One of the problems with the oil (kerogen) in oil shale is that it is not mature enough (i.e. close enough to being an oil) that it will easily flow through the rock. In earlier parts of this particular theme, I have written about mining the rock and then heating it in retorts as a way of transforming the kerogen and recovering it for use. I have also, somewhat tongue in cheek, discussed using nuclear weapons to heat the rock so that the transformation can take place without moving the rock, while breaking the rock at the same time, and the unlikely potential for burning some of the oil within the deposit to power the transformation of the rest. While it might work in a heavy oil sand, is not likely to be realistically practical for the finer grained shales. But there are ways of adding somewhat less heat to the rock than using a nuclear bomb, and that will be the topic for today.

This is a continuation of the technical posts that I usually write on Sundays.

While I am largely going to bypass the use of nuclear power (apart from that of providing electrical power) in this piece, the potential use of nuclear power to heat penetrators that allow rapid drilling of weak rock has been partially demonstrated. As I have mentioned previously, Los Alamos National Lab, in looking at different methods for drilling, had come up with the idea of using a small nuclear reactor to provide sufficient heat to a ceramic probe that it would melt its way into the ground, pushing the molten rock to one side, and providing a glass lining to the resulting tunnel.

By the way, this has not been used to create the network of tunnels under this country in an idea beloved of some, it has been demonstrated. Not with a nuclear source, but with more conventional heating, Los Alamos drilled drainage holes at the Tyuoni pueblo plaza for drainage in 1973. A total of eight drainage holes were drilled at this archeological site in the Bandelier National Monument.

The first significant step in the Subterrene technology transfer program occurred when eight water drainage holes were melted with a field demonstration unit at the Rainbow House and Tyuonyi archaeological ruins at Bandelier National Monument in New Mexico in cooperation with the National Park Service. By utilizing a consolidation penetrator, the required glass-lined drainage holes were made without creating debris or endangering the ruins from mechanical vibrations.

At around the same time Dr George Clark, at what was then the University of Missouri-Rolla (now Missouri University of Science and Technology) had used ceramic electrical heaters in rock to raise rock temperatures enough to fracture and break out blocks of granite.

Field tests have therefore been able to take rock up to temperatures that are high enough to melt rock, using electrical heaters placed in holes in the rock. Which is a good introduction to the Mahogany Project in which Shell have been using electrical heaters to heat oil shale in place, to high enough temperatures that the kerogen transforms into a light oil. The investigation has been going on for some 25 years starting in the laboratory, and has progressed through an initial field trial.

Small holes are drilled down through the rock to house the electric heating coils, which slowly raise the temperature of the rock to between 600 and 750 deg F, at which temperature the kerogen will convert, depending on what is there, to a mixture of light oil and natural gas. These fuels can be recovered by drilling conventional wells into the rock, with typical depths at the test site being in the 1,000 to 2,000 ft range.

The Shell Mahogany Technology

The field trial placed heaters in a grid over a 30 ft by 40 ft test area and found that a third of the volume produced was natural gas was produced from the lower grade layers of the shale above the layers with the highest concentrations of kerogen (the Mahogany layer) which produced the light oil.

Array of heaters at a Shell test site

A total of 1,700 barrels of the light oil was recovered during the test period.

Production from the Shell test wells in oil shale

While the Bureau of Land Management has approved further sites for tests, the program is waiting to see what happens to the price of oil to determine whether or not the program will be sufficiently economically viable to move forward. At present this decision is anticipated to be in the middle of this decade, by which time it may be a little clearer whether the Cornucopians or some of the rest of us have been more accurate in our predictions on the future availability of sufficient oil to meet global demands at an affordable price. But it is the level of that affordable price that will decide whether the oil shale program is viable.

The costs of the project will not just have to cover the heating of the rock. One of the problems with the site is that there is some migration of water through the rock, and this can create two problems. The first is that it pulls heat away from the transformation process and the second is that it can interfere in the overall process itself. To stop the water flow (and concurrently the risk of transformed oil and gas migrating away from the collector wells) Shell has been looking into building an ice wall around the site to hold the water back.

Ground freezing is growing more popular as a tool for dealing with water underground. It has been used, for example, to stabilize the ground while the Boston Big Dig (the Central Artery/Tunnel project) was built and in stabilizing the ground for some of the underground stations in the London Tube network (including the collapse of one of the excavations). It has been used to hold back the water while uranium ore was mined at MacArthur River. Simply described, a dual pipe system is placed in vertical holes, and a freezing solution (usually a brine) is circulated through them, lowering the temperature of the rock to the point that the water freezes. Since the lowered temperature is distributed around the holes, there is no need to intersect any of the fractures, or voids, and the frozen water also helps to strengthen the rock where needed.

For the Mahogany Project test, which began in 2007, the freezing liquid was ammonia, and the test used a pattern of 157 holes drilled eight-feet apart, to a depth of 1,800 ft. The test removed the groundwater from within the well, but did not heat the rock to produce the oil and gas.

It will be interesting to see how this project turns out. It has been suggested that the technology would need a dedicated power source of some 1.2 gigawatts, in order to yield a production of 100,000 bd. Shell estimates it will yield 3-4 energy units for every unit consumed.

Layout of freezing pipes for the Shell Mahogany tests.

As usual with these technical posts, they can only briefly outline a process, if something is not clear please ask in comments, or if there is more information available, we all gain from reading of it.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Hanford backers want B Reactor in national park (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Study rules out Hanford reactor as park (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Iran and Pakistan sign gas deal (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Israel, Syria announce nuclear energy ambitions (ctv.ca)
• Energy Concerns: A Nuclear Mideast (abcnews.go.com)
• Hanford supporters want B Reactor in nat’l park (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• U.S. Nuclear Labs Raise Doubts Over Arsenals (nytimes.com)

In the resource depletion soup, one ingredient looms large ? social equity. Equality is a function of population, social status aspirations and resources. With a small population, everyone can have reasonable equality. With unlimited resources, the same (although the amplitude generated by law of large numbers will exert outsized social pull from the top). But with large populations AND limits to resources, equity can only be reasonably attained if the activities that generate rank are not resource intensive. Via globalized markets, the cross border pursuit of profits has gradually morphed into a cross border pursuit of goals – money has become a global proxy for power and thus for status and money (profits) is a resource intensive international goal. Tonight’s campfire takes yet another look at one of my oft-written about oildrum topics: how we compete for social status while facing limits to growth.

“Wealth – any income that is at least one hundred dollars more a year than the income of one’s wife’s sister’s husband.”
H. L. Mencken

Between at least Jason and myself, there have been over a dozen posts on TheOilDrum relating to status, resource competition, being happier with less, and changing societal carrot away from Veblen goods and conspicuous consumption. It seems a general theme is that once basic needs are met, relative status matters much more than absolute. I apologize I can’t neatly compress all this into a concise post, but here’s an update: (and here is a primer on the Psychological Roots of Resource Overconsumption, itself in need of an update).

In a new study on the rank income hypothesis a team led by psychologist Christopher Boyce studied over 80,000 people, their incomes, and overall life satisfaction. The researchers found that the ranked position of an individual?s income predicted life satisfaction, whereas absolute income and reference income had no effect. This should be no surprise to any biologist familiar with the concept of relative fitness or sexual selection, but zero of the 30 references in the paper referenced biology or any of the evolutionary explanations of our neural penchant to compare ourselves to others.

Our study underlines concerns regarding the pursuit of economic growth. There are fixed amounts of rank in society?only one individual can be the highest earner. Thus, pursuing economic growth, although it remains a key political goal, might not make people any happier. The rank-income hypothesis may explain why increasing the incomes of all may not raise the happiness of all, even though wealth and happiness are correlated within a society at a given point in time.

Although general intuition tells us that having a good social standing makes us feel good, the idea that a good reputation is a ‘reward’ just like money has long been just an assumption. Recent neuro-imaging experiments however have shown that both reputation/rank and monetary rewards are processed in the same brain region – the striatum.

“We found that the brain reacts very strongly to the other players and specifically the status of the other players,” Zink says. “We weren’t expecting that profound a response,” she adds, noting that the subjects seemed to be concerned with the hierarchy within the game even when it was of no consequence to how much money they could make.

These types of economic studies showing that relative vs absolute levels of consumption/wealth are potent drivers have been studied for a long time, since the Easterlin Paradox became a hot topic in the 1970s. One example was economist Robert Franks simple study asking people if they would prefer living in a 4,000 square foot house where all the neighboring houses were 6,000 square feet or a 3,000 square foot house where the surrounding houses were 2,000 square feet ? the majority of people chose the latter ? smaller absolute but higher relative size. Though high perceived relative fitness is a powerful behavioral carrot for individuals, the inevitable resulting inequality has pernicious effects on societies: eroding trust, increasing anxiety and illness, and excessive consumption. Health steadily worsens as one descends the social ladder, even within the upper and middle classes. These are just some examples of the growing research highlighting not only that we care enormously about our social pecking orders but the wider the variation in rank the worse of we are.

Is it an advantage to live in a light blue state? (GINI in graphic is GINI *100)

The GINI coefficient is a measure of wealth or income equality – a GINI of 1 means one person has all the wealth and everyone else has nothing – a GINI of 0 means everyone has the same wealth. In addition to having an interest in this type of research, I also happen to experiencing it in real time. I make less money now than I have in 20 years (actually I make no money and am drawing down savings and at this pace I estimate I’ll go broke in September of 2016). But this would just be broke financially – I’m now surrounded by a social group that cares about non-pecuniary pursuits and accomplishments. Sure – none of us are starving or broke, but the day to day pressure of keeping up with the Joneses by getting on the financial/Veblen good treadmill are absent in my geographic circle. Jones lives in my neighborhood as well, but his signals are absent. (I remember sitting in a cubicle with 10 other guys at Salomon Brothers 11 hours a day cold calling billionaires. The neural correlation between ‘rank’ and ‘money’ was about 99% back then. The main lessons I learned then were a) the wealthy were no happier than the clerks processing their trades, b) status and wealth were cumulative but the dopaminergic reward pathways reset every morning and c) those who achieved power and status would not give it up without an intense fight.)

In a society with significant overall surpluses, people who actively lower their own economic and ecological footprint might get by very well, because their relative status – which is typically above average – allows them to make those reductions without reaching limits that compromise their well-being. These people have an opportunity to redefine what sort of ?capital? we compete for ? as they allocate time and resources away from financial marker capital and towards social, human, built and natural assets. These people above the median in social status can make better choices for their own lives, though in the end the odds are that what we compete for will not change by volition but by circumstances.

And, on the flip side of the ‘less-is-more’ bandwagon, is the fact that biological organisms, including and especially humans, always consume surplus resources (Maximum Power Principle and all that.) Total equality in resource use is as much of a myth as a benevolent dictator telling us our optimal allocations. We will always seek status and have social hierarchies in human society. And higher ranking males and females, on average, will have higher respect, admiration and as a consequence, higher/more mating opportunities, consistent with the evolved raison d’etre of rank.

In my career as a trader and consultant, I often witnessed that the seemingly most unacceptable solution ended up being the best. Perhaps the fact that 80% of resources are being consumed by 20% of the people would be improved in aggregate if we went towards less equality and had 90% of resources consumed by 10% of people, as long as it killed the aspiration of others towards conspicuous consumption (well, it might not kill the aspiration, but perhaps the means). Although I understand the academic arguments of both sides and the historical importance of equality, I sometimes wonder if pursuing a blanket policy of more equity would be worse for the planet. Certainly it would if economic growth continues as an objective as many more people are joining the party very late in the game. In any case, unless we first understand and then integrate demand side constraints such as the ‘rank income hypothesis’ into our policies, culture and institutions, sustainability will be another receding horizon.

Finally, the biggest aspect of ‘rank’ that concerns me now is the large swaths of demographics that are in fear of their social rank vis-a-vis their fellow Americans (or Earthlings) changing due to new political rules, bailouts, regulations etc. I don’t agree with what our government is doing right now either, but I wish people that respond to change like Tea-Partiers or health-care rioters, etc. would understand the broader backdrop of our running into exponential growth limitations will require across the board sacrifice and reduction of living standards in aggregate. Unfortunately, without this knowledge of ecological limits, all sacrifice and lower living standards, both within and between nations, are likely to be ‘perceived’ as relative rank drops for those affected. And we’re already seeing hints of the likely responses.

Our government (and others) continue to at least attempt to level the playing field via what can best be described as stealth nationalization. Increasingly the government trough is making up a larger % of the feedlot, both on the wage side and on the debt side. At each new turn however, spreading the social equality safety net wider is taking another hefty chomp out of our currency and sovereign health. What I hadn’t realized before but that is taking on increasing relevance, is that the coming debt deflation and currency reforms are likely to automatically lower the GINI, as significant paper wealth will eventually disappear. Instead of viewing currency reform and a reshuffling of claims as either inevitable and/or frightening, perhaps we can come up with a creative, not-too-disruptive plan where financial descent is paired with aspiration descent so that energy descent is more manageable.

I don’t know but am open to suggestions.

===========================================================================================
Campfire Questions

1. How can we use our increasing understanding of status, resources, and the neuroscience of human behavior to influence/create a more benign future?

2. Competition with con-specifics is part of our heritage. But so is cooperation and empathy. What level of wealth disparity would be healthy and/or tolerable for future of US society? Might less equality be a good thing?

3. How might the debt/financial crisis be an opportunity towards making headway on issues of social equity, both within the United States, and between the United States and other, less well off countries?

4. Any good ideas on how to change our status/aspiration metric away from conspicuous consumption?(this has been asked before but is important enough to throw out to this lateral thinking crew, on occasion).

5. Can you think of creative ways to downsize your own aspirations by changing social groups?

Answer any/all you’d like to. I’ll kick off the discussion by quoting from one of Herman Daly’s guest posts on theoildrum, on this same topic.

Limit the range of inequality in income distribution?a minimum income and a maximum income. Without aggregate growth poverty reduction requires redistribution. Complete equality is unfair; unlimited inequality is unfair. Seek fair limits to the range of inequality. The civil service, the military, and the university manage with a range of inequality of a factor of 15 or 20. Corporate America has a range of 500 or more. Many industrial nations are below 25. Could we not limit the range to, say, 100, and see how it works? People who have reached the limit could either work for nothing at the margin if they enjoy their work, or devote their extra time to hobbies or public service. The demand left unmet by those at the top will be filled by those who are below the maximum. A sense of community necessary for democracy is hard to maintain across the vast income differences current in the US. Rich and poor separated by a factor of 500 become almost different species. The main justification for such differences has been that they stimulate growth, which will one day make everyone rich. This may have had superficial plausibility in an empty world, but in our full world it is a fairy tale.

We all want to live in an equitable world where everyone has the same opportunities to achieve happiness and freedom. But unfortunately, many governments fail to protect their citizens, allowing big corporations to set up shop without proper guidelines to ensure fair wages, benefits, and basic human rights.

The practice of fair trade works to help communities being taken advantage of by corporate greed. It aims to fight for fair wages, humane labour conditions, and environmental sustainability. Some of the industries most affected by unfair labour practices are coffee, tea, chocolate, cut flowers, fruit, jewelry, and apparel.

Garstang fairtrade town

There are many organizations fighting for fair trade practices around the world, but mostly in Latin America, Asia, and Africa:
â?¢ Equal Exchange: Certifies chocolate, tea, almonds, pecans, cranberries, and sugar
â?¢ Fair Trade Federation: Covers almost any imaginable product, including food, flowers, jewelry, clothing, and more
â?¢ TransFairUSA: Certifies coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, fruit, rice, flowers, and wine
â?¢ VeriFlora: Certifies cut flowers that are also sustainably grown
â?¢ World Fair Trade Organization: Certifies a very wide range of products, including clothing, food, beverages, jewelry, and so on

Unfortunately, not all is crystal clear in the world of fair trade. Fair Trade Certified coffee in particular has been attacked by some who suggest that coffeeâ??s low price is a result of overproduction and not unfair labour practices. They claim that by focusing on fair trade rather than finding other crops for farmers to grow, fair trade organizations are perpetuating a broken system. Itâ??s hard to say whether these problems are true. Most still believe that purchasing fair trade at least means their personal dollars are going to support ethical companies. Weâ??ll leave it to you to decide for yourself.

Want one source for all of your Fair Trade goods? Check out the Fair Trade Online Store that sells coffee, chocolate, tea, food, clothing and accessories, jewelry, and more, all from various fair trade organizations. And for more information on fair trade labels, go to the Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International site.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Fair Trade: What Price for Good Coffee? (time.com)
• Fair Trade: What Price for Good Coffee? (time.com)
• Fair Trade Month: Your Dollars Can Make A Difference (Video) (takepart.com)

When i first read Ali’s post ‘Surfs up’ about Google’s CO2 emissions i have to admit i was kind of edgy, i mean i work in digtal marketing and Google takes up 8 hours of my day, every day and most weekends (sad i know). According to the report i was making the CO2 version of 1,000’s of cups of tea a day, and even though i love tea, i couldnt drink that much even if it had been sold to me by the delicious Mr Stephen Fry. No, i read the post and i huffed and puffed and avoided my laptop for a while and then i sat down and thought about it.

Googles carbon footprint calculator

I mean, when i comes to the grand scheme of things, Google do pretty well as a provider of their magnitude so much so that they have a full time person that maintains the data centers to keep them running as effectively and as eco friendly (i suppose you would say) as possible. Apparantly the Times were given an interveiw with one of these people, but it never saw the light of day. Now of course, you’ll say i am going to defend Google, i work in the industry and run a blog. Your right, but, i also took some time to look at the bigger picture of all global industry.

Greenhouse gas emissions per sector for 1 year

As you can see from the above chart we have alot of areas to target, Google is merely a tip of the dwindling ice berg and one that unlike some of the other industry’s would not be allowed to get away with cutting corners “i’m guessing anyway”.

I do however totally agree with Ali, that we should all be more mindful of our usage and extend that into our off line lives to make up for our usage on line. Minkbaby are looking to set up a monitor very soon to check our impact and i imagine with the new light shed on Google that they will be considering alternatives to power its huge data centers if it hasnt already.

I have to admit that my eye is firmly on alternative energy at the moment and i am considering, given the examples of author ‘James Lovelock’ that nuclear is quite likely our only real chance of making a difference at such a late stage of the game.

Nite folks, sleep well.. and to others good morning. I’ll get my nuclear post out later in the week, i’m still chewing over the whole idea.

Related articles by Zemanta

• 10 Ways To Reduce Your Blogging Carbon Footprint
• Dow Corning Alternative Energy Survey
• The Inexact Science of Carbon Neutrality (Slashdot)
• Google and Newspapers
• How IT can cut carbon emissions

Saving money and energy with the Eco Button

I have been looking around for the eco button and found that alot of the well known eco stores such as Nigels eco store and all things green charge over £14.00 not including P&P, so i decided to look else where.

Eco Button Energy Saver

If you are looking for an eco button may i recommend a few places that over them under £14.00 with free postage

• Eco Button from Play.com £9.99 (free delivery)
• Eco Button from Daytodayshop £12.99 (free delivery)
• Eco Button from Amazon £11.99 (free delivery)

I hope that this is helpful and please feel free to leave a comment to say if your ordering process and delivery was satisfactory and that the product worked.