CC BY
77
Alexander TVALCHRELIDZE
D.Sc. (Geology and Mineralogy), Full Member of the Georgian Academy of Natural Sciences
(Tbilisi, Georgia).
Avtandil SILAGADZE
D.Sc. (Econ.), Corresponding Member of the Georgian National Academy of Sciences
(Tbilisi, Georgia).
GEORGIA'S FRESH MINERAL WATER FOR EUROPE
Abstract
This article analyzes the issues relating to Georgia's fresh mineral water supplies, their unproductive use today, and the daily increase in demand for these resources in Europe.
Based on this, the authors offer possible alternatives for transporting fresh mineral water from Georgia to Europe by means of a water pipeline and present
several preliminary feasibility parameters of this project. The authors think the project will be economically profitable for all the interested parties, including Georgia. In addition to the direct economic benefit, Georgia will significantly raise its role as a partner of the European Union, which will help to accelerate its integration into the EU and NATO.
44 HHSHAfflCABffiS&HLOBALnHAHI^RI Volume 5 Issue 3-4 2011
Introduction
In 20-30 years, fresh drinking water will be the most expensive raw material in the world markets. According to the U.N.,1 more than 2.8 billion people today have inadequate access to safe drinking water. Europe is also facing serious drinking water shortages. By 2025, the whole of Europe will be experiencing a water crisis, but the problem will be the acutest in Southern Europe and the Mediterranean Basin.2 There are several reasons for these future irreversible changes3:
1. Exhaustion of Europe's fresh water reservoirs;
2. Increase in the population and, consequently, in the demand for water;
3. A severe drop in atmospheric precipitation caused by climatic changes, which, in turn, will lead to a water shortage of 5 percent (Central Europe) to 25 percent (Southern Europe).
Today, more than 80% of EU inhabitants depend on surface water systems for their water supply, whereby the chemical and bacteriological properties of this water do not meet U.N.4 or EU5 standards due to the pollution of surface water with production wastes and agricultural nitrates.6
So the European Union must urgently look for new sources of drinking water to be delivered to the European market in the next 10-12 years. However, this task will be complicated by the world economic crisis, which has caused a severe cutback in the funding of new global projects.7
Although it escaped the brunt of the global economic crisis, Georgia has also been affected by its consequences: economic growth rates and foreign direct investments have perceptibly dropped, while the inflation rate, foreign debts, negative international trade balance, unemployment level, and number of people living below the poverty line have grown. Among its close neighbors (Russia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia), Georgia brings up the rear in terms of GDP volume per capita.8 What is more, Georgia's problems have been put down to both the consequences of the war with Russia and to internal processes. The situation later improved to a certain extent, but it still leaves much to be desired. In 2010, the country's GDP amounted to $11,663.4 million, which is 8.3% higher than the same index for the previous year, but 8.9% lower than the 2008 level. Twenty-seven percent of GDP is funneled into the real sector (in 2006 this figure was 32.9%), including: agriculture, forestry, hunting and fishing—7.3% (in 2006, it was 11.2%), industry—14.7% (in 2006—14.8%), and construction 5.5% (in 2006—6.9%).9 Georgia has essentially used up the large amounts of financial aid it received in grants and loans after the war with Russia, and there is no hope of acquiring new foreign assistance in the near future. So the answer lies in tapping its unused rich internal national resources. Many studies are devoted to this problem.10
1 See: The Millennium Development Goals Report, Published by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United Nations, New York, 2008.
2 See: A. Lalzad, An Overview of Global Water Problems and Solutions, London, 2007.
3 See: European Environment Outlook, EEA Report No. 4/2005, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen,
2005.
4 See: Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, Third edition, Vol. 1, Recommendations, World Health Organization, Geneva, 2008.
5 See: EU's Drinking Water Standards, Water Treatment Solutions, Lenntech, available at [http://www.lenntech. com/applications/drinking/standards/eu-s-drinking-water-standards.htm].
6 See: Water Pollution, European Commission. Environment, available at [http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/].
7 See, for example: The World Bank Annual Report, The World Bank, Washington DC, 2009; World Economic Outlook—Crisis and Recovery, World Economic and Financial Surveys, International Monetary Fund, Washington DC, 2009; P. Artus, J.-P Betbèse, C. de Boissieu, G. Capelle-Blanchard, La crise des subprimes, La Documentation française, Paris, 2008, and others.
8 See: World Bank Data Base, available at [http://worldbank.org/indicator/].
9 Geostat Data Base, available at [http://geostat.ge/GDP/; http://geostat.ge/agriculture/].
10 See: A. Tvalchrelidze, A. Silagadze, G. Keshelashvili, D. Gegia, Georgia's Socioeconomic Development Program, Nekeri, Tbilisi, 2011, 312 pp. (in Georgian); A. Tvalchrelidze, P. Kervalishvili, D. Gegia, S. Esakia, S. Sanadze,
THE CAUCASUS & GLOBALIZATION
Georgia possesses more natural raw mineral resources than it needs to meet its internal demands.11 And many of these resources are of world significance,12 such as its fresh surface and groundwater, the supplies of which are higher than the resources possessed by the whole of Eu-
rope.13
So we have a rare coincidence of interests: Europe needs high quality drinking water, while Georgia is interested in exporting it, whereby enhancing its economic development.
Georgia's Fresh Mineral Water Resources
Georgia has enormous supplies of fresh surface water, which is the subject of a large number of monographic studies.14 But its underground resources of fresh mineral water are even more attractive.15
Georgia's total reserves of mineral groundwater amount to 49.2 million cu m/day, 10.2 million cu m/day of which are used for technical purposes, while 6.503 million cu m/day are plumbed from drawned-out wells.16 Table 1 shows the distribution of these supplies in terms of basins and sources.
Apart from the Natakhtari, Bulachauri, and part of the Gejini fields, these supplies are essentially not used, and most of Tbilisi, for example, obtains its running water from the Zhinvali res-
Georgia's Economic Development Priorities: Analysis and Immediate Prospects, Sani, Tbilisi, 2002, 167 pp. (in Georgian); A. Tvalchrelidze, "Ekonomicheskaia situatsiia v Gruzii posle russko-gruzinskoi voiny," in: Psevdokonflikty i kvaz-imirotvorchestvo na Kavkaze, Georgian National Committee of the Helsinki Civil Assembly and the South Caucasian Institute of Regional Security, Tbilisi, 2009; V. Papava, "Anatomical Pathology of Georgia's Rose Revolution," Current Politics and Economics of the Caucasus Region, Vol. 2, No. 1, 2009, pp. 1-18; V. Papava, "Georgia's Economy: Post-Revolutionary Development and Post-War Difficulties," Central Asian Survey, Vol. 28, No. 2, 2009, pp. 199-213; A. Si-lagadze, Economic Doctrines, Tbilisi, 2010; A. Silagadze, Aspects of Economic Doctrines in Georgia, Peninsula University of Technology, Business and Informatics, California, 2010; idem, "Current Financial and Monetary Trends in Georgia," The Caucasus & Globalization, Vol. 4, Issue 1-2, 2010; A. Silagadze, T. Atanelishvili, Modern State Finances of Georgia, International Academy of Sciences, California, 2010; A. Silagadze, S. Gelashvili, Gegenwärtige Finanz- und Monetäre Aspekte in Georgien, Universität Potsdam, No. G-10, 2009; A. Silagadze, M. Tokmarishvili, Challenges of the Post-Communist Financial-Currency Policy, Nova Science Publishers, Inc., New York, 2009; T. Basilia, A. Silagadze, T. Chikvadze, Post-Transformation: Georgian Economy at the Threshold of the 21th Century, Tbilisi, 2001. 544 pp. (in Georgian), and others.
11 See: A. Tvalchrelidze, Poleznye iskopaemye i mineralnaia resursnaia baza Gruzii, Rudy i metally, Moscow, 2006, 320 pp.
12 See: A. Tvalchrelidze, Economics of Commodities and Commodity Markets, Nova Science Publishers, Inc., New York, NY, 2011, 903 pp.
13 See: A. Tvalchrelidze, Poleznye iskopaemye i mineralnaia resursnaia baza Gruzii.
14 See, for example: Prirodnye resursy Gruzinskoi SSR, Vol. IV, Gidroenergeticheskie resursy, GSSR Academy of Sciences, SOPS, USSR Academy of Sciences Publishers, Moscow, 1962; "Gidroenergeticheskie resursy," in: Altas Gruzinskoi SSR, Vakhushti Institute of Georgraphy, GSSR Academy of Sciences, Main Department for Geodesy and Cartography, Tbilisi, Moscow, 1964; Vodnye resursy Zakavkazia, ed. by G. Svanidze, V. Tsomaia, Gidrometeoizdat, Leningrad, 1988; G. Svanidze, V. Gagua, E. Sukhishvili, Vozobnovliaemye energoresursy Gruzii, Gidrometeoizdat, Leningard, 1987; A. Tvalchrelidze, P. Kervalishvili, D. Gegia, S. Esakia, S. Sanadze, op. cit.; A. Tvadchrelidze, A. Silagadze, G. Keshe-lashvili, D. Gegia, op. cit., and others.
15 See: I. Tsulukidze, L. Kharatishvili, D. Gabechava, N. Tsertsvadze, V. Gvakharia, "Podzemnye vody Gruzii— beloe bogatstvo XXI veka," Gorny zhurnal, No. 4, 2004; A. Tvalchrelidze, Poleznye iskopaemye i mineralnaia resursnaia baza Gruzii; A. Tvalchrelidze, A. Silagadze, G. Keshelashvili, D. Gegia, op. cit.
16 See: A. Tvalchrelidze, Poleznye iskopaemye i mineralnaia resursnaia baza Gruzii.
17 See: A. Tvalchrelidze, A. Silagadze, G. Keshelashvili, D. Gegia, op. cit.
ervoir.17
Table 1
Supplies of Fresh Mineral Groundwater in Georgia
Basin/Source Territory Discharge, cu m/day
Bzyb Abkhazian Autonomous Republic 110,600
Baklanovka Abkhazian Autonomous Republic 60,100
Gumista Abkhazian Autonomous Republic 319,700
Kodori Abkhazian Autonomous Republic 320,000
Psou Abkhazian Autonomous Republic 30,000
Kintrishi Abkhazian Autonomous Republic 198,700
Tekhuri Samegrelo and Upper Svanetia 110,600
Gejini Ajarian Autonomous Republic 20,000
Natanebi Guria 6,500
Ozurgeti Guria 93,700
Gubistskali Imeretia 388,000
Kvirila Imeretia 51,900
Samtredia Imeretia 47,100
Liakhvi Shida Kartli 250,600
Khashuri Shida Kartli 28,500
Kvaisa Shida Kartli 12,100
Edisi Shida Kartli 51,840
Bulachauri Mtskheta-Mtianeti 190,000
Choporti-Misaktsieli Mtskheta-Mtianeti 140,000
Natakhtari Mtskheta-Mtianeti 302,000
Ksani Mtskheta-Mtianeti 170,100
Tianeti Mtskheta-Mtianeti 73,800
Mukhrani Mtskheta-Mtianeti 586,600
Alazani Kakhetia 938,200
Lagodekhi-Signagi Kakhetia 129,600
Bursa Kakhetia 92,600
Napareuli Kakhetia 29,600
Daba Samtskhe-Javakhetia 151,500
Table 1 (continued)
Basin/Source Territory Discharge, cu m/day
Ablari Samtskhe-Javakhetia 79,800
Bezhano Samtskhe-Javakhetia 33,700
Ikhtila Samtskhe-Javakhetia 38,000
Marneuli Kvemo Kartli 684,700
Gardabani Kvemo Kartli 88,100
Tsalki Group Kvemo Kartli 527,900
Bolnisi Kvemo Kartli 55,600
Dmanisi Kvemo Kartli 91,900
TOTAL 6,503,640
Most of the designated supplies are distributed in four basins of groundwater located as shown on Fig. 1 (on p. 47), the total supplies of which are given in Table 2.
Table 2
Total Supplies of Georgia's Fresh Groundwater Basins
Basin Discharge, cu m/day
Kolkhida 1,756,900
Tirifoni 2,147,200
Javakheti 830,900
Kakheti 1,190,000
TOTAL 5,925,000
The Javakheti volcanic basin contains large supplies of ultra fresh, almost distilled water of post-volcanic origin.18 The water of the artesian basins is characterized by a healthy degree of mineralization and has a rich ionic composition. It is non-radioactive and does not contain admixtures of metals, nitrates, or toxic compounds.
The typical chemical composition of Georgia's fresh mineral groundwater is given in Table 3 (on p. 48).19
According to the available data,20 Europe will need an additional 120 million cu m (1214 liters) of running water a year. These resources could easily be mobilized in Georgia, since they amount to only 5% of the supplies of fresh water from the drawned-out wells. Moreover, since mineral water is
18 See: I. Tsulukidze, L. Kharatishvili, D. Gabechava, N. Tsertsvadze, V. Gvakharia, op. cit.
19 See: A. Tvalchrelidze, A. Silagadze, G. Keshelashvili, D. Gegia, op. cit.; I. Tsulukidze, L. Kharatishvili, D. Gabechava, N. Tsertsvadze, V. Gvakharia, op. cit.; A. Tvalchrelidze, Poleznye iskopaemye i mineralnaia resursnaia baza Gruzii.
20 See: European Environment Outlook.
a renewable resource,21 if the basins are adequately managed and their permanent piezometric monitoring is carried out, these resources will essentially be inexhaustible.
21 See: A. Tvalchrelidze, Development of a Geological-Economic System for Governmental Management of Georgian Mineral Resources, John D. & Catherine T. McArthur Foundation, Tbilisi, 1995.
Table 3
General Chemical Properties of Georgia's Fresh Mineral Groundwater
Index Unit of Measurement Value
| Mineralization g/1 0.07-0.22 |
| Cations |
Ca2+ mg/l 10-40
Mg2+ mg/l 2.0-9.0
Na+ mg/l 2.5-12
| Anions |
HCO3 mg/l 40-77
Cl - mg/l 2.0-12.0
HCO42- mg/l <40
However, in order to fully exclude the possibility of supply exhaustion and reduce the impact of possible accidents at head water intake facilities on water supply reliability, we propose creating a structure of 7 water intake facilities located in all three artesian basins (see Fig. 2). Table 4 shows the amount of water that must be mobilized on average in each basin.
Table 4
Water Resources Mobilized for Europe
Basin Mobilized Water Resources
cu m/year cu m/day cu m/min
Kolkhida 27,342,150 74, 910 52.02
Tirifoni 60,874,700 166, 780 115.82
Kakheti 38,974,700 106, 780 74.15
TOTAL 127,191,550 348, 470 241.99
Water Transportation to Europe
Over the past 20 years, Georgia has accumulated sufficient experience in state-of-the-art water bottling and its export abroad. The leading companies in the area are Georgian Glass and Mineral Water, Gewa, Racha Springs, Sairme Springs, and a few others.22 The amount of water to be transported is approximately 500,000-fold higher than the aggregate capacity of these companies. So,
22 See: A. Tvalchrelidze, A. Silagadze, G. Keshelashvili, D. Gegia, op. cit.
whereas there is no difficulty in mobilizing water resources, it being a purely technical problem, serious obstacles arise when it comes to delivering the water to the European market. In principle, the task could be solved in two ways:
1. By mobilizing a tanker fleet, or
2. By building a Georgia-Europe pipeline.
According to simple calculations, a tanker fleet of 400 tankers with a deadweight of 40,000 tons will be needed to transport the designated amount of water. Aside from the fact that this is a very expensive and essentially non-executable alternative, according to the available data,23 the Bosporus only has the capacity to allow another 50 million tons of cargo through its straits, which is five-fold less than the amount of water that needs to be transported. So the only alternative is to build a pipeline system. This possibility also has several advantages:
1. Stable water deliveries;
2. Low net cost of water in Europe;
3. Flexible system of water transportation management;
4. No environmental risks;
5. High transportation safety;
6. Low political risks.
There are two possible pipeline routes, which are shown in Fig. 3.
Figure 3
Possible Routes of the Georgia-Europe Fresh Mineral Water Pipeline
23 See: Focus on Ports, Palgrave Macmillan Publ., London, 2007; Factual Report on the European Port Sector, European Sea Ports Organization, Brussels, 2007.
The first route passes through Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Rumania, and Hungary and ends in Austria. The most elemental analysis reveals the following negative features of this route:
1. The route crosses conflict regions—Abkhazia and Transnistria;
2. Russia will play a key role in managing the water resources;
3. The route passes through geographic zones with a severe winter climate;
4. The signing of international agreements will encounter serious difficulties.
The second route crosses Turkey, Greece, Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Croatia and also ends in Austria. Its positive aspects are:
1. The route largely passes through regions with a subtropical climate;
2. Countries of the European Union, NATO, and their partners will be the interested parties in the project;
3. The route will mainly pass through territories with developed infrastructure;
Figure 4
Possible Inter-European System of Water Distribution
4. Water resource management will be carried out exclusively by the interested parties;
5. This route is 800 km shorter than the first;
6. It will be easy for the interested parties to come to terms and sign intergovernmental agreements.
What is more, if the second route is chosen, it will be easy to develop a pipeline system that will deliver the water directly to the end consumer, as shown in Fig. 4, for example.
Several Preliminary Feasibility Parameters
In contrast to oil, leaks from the pipeline will not be detrimental to the environment. Therefore, planning and building the pipeline will not entail those difficulties that the operators of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline encountered.24 For example, the pipeline can be laid above ground along the sea coast without entailing environmental risks. According to our estimates, the pipeline system should consist of four (main and reserve) parallel pipelines with a pipe diameter of 700 inches (178 cm), in which the water will be under a pressure of 50 atm. The pipeline will be of the
Table 5
Main Project Indices
Index Unit of Measurement Value
Technical water loss % 2
Amount of water reaching the consumer cu m/year 124,647,719
Preliminary price of the water $/l 0.01
Annual sales volume $ 1,246,477 190
Operational expenses $m/year 246
Nominal income $b/year 1
Planning time years 2
Construction time years 4
Planning cost $m 150
Construction cost $b 9
Investment recoupment time years 15
24 See: R. Goodland, Oil and Gas Pipelines. Social and Environmental Impact Assessment: State of Art, International Association of Impact Assessment, Frargo, ND, 2005; V. Papava, "The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline: Implications for Georgia," in: The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline: Oil Window to the West, The Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, Silk Road Studies Program, Vienna, 2005; J. Elkind, "Economic Implications of Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline," in: The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline: Oil Window to the West, ed. by S. Frederick Starr and Svante E. Cornell, The Central Asia-Caucasus Institute, Silk Road Studies Program, Uppsala, 2005; B. Inanc, O. Yildiz, Oil Spill Response Preparedness in BTC Crude Oil Pipeline: Turkish Section, Botaç International Ltd., Ceyhan, Turkey, 2005, and others.
usual design and be equipped with a SCADA supervisory control and monitoring system.25 Table 5 (on p. 53) presents several preliminary feasibility parameters of the project.
Main Conclusions
There is no other alternative to the proposed approach—Europe will be unable to find another cheap source of water of the required quality. So sooner or later, this project is bound to be implemented.
The project is economically profitable for all the interested parties, including Georgia. In addition to the direct economic benefit, Georgia will significantly raise its role as a partner of the European Union, which will help to accelerate its integration in the EU and NATO.
1 See: T. Callan, Pipeline Technology Today and Tomorrow, OGEW DGMK Herbstveranstaltung, Vienna, 2007.
