30 Fairmont Park Lane S
Lethbridge
Alberta T1K 7H7
(403) 328-1804
Friday, May 02, 2003
The Editor
Alberta Views
208 - 320 23rd Ave SW
Calgary, AB T2S 0J2
Dear Editor,
Mike Leschart's article (Water in the Well: The fresh-water-injection debate, May/June 2003, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 43) makes many valid points.
However, one sidebar point attributed to the Butte Action Committee: "You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that if you keep removing water from the natural cycle, there's going to be nothing left" is actually quite trivial and irrelevant.
This rocket scientist asks readers to keep in mind that the global evaporation and rain cycle depends primarily on the ocean for it's evaporative water supply. The amount of water injected to recover oil is much less than the proverbial drop in the bucket when compared with the water in the ocean. In addition, water injection is likely a temporary use as supplies of oil are limited.
The oil industry could introduce the counterpoint that their product actually adds water to the cycle when it is ultimately burnt to produce water vapor and carbon dioxide. However, this water addition is as trivial as the alleged loss due to injection. It seems the oil industry soberly and responsibly bases its case on significant information.
Yours truly,
Duane Pendergast
P.S. - My long-standing credentials as a rocket scientist were established by taking, and even passing, a post-graduate course in the late sixties on combustion engineering that emphasized rocket propulsion.