrels (270,000,000,000 m³) of bitumen in-place, comparable in magnitude to the world's total proven reserves of conventional petroleum.

With modern unconventional oil production technology, at least 10% of these deposits, or about 170 billion barrels (27,000,000,000 m³) are considered to be economically recoverable at 2006 prices, making Canada's total oil reserves the second largest in the world, after Saudi Arabia's. The Athabasca deposit is the only large oil sands reservoir in the world which is suitable for large-scale surface mining, although most of it can only be produced using more recently developed in-situ technology.

Unfortunately oil sands mining involves clearing trees, so instead of forests of green trees huge areas in Alberta now look like moon landscapes in black and white. We are in fact talking about open surface mines covering an area of about 600 square kilometres. Use of groundwater for the extraction of the oil by steam injection through the sands lead to draining of the large wetlands in the area. (The most commonly used in-situ process is Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD), in which pairs of horizontal wells are drilled near the base of the oil sand deposit. Steam is injected into a well which is placed about 5 metres above the producer well. The steam rises and heats the bitumen which loses its viscosity, and then flows down under gravity to the lower producer well, from which it is pumped to the surface.)

So what do you want - enough energy or a sufficiently clean environment ? Isn’t it a problem that we need both ? What a dilemma !

• http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2010/08/10/safe-water-or-abundant-energy-take-your-pick/
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/aug/18/canada-tar-sands-rethink-alberta
• http://www.energy.alberta.ca/OurBusiness/oilsands.asp
• http://www.energy.alberta.ca/OilSands/793.asp
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_oil_sands
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands
• http://emd.aapg.org/technical_areas/oil_sands.cfm

In Danish:

• http://ing.dk/artikel/110951-oliefeberen-haerger-i-canada
• http://ing.dk/artikel/110968-saadan-dampes-olie-op-fra-60-m-dybt-oliesand

Afghanistan may well have vast mineral deposits, as I mentioned a couple of days ago, but water is becoming scarce.

If the civil war ever ends and peace returns, which I sincerely hope, drinking water needs in the Kabul Basin of Afghanistan may increase six-fold over the next 50 years due to population increases resulting from returning refugees. It is also likely that future water resources in the Kabul Basin will be reduced as a result of increasing air temperatures associated with global climate change (See my post on Climate Change and Asian Water).

Although there is considerable uncertainty associated with climate change projections, warming trends forecast for southwest Asia would likely result in adverse changes to recharge patterns and further stresses on limited water resources.

In some areas of the basin, particularly in the north along the western mountain front and near major rivers, water resources are generally adequate for current needs. In other areas of the basin, such as in the east and away from major rivers, the available water resources may not meet future needs. On the basis of model simulations, increasing withdrawals are likely to result in declining water levels that may cause more than 50 % of shallow (typically less than 50 m deep) supply wells to become dry or inoperative. The water quality in the shallow (less than 1 m thick), unconsolidated primary aquifer has deteriorated in urban areas because of poor sanitation. Concerns about water availability may be compounded by poor well-construction practices and lack of planning.

Future water resources of the Kabul Basin will likely be reduced as a result of increasing air temperatures associated with global climate change. It is estimated that at least 60 % of shallow groundwater-supply wells would be affected and may become dry or inoperative as a result of climate change. These effects of climate change would likely be greatest in some agricultural areas. The water available in the shallow primary aquifer of the basin may meet future water needs in the northern areas of the Kabul Basin. Conceptual groundwater-flow simulations indicate that the basin likely has groundwater reserves in unused unconsolidated to semiconsolidated aquifers that are as thick as 1,000 m. The age of groundwater in deep aquifers is likely on the order of thousands of years and may differ among the subbasins of the Kabul Basin. Deep groundwater in subbasin areas that are bounded by interbasin ridges may be considerably older than deep groundwater in other areas of the Kabul Basin. The deep aquifer may sustain increased municipal use but may not support increased agricultural use, which is presently an order of magnitude greater than municipal water use.


Reference:
Mack, T.J., Akbari, M.A., Ashoor, M.H., Chornack, M.P., Coplen, T.B., Emerson, D.G., Hubbard, B.E., Litke, D.W., Michel, R.L., Plummer, L.N., Rezai, M.T., Senay, G.B., Verdin, J.P., and Verstraeten, I.M.,
2010,
Conceptual model of water resources in the Kabul Basin, Afghanistan: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5262, 240 p. (Also available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5262/ .)

• http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5262/
• http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-06/usgs-akb061610.php
• http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1880761/afghanistans_kabul_basin_faces_major_water_challenges/index.html
• http://www.waterworld.com/index/display/news_display/1206327264.html

I do not always agree with Friends of the Earth, but I certainly agree with them that the Jordan River is threatened by excessive water diversion and pollution. "Diversion of over 90-percent of its fresh water, in addition to discharge of large quantities of untreated sewage, threatens to irreversibly damage the River Valley," their official website says. "Israel, Jordan and Syria have all diverted its upstream waters for domestic and agricultural uses, leaving precious little fresh water for the river and its once thriving ecosystem."

In a report they further note that the Jordan "has been reduced to a trickle south of the Sea of Galilee, devastated by overexploitation, pollution and lack of regional management" and that "the remaining flow consists primarily of sewage, fish pond water, agricultural run-off and saline water."

Sadly, in the last 50 years, the River Jordan's annual flow has dropped from more than 1300 million m³ per year to less than 100 million m³. With Israel, Jordan and Syria, each grabbing as much clean water as they can, it is ironically the sewage that is keeping the river alive today.

In 2007, Friends of the Earth Middle East named the Jordan River as one of the world's 100 most endangered ecological sites, due in part to lack of cooperation between Israel and the neighboring Arab states. Friends of the Earth Middle East has recently embarked on a broad campaign to raise awareness of the demise of the Lower Jordan River. Since much of the river is a closed military zone and off limits to the public, most people simply do not know that the river is drying up.

Unless urgent action is taken, large sections of the Lower Jordan River, which runs from Lake Kinneret (From the Bible known as the Lake of Gennesaret ^*)) to the Dead Sea, may dry out in 2011. Unless fresh water replaces the amounts of sewage water to be removed, the once mighty Lower Jordan River will become a cracked and dry riverbed through much of its 100 km length.

The lack of fresh water has also destroyed much of the ecosystem both within and next to the river, the EcoPeace/Friends of the Earth Middle East (FoEME) study found. Fifty percent of macro-invertebrates have disappeared because the river no longer flows swiftly and is highly saline. Examples of macro-invertebrates include flatworms, crayfish, snails, clams and insects. Otters have disappeared from the Jordan and the willow trees that once lined its shores have all disappeared according to FoEME Israel Director Gidon Bromberg .

Satellite image

• http://www.foeme.org/projects.php?ind=23
• http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1858928/famed_jordan_river_under_threat/index.html
• http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=174550
• http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Jordan+River+could+2011+report/2978073/story.html
• http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Jordan+River+will+dead+next+year+environmentalists/2979042/story.html
• http://www.physorg.com/news192044027.html

See also my post “Rivers Run Dry and the Dead Sea Dies”

*) Sorry I got the biblical name of the Sea of Galilee wrong in my first version of this post. For compensation here is a longer list of synonyms:
Bahr Tubariya, Ginnosar, Lake of Galilee, Lake of Gennesaret, Lake of Gennesar, Sea of Chinnereth, Sea of Chinneroth, Sea of Kinnereth, Sea of Tiberias, Lake of Tiberias, Waters of Gennesaret, Yam Kinneret
(collected from http://www.bibleplaces.com/seagalilee.htm )

The World Bank has approved a pilot plan for a canal linking the Red Sea to the rapidly shrinking Dead Sea. The bank will provide $1.25 billion in finance for the project. The initial proposal is for a 180 km channel to transport 200 million m³ of water per year, of which half would run directly into the Dead Sea and half would feed a giant desalination plant jointly run by Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority.

As it is an enormous mass of water my different sources understandably have a problem with getting the digits right - running from 2 km³ to 200 m³, which makes quite a difference. I have kept to the Israeli source (they ought to know!).

Another problem is partly linguistic, partly technical - will it be a canal, channel or tunnel (or a combination of two of these)?

See also my post on Rivers Run Dry and the Dead Sea Dies.

• http://business.maktoob.com/20090000006320/World_Bank_approves_Dead_Sea_canal_plan/Article.htm
• http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3737659,00.html

In Norwegian:
• http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/artikkel.php?artid=559938