DAMS IN PAKISTAN

                   Proposed Dams:-

Kalabagh Dam:-

Location:-

The Kalabagh dam is a proposed hydroelectric dam on the Indus River at Kalabagh in Mianwali District of the Punjab province in Pakistan.

Objectives:-

1. This multi-purpose project would have a live storage capacity of 6.1 million acre feet.
2. It would make substantial contribution to firming up the irrigation supplies not only for new projects but additional allocation agreed by the provinces under Water Apportionment Accord (WAA) of 1991.

Technical Data:-

Dam Type	Earth fill
Height	260 ft.
Length	11,000 feet
Gross Storage Capacity	7.9 MAF
Live Storage Capacity	6.1 MAF
Dead Storage	1.8 MAF
Retention Level	915 ft
Main Spillway Capacity	1.07 million cusecs
Design Flood Discharge	1.92 million cusecs
Hydropower Generation	3,600 MW
Maximum Discharge	1.2 million cusecs (in 1929)
Total Volume of Dam	34 million yds3

Munda Dam:-

Location:-

This project is proposed to be constructed on Swat River about 5 Km upstream of Munda Head works in Mohmand Agency FATA Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Objectives:-

1. Flood Mitigation.
2. Irrigated Agriculture development of 15,097 acres, further enhancement of command area will  be assessed as per request of Govt of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
3. Hydropower generation.
4. Socio-economic uplift of People of the area.

Technical Data:-

Dam Type	Concrete-Faced Rock Filled
Length	2,500 ft
Height	698.82 ft
Reservoir Gross Capacity	1.290 MAF
Reservoir Live Capacity	0.676 MAF
Reservoir Dead Capacity	0.314 MAF
Reservoir Flood Capacity	0.081 MAF
Power Generation	740 MW
Command Area	15,100 Acres

Satpara Dam:-

Location:-

This project is located on Satpara Nullah downstream of Satpara Lake which is about 6km of Sakardu Town.

Objectives:-

1. Irrigates 15,536 acres of land
2. Supply 3.1millions gallons per day drinking water to Sakardu city.

Technical Data:-

Dam Type	Earth fill with silty clay core
Dam Length	560ft
Maximum Height	128ft
Gated Spillway	5000 cusecs
Reservoir Gross Storage Capacity	93,310 Acre ft
Reservoir Live Storage Capacity	55,617 Acre ft
Power House Generation	17MW

Diamer Basha Dam:-

Location:-

Diamer Basha Dam Project is proposed to be located on the Indus River 315 km upstream of Tarbela Dam site, about 180 km below the town of Gilgit.

Objectives:-

1. Enhance the potential life of Tarbela reservoir by 35 years.
2. Economic and social development of Gilgit-Baltistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
3. Power transmission to be developed under this project will provide corridor for the proposed projects like Dasu, Pattan, Bunji etc. in Gilgit-Baltistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Technical Data:-

Dam Type	Roller Compacted Concrete
Maximum height	272m
Reservoir Gross Storage	8.1MAF
Reservoir live storage	6.4MAF
Total Land Acquired	37,419Acres
Power House Generation	4500MW

Gomal Zam Dam:-

Location:-

Gomal Zam Dam site (Khajuri Kach), is located on Gomal River in South Waziristan Agency, west of Tank and D.I.Khan Districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

Objective:-

1. Irrigated agricultural development
2. Hydropower generation
3. Flood Protection

Technical Data:-

Dam Type	Concrete Gravity Dam
Height	437ft
Length	231ft
Reservoir Gross Storage	1.140MAF
Reservoir Live Storage	0.892MAF
Reservoir Dead Storage	0.243MAF
Total Irrigated Area	163,100Acre ft
Installed Capacity	17.4MW

EXISTING DAMS

Mirani Dam:-

Location:-

Mirani Dam is located on the Dasht River, approximately 30 km west of Turbat and 8 km from the nearest point of the under-construction 820 km-long M8 motorway (Pakistan) connecting Ratodero with Gwader.

Objectives:-

1. The primary purpose of Mirani Dam was to store water from the three rivers during the summer season and during floods so that water could be available for irrigation purposes throughout the year in order to bring 33,200 acres of hitherto uncultivated land in Kech Valley under cultivation.
2. The secondary purpose of Mirani Dam is to ensure a constant supply of clean drinking water to the towns of Turbat and Gwadar throughout the year.

Technical Data:-

Dam Type	Earth Fill
Height	127 Ft.
Length at Crest	3,350 Ft.
Top Width	35 Ft.
Catchment Area	7,964 Sq. miles
Average Annual Flow	223,000 A. Ft.
Reservoir Gross Storage	302,000 A. Ft.
Reservoir Live Storage	52,000 A. Ft.
Average Annual Releases	114,000 A. Ft.
Designed Capacity	205,800 Cusecs
Maximum Capacity	384,300 Cusecs
Capacity	377 Cusecs

Mangla Dam:

Location:

The Mangla Dam is located on the Jhelum River in the Mirpur District of Azad Kashmir, Pakistan.

Objectives:

1. The project was designed primarily to increase the amount of water that could be used for irrigation from the flow of the River Jhelum and its tributaries.
2. Its secondary function was to generate electrical power from the irrigation releases at the artificial head of the reservoir.
3. The project was not designed as a flood control structure, although some benefit in this respect also arises from its use for irrigation and water supply.

Technical Data:-

Dam Type	Earth fill
Height	380 ft
Length	10,300 feet
Lake Area:	97.7 sq. miles
Catchment Area	12,870 Sq miles
Gross Storage Capacity	5.88 MAF
Live Storage Capacity	5.34 MAF
Main Spillway Capacity	1.01 million cusecs
Hydropower Generation	1,000MW

Tarbela Dam:

Location:

It is located In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa near the border with Afghanistan.

Objective:

1. The primary function of Tarbela Project was to regulate the Indus river flows
2. The secondary function is generation of electric power
3. Incidental benefits include limited flood control of Indus River and a substantial contribution to tourism.

Technical Data:-

Dam Type	Earth and Rock fill
Height	485ft
Reservoir Area	95 sq. miles
Gross Storage Capacity	11.62MAF
Live Storage Capacity	9.7MAF
Main Spill Way Capacity	6.5 million cusecs
Power Generation	3478MW

Warsak Dam:

Location:

The Warsak Dam is located on the Kabul River in the province of NWFP Pakistan about 19 miles north-west of the city of Peshawar.

Objective:

Technical Data:-

Dam Type	Concrete Gravity Dam
Height	250ft
Catchment Area	26,000 sq. miles
Design Flood Discharge	540,000 cusecs
Total Storage Capacity	56,710 million m3
Live Storage Capacity	31,210 million m3
Geology and Bed Rock	Granite and Schist
Total Volume of Dam	42,000 cubic yards
Power Generation	240MW

The Great Global Warming Swindle Programme directed by Martin Durkin on Channel 4 on Thursday 8 March 2007

Critique by John Houghton, President, John Ray Initiative

(John Houghton is President of the John Ray Initiative. He has held positions as chairman or co-chairman of Scientific Assessment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 1988-2002, Professor of Atmospheric Physics at the University of Oxford, 1976-1983, Director General and Chief Executive of the UK Meteorological Office, 1983-1991, Chairman of the UK Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 1992-1998, member of the UK Government Panel on Sustainable Development, 1994-2000)

The programme purported to debunk the science of Global Warming describing it as ‘lies’ and an invention of hundreds of scientists around the world who have conspired to mislead governments, and the general public. The most prominent person in the programme was Lord Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer who is not a scientist and who shows little knowledge of the science but who is party to the creation of a conspiracy theory that questions the motives and integrity of the world scientific community, especially as represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The material presented was a mixture of truth, half truth and falsehood put together with the sole purpose of discrediting the science of global warming as presented by the main world community of climate scientists and by the IPCC.

For the best and latest statement of the science, you are referred to the Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC 4^th Assessment Report published in February 2007.

You are also referred to a 2-page statement by the Academies of Science of the 11 largest countries in the world (the G8 plus China, India and Brazil) addressed to the leaders at the G8 Summit at Gleneagles in 2005 giving a clear and urgent message about the reality of Global Warming and its likely consequences and also endorsing the consensus of the IPCC. This statement by the Academies is unprecedented. There could not be a stronger statement supporting the work of the world scientific community by the most eminent scientists in the world.

You are also referred to JRI Briefing Paper 14, “Global Warming, Climate Change and Sustainability: Challenge to Scientists, Policy-makers and Christians” by Sir John Houghton, 2007.

Here I briefly point out the main lines of evidence for human-induced climate change and then address some of the main arguments presented in the programme.

1. First, it is important to note that the main lines of evidence for human-induced climate change not addressed in the programme were: • growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere mainly due to fossil fuel burning to a level greater than for at least 600,000 years; • observations of global warming at the earth’s surface (in magnitude and pattern) consistent with the increase in greenhouse gases, the basic science of which has been known and understood for over 200 years.
2. Climate is always changing – TRUE. However, the programme also argued that changes in global average temperature over the last 50 years and as projected for the 21^st century are within the range of natural climate variability as observed over the last few millennia – NOT TRUE. Many of the prominent climate changes over past centuries have been regional in scale. Global Warming is concerned with global scale changes. The IPCC 4^th Assessment Report Summary for Policymakers has a particular section summarising the conclusions of detailed studies using a wide range of paleoclimate data. It concludes that ‘Paleoclimate information supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1300 years.’
3. That carbon dioxide content and temperature correlate so closely during the last ice age is not evidence of carbon dioxide driving the temperature but rather the other way round - TRUE. The programme went on to state that this correlation has been presented as the main evidence for global warming by the IPCC – NOT TRUE. For instance, I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide.
4. The troposphere is warming less than the surface – NOT TRUE. This raises a debate that took place in the 1990s but which has now been resolved. There is now agreement among the scientists involved in measurements that trends in satellite observed tropospheric temperatures when properly analysed agree well with trends in surface temperature observations. The programme also stated that warming should continue to higher levels. That is not the case. In fact, higher levels are observed to be cooling, consistent with the science of global warming that indicates that there is warming below and cooling above the ‘blanket’ of additional carbon dioxide.
5. Volcanic eruptions emit more carbon dioxide than fossil fuel burning – NOT TRUE. In fact, none of the large volcanic eruptions over the last 50 years feature in the detailed record of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
6. Changes in the sun influence climate – TRUE. They cited the Maunder Minimum in the 17^th century when no sunspots were observed, as a probable example. Solar influences are the main driver of global average temperature in the 20^th century – NOT TRUE. Changes in solar output together with the absence of large volcanoes (that tend to cool the climate) are likely to have been causes for the rise in temperature between 1900 and 1940. However, the much more complete observations of the sun from space instruments over the past 40 years demonstrate that such influences cannot have contributed significantly to the temperature increase over this period. Other possibilities such as cosmic rays affecting cloud formation have been very carefully considered by the IPCC (see the 3^rd Assessment Report on www.ipcc.ch) and there is no evidence that they are significant compared with the much larger and well understood effects of increased greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.
7. Climate models are too complex and uncertain to provide useful projections of climate change - NOT TRUE. In the programme, this was illustrated by a statement made by a youthful Professor Smagorinsky, a pioneer in climate modelling, speaking in the 1980s explaining some of the inadequacies of early models. Climate modelling has developed enormously since then. Modern models include detailed coupling of the circulations of atmosphere and ocean and detailed descriptions of the interactions between all components of the climate system including ice and the biosphere. They have been tested thoroughly in their ability to reconstruct current and past climates. The 30 or more major modelling groups in the world regularly compare their methods and their findings. Contributors to the programme with their parodies of climate models just demonstrated their complete ignorance of the significance and capabilities of modern models.

8. The IPCC process stifles debate and is used by scientists to further their own self interest – NOT TRUE. I chaired the main meetings of Working Group I during the production of the first three IPCC scientific assessments. I can say categorically that the process was very open and honest. The aim was to distinguish between what was reasonably well known and the areas where there is large uncertainty. The chapter groups had complete freedom to investigate and assess the scientific literature and draw their conclusions. Contrary to the impression given in the programme, no one ever resigned from being a lead author in Working Group I because of their disagreement with the process or the final content of their chapter. In fact, no one ever communicated to me a complaint about the integrity of the process.

I should mention, however, a case of disagreement that occurred in Working Group 2 of the IPCC that dealt with the impacts of climate change – a more complex area to address that the basic science of Working Group I. Professor Reiter who appeared in the programme described how, unfortunately, his expert work on malaria failed to get recognition in the relevant IPCC chapter.

Even Professor Lindzen, who appeared at length on the programme, stayed the course as lead author within Working Group I, expressing his satisfaction with the report’s chapters as good scientific documents. He has often, however, gone on to express his view that the conclusions of the Policymakers Summary did not faithfully represent the chapters. But he has never provided any supporting evidence for that statement – nor, to my knowledge, has anyone else who has quoted that statement originating from Lindzen.

It is important to note that IPCC Policymakers’ Summaries are agreed unanimously at intergovernmental meetings involving over 200 government delegates from around 100 countries. This agreement is only achieved after several days of scientific debate (only scientific arguments not political ones are allowed) the main purpose of which is to challenge the scientific chapter authors regarding the accuracy, clarity and relevance of the summary and most especially its consistency with the underlying chapters. Agreement at such a meeting has ensured that the resulting document, so far as is possible, is scientifically accurate, balanced and free from personal or political bias.

Reference was made in the programme to an article in the Wall Street Journal in 1995 about the 1995 IPCC report accusing the IPCC of improperly altering one of the agreed chapters before publication. This was a completely false accusation as was pointed out in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, September 1996, 77, pp1961-1966.

9. Action on climate change by developed countries may have a negative influence on development of the world’s poorer countries – POSSIBLY TRUE. A strong non scientific point made towards the end of the programme concerned the possible effect of pressure from the developed world on developing countries to develop without use of fossil fuel sources of energy. There is something inherently unfair in such pressure that could hamper growth of developing country economies especially when rather little is being done by developed countries to reduce their own fossil fuel emissions. Further, the greater proportion of the damage from climate change will tend to fall on developing countries. The responsibilities of developed countries therefore are clear, first to reduce their own emissions as rapidly as possible and secondly to assist developing countries with resources and skills to develop their energy and other requirements in sustainable ways.

Ground Improvement Techniques

-->

Techniques that can be employed to improve ground conditions range from jet grouting, dynamic compaction and lime stabilisation, to vibro-compaction, vibro-replacement (stone columns) and vibro-concrete columns to consolidation by pre-loading and deep soil mixing. 
geotechnics team have the specialist expertise needed to undertake these processes and can provide clients with support and advice.

Ground Improvement Technologies like Dynamic Compaction and In-Situ Soil Mixing among others are used to change the characteristics of soil or rock. Ground Improvement techniques have several applications such as

 Providing foundation support for structures

 Protection from earthquake-induced soil liquefaction

 Subsidence Remediation

 Site improvementThe experts at Geo Solutions can help you decide what Soil Improvement Technology would benefit your project.

Ground improvement techniques have developed greatly in recent years and have wide application in areas of construction such as:

• Tunneling
• Deep excavations
• Foundations
• Earthworks

Soil and rock grouting:

Soil and Rock Grouting is the injection of a slurry or grout into the subsurface profile. The grout fills cracks and voids and is used to strengthen the ground or to make it more water resistant. There are many kinds of soil grouting and rock grouting, which are specialized for different soil types and different project requirements. Grouting work can be simple or complex, highly laborious or highly mechanized. Often the most important decision is the decision as to which grouting technique will be successful at the lowest overall cost.

-->

Grouting to Stabilize a Retaining Wall

 

-->

Jet Grouting and Jet Mixing Techniques:

Jet grouting, also sometimes referred to as jet mixing, is a method of grouting that uses very high pressure streams (6,000 psi or 40 MPa) of grout to erode, replace, mix, and cement soils. Jet grout construction uses a rotating and rising drill rod with small nozzles that direct the grout horizontally to form columns of soilcrete or soil-cement. Typical column diameters are 2 to 6 ft. Jet grouting is the only type of grouting that is capable of treating all types of soils from clays to gravel. Jet grouting is also useful in grouting isolated zones of soil and for grouting around and below buried utilities.

Creating Soil-Concrete Columns Using Jet Grouting Technology:

There are at least three of types of jet grouting, some of which use air and / or water with the high pressure grout stream to improve soil penetration and column diameters. The procedure that is common to all jet grouting types (including double fluid jet grouting and triple fluid jet grouting) involves first drilling to the plan depth using small diameter drill rods. Next, a large and powerful pump is connected to the drill rod, which pumps the high pressure jet grout through the drill rods and horizontally into the soil. The drill rods are slowly rotated and raised creating columns of soil-cement. The shape of the grouted zone can be changed by directing the grout in ways that create panels, floors, or other shapes.

-->

Uses of jet grouting or jet mixing:

jet grouting is used to stabilize contaminated soils, create groundwater barriers and to underpin distressed foundations. Probably our most frequent application is the use of a jet grout with another technique, e.g. slurry walls or soil mixing, to extend the work into areas with limited access or into areas with concentrated utilities. Jet grouting uses smaller equipment and a small drill hole so it is well suited for work in tight quarters.

-->

From Ground and Sludge Stabilization to Hazardous Waste Treatment:

In Situ Soil Mixing is a technology that was reintroduced into the U.S in the late 1980's by the principals of Geo-Solutions. It is also referred to as auger mixing, In Situ Stabilization / Solidification, deep mixing method, soil cement columns / piles, SMW, cement soil mixing, rotary mixing, and, simply, soil mixing. Three specific types of In Situ Soil Mixing include Deep Soil Mixing (DSM), Shallow Soil Mixing (SSM), Backhoe Stabilization (BOSS). With In Situ Soil Mixing, a large diameter (typically 3 to 12 ft diameter) auger with mixing paddles and grout ports is drilled into the ground as a fluid grout is pumped through the shaft. The fluid acts as an aid to drilling and is mixed into the drilled soil column, creating a soil-cement mass.

-->

Soil Mixing Equipment

 

-->

The Uses of In Situ Soil Mixing:

In Situ Soil Mixing is used to create structural elements for foundations and retaining walls, soil improvement, and in situ treatments of buried contaminates. It is also used with specialized cementing and chemical reagents for hazardous waste treatment, sludge stabilization / solidification, lagoon stabilization, chemical oxidation, and for constructing underground vertical barriers for groundwater containment.

New Applications of In Situ Soil Mixing:

The in situ treatment of contaminated soils and groundwater with reactive media is a new and growing application for In Situ Soil Mixing. Regents such as zero valent iron, certain clays, carbon, oxidants, and reactive media can be economically introduced and mixed to treat chemical hot spots using Deep Soil Mixing and Shallow Soil Mixing. Geo-Solutions has been at the forefront of this type of application. We help formulate workable and practical soil / grout mixtures that can be used for sludge stabilization and the successful treatment of certain other toxic contaminants.

 

-->

Bio-Polymer Drains: 

Bio-Polymer (BP) Slurry Trenches are trenches or French drains constructed for draining, diverting or collecting groundwater or leachate. Bio-Polymer drains are typically used when in-the-dry installation methods are not feasible or unnecessarily expensive. The Bio-Polymer method is a modified slurry trench technique that temporarily supports deep and narrow trench walls below the groundwater table using a degradable polymer instead of bentonite slurry. Usually, a hydraulic excavator digs the drainage trench while the polymer slurry supports the trench walls. After the trench is backfilled, the slurry is degraded or reversed back to water and a minute amount of non-toxic residue leaving a fully functional drainage trench.

Groundwater and Leachate Collection, Reactive Barriers, Air Sparging, and Toe Drains:

Since their introduction into the USA in the 1980’s, Bio-Polymer trenches have been used on a variety of projects where steel sheet piling, trench boxes, mass excavation and/or dewatering have traditionally been used. The Bio-Polymer drainage trench method is much faster, safer, and less expensive than traditional methods and has been used in applications up to 80 ft deep. Typical applications include: 

 Landfill leachate collection

 Reactive barriers

 Toe drains for earthen dams

 Air sparging

 Groundwater collection for pump and treat systems.

Often Bio-Polymer trenches are combined with slurry walls for groundwater collection and containment using the same basic construction technique to create the barrier and the drain.

The Bio-Polymer method creates a narrow, open slot in the earth that permits the installation of most construction materials. Unlike bentonite slurry trenches, the polymer used in the slurry does not plug the formation, so groundwater can be collected in the drainage trench after the polymer is degraded. Because the polymer can degrade naturally, speed and expertise are required on every project, including groundwater collection and leachate collection. Plastic pipes and geo-fabrics float in the Bio-Polymer slurry.

-->

Permeable Reactive Barrier Wall Technologies:

A permeable reactive barrier wall or Insitu Chemical Reduction (ISCR) are technologies that remediate contaminated groundwater and soil without mass excavation, disposal or conventional "pump and treat" methods. Usually, a treatment media, or reactive barrier, is buried in a narrow trench beneath the ground surface so that contaminated groundwater passes through the media, and it emerges 'clean' because contaminates are treated and/or removed by the reactive barrier. Typical treatment media used as a permeable reactive barrier wall include granular iron, activated carbon, engineered bacteria, chemicals, and special clays.

-->

Permeable Reactive Barrier Wall Illustration

-->

Remediate and treat contaminated groundwater with a Permeable Reactive Barrier Wall (PRB):

Often, slurry walls are used to funnel the groundwater toward a reactive media gate; this type of installation is called a "funnel and gate". Special construction considerations are needed for installing reactive barrier walls to ensure the design life of the media and to be cost-effective. Since any permeable reactive barrier wall must be buried deep underground and below the groundwater table, geotechnical methods are quite useful in minimizing excavation volumes, eliminating dewatering, and reducing costs.

On some sites, the reactive media can be applied directly to the contamination instead of through a funnel and gate. Usually, these sites have lower groundwater flows and the contamination is less mobile. For these sites, In Situ Soil Mixing with ISCR provides an ideal method for applying the reactive materials directly without excavation or dewatering. In-situ treatment using soil mixing is usually much less expensive than off-site disposal and completely avoids excavation and transportation costs.