Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDevelopment of Appropriate Technology for Remote Complex Regions est 1998WHITE PAPER -001 DEVELOPMENT OF APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY FOR REMOTE COMPLEX REGIONS Prepared by Robert H.Trent,Ph,D.,P.E. Dean,School of Mineral Engineering University of Alaska Fairbanks Fairbanks,Alaska Thomas W.Eagar,Ph.D. Posco Professor of Materials Engineering Head,Department of Materials Science and Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge,Massachusetts Carol E.Lewis,Ph.D.,M.B.A. Head,Department of Resources Management School of Agriculture and Land Resources Management Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station University of Alaska Fairbanks Fairbanks,Alaska The only industries which generate wealth are mining,agriculture (including forestry)and manufacturing.Other industries such as banking,education,defense, health,and tourism depend on them for generation of all resources necessary for society to function.The United States government has invested heavily in developing agricultural,mining and manufacturing technologies for the temperate regions of the country.Its investment in improving and sustaining productivity in the less densely populated and more remote and complex regions of the less temperate regions, particularly Alaska,has been meager. The mining industry,in its search for rich deposits,has often been the vehicle that carried modern civilization into remote corners of the world.It was followed closely by agriculture and forestry as demands for food,clothing and shelter increased. Manufacturing soon added value to the raw materials produced. Pioneering ventures were usually small operations,carried out with small,often primitive equipment.In today's world economy,with modern,massive equipment mining and petroleum operations are massive,both economically and physically,even in remote areas.Their closely associated partners,agriculture and forestry have developed with a similar pattern. The breaking of the frontier is the history of Alaska.Today,income from extraction of oil supports the state's economy.Alaska did not,however,move naturally Ca Navel?Dear into the manufacturing stage of frontier development.It remains an extractive state and imports almost all of its food and fiber products. There are numerous opportunities scattered throughout Alaska for mining and forestry operations.Technological and scientific advances make operations possible that are compatible with small communities in remote locations.Though perhaps not prominent in global commodity marketing circles,smaller mineral deposits and value- added forest product production may nevertheless present viable opportunities for the local economy.New approaches in terms of economic justification,acceptable environmental impact,and physical operations will be necessary to pursue these opportunities. It is no coincidence that pioneer mining operations often produced very high value products like gold.If typically lower value materials (including lower value minerals and forest products)are to be economically viable,local value-added technologies must be developed to overcome the inevitable costs of transportation from remote locations.A relatively modest investment in economically appropriate and environmentally acceptable technologies for remote and complex regions can create new jobs in rural areas,lessen the environmental impact of resource extraction and support the local economy to equalize the standard of living within the state and ease tax burdens throughout the state. Transportation costs,lack of infrastructure,inadequate workforce and protection of the environment can present seemingly insurmountable barriers to creation of diverse new mining,agricultural/forestry or manufacturing operations.One way to reduce these barriers is development of appropriate technologies to reduce the size of operations and investments.Current technology,for example,could require capital investments of $300 million for a wood pulping plant or a new mining operation;each could require up to 500 employees.A new oil and gas field requires billions in investment capital.These figures present a major barrier to development of resources.Additionally,the resource base must be enormous and there is a good potential for significant environmental impact. Smaller scale facilities (e.g.$5 to $10 million in capital),if feasible,would reduce the required infrastructure,the size of the workforce,and environmental impact. Production would be distributed throughout Alaska permitting smaller mineral deposits and forest stands (or lower allowable cuts)to be added to the state's producing resource base.Further,new,equitable wage-paying jobs would be available in rural areas allowing people to maintain their cultural lifeways. Examples of production facilities scaled to communities and resources can be envision in both forestry and mining.Forest product production in the Alaska is largely round logs,chips,and until recently,pulp.Transportation costs are prohibitive for these low-value products and often cutting is on an unacceptable large scale.Production of higher valued products will bring change to the industry.By converting cellulose to plastics or chemicals,transportation costs can be reduced as can the raw product required. The increase in product value could conceivably be 10 to 100 fold.Microchemical reactors have been created in recent years.Such reactors may be adaptable to smaller scale processing of forest products.Thousands of pounds rather than millions of pounds of wood fiber could be converted to high value plastics and chemicals.Small stands of forests (low allowable cuts)could be used in areas distributed throughout Alaska and in remote regions reducing impact to the boreal forest. Smaller scale production would permit economic extraction from smaller mineral deposits requiring less water,less excavation and reduced environmental impact.By coupling mining operations with appropriate technology,most likely utilizing gas,coal or electricity,metal can be shipped rather than ore.This not only reduces the weight of the material transported,but greatly increases its value and reduces transportation costs.As an example of a mini-mine,consider a community of 100 to 500 people located near a relatively small and conventionally uneconomical ore deposit.If the community is also located near an energy source such as coal,a river,or a gas deposit,a small-scale electrical plant can be put in place using modern fuel cell technology or hydroelectric generators.Fuel cells are now being produced in the 100 KW class by such firms as Westinghouse and United Technologies.These fuel cells produce sufficient power to service the community,the mining operation and ore reduction processing at a lesser cost than conventional diesel generators.The capital investment can be reduced 50 to 100 fold,and jobs are created for 20 to 30 families. Another technology appropriate for remote communities is a mini-utility.The fuel cell is one such technology as is a low head (10 feet)hydroelectric generator producing 100 KW.Other mini-utilities such as water desalination by freezing or supercritical water oxidation of sewage are examples of technologies which can be scaled to sizes appropriate to smaller communities often found in remote areas. The development of mini-industrial processes based on agriculture/forestry or mining as well as mini-utilities capable of servicing communities of 100-500 people could be combined to provide a modern standard of living and wage-paying jobs. Environmental impact would be reduced when compared to relatively huge mines and forest product production associated with traditional practices.By reducing the scale of the industry application and infrastructure required,the amount of investment capital is also reduced.Lower grade mineral deposits and smaller allowable cuts in the forests become economically viable. The partnership of MIT and UA has the technology and expertise to design and build such facilities.We only need the will and the resources to make it happen.We can create a new economic concept for remote regions based in the vast resources previously untapped.This will add to the diversity of Alaska's economic base and enhance its economic prosperity.It will also contribute to the prosperity and productivity of the nation as a whole by adding value to previously raw resources.New technologies will make these manufactured resource products competitive and add to the tax base of the federal government and the state. ANNUAL REPORT OF PROGRESS DEVELOPMENT OF APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY FOR REMOTE COMPLEX REGIONS The University of Alaska/Massachusetts Institute of Technology Partnership PURPOSE OF THE PARTNERSHIP The United States government has invested heavily in developing value-added technologies for the forestry and mining industries in temperate regions of the United States. There has been less interest in development in the less temperate regions that are not densely populated and more remote;the western states,particularly Alaska.Indeed,current U.S.policy dictates preservation rather than sustainable development of resources. The University of Alaska/Massachusetts Institute of Technology (UA/MIT)Partnership was formed to facilitate transfer of appropriate technologies to enhance economic development in the forestry and mining industries in Alaska.The combination of the experience of MIT scientists in technology development and transfer and the expertise in resource inventory, productivity and socio/cultural interactions and economics of scientists in the UA system is ideal to facilitate economic development in Alaska. PROGRESS TO DATE The UA/MIT Partnership has focused on identifying appropriate technologies for application in the forestry and mining industries in Alaska,establishing contacts in the private sector both in Alaska and outside the state,and preparing proposals for funding. The partnership has expanded its focus in recent months to include oil and gas.The reason for this expansion is the importance of energy in the development of industries in mining and forestry.In remote areas of Alaska,alternative as well as conventional sources of energy and appropriate delivery technologies must be considered if economic development is to be encouraged. APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGIES IDENTIFIED Mining Industry e Energy technology to increase terminal temperature of concentrate to a near molten state Forest Industry e Acoustic tomography to determine internal defects in standing trees e Wood hardening using an electromagnetic and compression process to increase strength and hardness of wood species that would not otherwise have commercial application as building materials e Microwave technology for use in the production of engineered wood products such as plywood and strandboard Energy Applications e Fuel Cell development using natural gas and coal bed methane e Gas to liquid conversion of natural gas for oil pipeline transport e Acoustic tomography to determine internal defects in utility poles PRIVATE SECTOR CONTACTS Through the efforts of the MIT executive director of the UA/MIT Partnership,we have established contacts within the wood products industry.Those who have expressed an interest are Raytheon through its acquisition of RUST,and CelluTech,the developers (with MIT engineers)of the wood hardening process. The efforts of the UA executive directors have resulted in potential partnerships in both the forest products and mining industries.Three Alaska Native Regional Corporations have indicated partnerships would be beneficial:Sealaska in forestry and Doyon and CIRI in mining. We havea letter of support from Sealaska.The Tanana Chiefs Conference,Inc.,a non-profit interior Alaska Native corporation will be a cooperator on the development of the acoustic tomography device to image internal defects of standing trees.A letter from their chief forester indicates their overall support.In addition to the regional corporations,a potential partner, Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Office,a state agency holding properties with both timber and mineral resources,also supports us. Warren Taylor,a private sector investor,and will provide $180,000 in match to support the development of small,high grade mineral deposits in rural Alaska.The investment will be used for completing the development of the appropriate energy technology and investigating economic feasibility.The two deposits of interest are the chromate deposit at Red Mountain located on the Kenai Peninsula,and the bornite copper deposit in the Brooks Range of northern Alaska. INITIATIVES The UA/MIT Partnership developed five federal initiatives addressing research, technology development and transfer,and economic assessment for appropriate technologies for the forest and mining industries in Alaska (attached with letters of support).These were presented to the Alaska delegation in March 1998.They were forwarded through the delegation to the Appropriations Committee chaired by Senator Ted Stevens.They were not funded in this congressional session. Initiative 1.Alaska's Forest Industry:Acoustic Tomography to Determine Internal Defects in Standing Trees (C.E.Lewis [UA],Roger Turpening [MIT],and Robert Ott [Tanana Chiefs Conference]) Initiative 2.Small,High Grade Mineral Deposits in Rural Alaska (Robert Trent [UA], Sukumar Bandopadhyay [UA],and Daniel Fine [MIT]) Initiative 3.|Forestry and Mining Industry Economic Impact Analvsis for Alaska (C.E.Lewis [UA],Keith R.Criddle [Utah State],and Hans Geier [UA]) Initiative 4.Wood Hardening:A Technology for Lesser Valued Species in Alaska's Forests (T.Alan Hatton and Paul E.Laibinis [MIT],with CelluTech,Milford MA) Initiative 5.|Microwave Technology in the Production of Engineered Wood Products (Paul E. Laibinis [MIT]with Engineered Wood Consulting and EWES Enterprises,MA) PROPOSALS The UA executive directors of the UA/MIT Partnership are aware of the critical need for peer review of all proposals that might require research/technology development input.For each proposal,a request for proposals will be prepared and appropriate institutions/private industry groups will be asked to bid including MIT.We have established a review process for these proposals (attached). The U.S.Department of Energy indicates that a proposal for the design and testing of high temperature ceramic seals for application in the oil industry will be funded.Total funding will be $3 million for two years.The lead will be the School of Mineral Engineering at UAF with contractors British Petroleum,University of Houston,University of Missouri-Rolla,and University of Chicago.A fifth request for proposals is being prepared with MIT one of the bidders. There is interest in establishing an Appropriate Technology Development Center to be headquartered in Anchorage.Discussions are underway with the Alaska Congressional delegation,representatives of the Massachusetts legislature,the University of Alaska,and MIT. Further discussion will take place in Washington DC in late September 1998. A proposal is being prepared by the UA/MIT Partnership to the Alaska Science and Technology Foundation to field test and develop a prototype for the acoustic tomography technology to determine internal defects in trees is being prepared.The principal contractor will be the Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station at UAF with MIT and the Tanana Chiefs Conference,Inc.as subcontractors. PEER REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE UA/MIT PARTNERSHIP Carol E.Lewis Professor,Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station and Executive Director,UA/MIT Partnership Robert Trent Director School of Mineral Engineering and Executive Director,UA/MIT Partnership Reference: PROPOSAL TO: MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE (MMS) BOOK /SYNTHESIS OF INFORMATION ON SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS OF OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES IN ALASKA SOLICITATION NO.1435-01-98-RP-30914 and NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH SCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE PEER REVIEW OF PROPOSALS FOR THE UA/MIT PARTNERSHIP The process we propose has been used by the North Slope Borough to review proposals for scientific research directly impacting the borough's economic development process.It was modified to include author's of manuscripts for a text synthesizing the Minerals Management Service's 160 documents that address socioeconomic impacts of oil and gas development activities in Alaska. The Scientific Review Committee is effectively a "filing cabinet”of resumes of persons interested in and having expertise in specific economic/resource development in Alaska.When proposals are brought forward in response to specific calls or requests for proposals,those persons with expertise relevant to the issue are asked to serve as members of the Scientific Review Committee. The persons serving on the Scientific Review Committee,as constituted for the MMS document and the North Slope Borough,are compensated at the rate of $400 per day plus travel and per diem.The average review takes place in two to three days.The committee submits a report of its findings at the end of its meeting. Peer review for the UA/MIT Partnership need not be a face-to-face meeting.It can rather be by mail,fax,or email.There need not be compensation for reviewers.However, this option should be open should controversial proposals be submitted in response to any requests for proposals. We submit the following as an example of a very detailed process for peer review. Our suggestions for modifications for the UA/MIT Partnership follow. EXAMPLE:Scientific Review Committee for MMS (Detailed manuscript peer review Coordinate authors and peer reviewers -Coordination of authors and peer reviewers includes our Scientific Review Committee.This committee is charged with quality assurance and quality control for the project. Collect and compile manuscripts -The scientific editor will receive draft manuscripts from authors and provide an initial review for content,clarity,and source verification.If necessary,the manuscript will be returned to the author for revisions.The revised manuscripts will then be collected from authors by the scientific editor,and compiled for peer review by our SRC,an MMS review committee and the contracting officer's technical representative. Provide scientific and technical editors - a.)Scientific editor The scientific editor will develop a peer-review form;review the author-prepared sub- chapter manuscripts;edit manuscripts for scientific content and clarity;coordinate author review,revisions and approval;compile author-revised sub-chapter manuscripts for peer review process by reviewers,committee member,and MMS.The scientific editor will be responsible for development of key words for inclusion in the book index.The scientific editor will also meet with the publisher twice annually for up to three days per trip to track progress and review galleys,etc.,during the final year of the project. b.)Technical editor The technical editor will serve from start to finish of project.Technical editing will include (but is not limited to):correction for grammar,syntax,clarity,spelling, punctuation,and final cross-checks for figures,tables,charts,maps and other graphics, comparison of heading titles with the table of contents,and checking overall organization and structure.Ms.Townsend will also be responsible for all word processing input on this project.She will coordinate graphics and illustrations with Sea Grant experts. Arrange peer review of manuscripts -The review process consists of 16 steps.The first eight steps of the review process specifically apply to peer review of manuscripts. REVIEW PROCESS 1.Manuscripts written by authors 2.Manuscripts to scientific editor,then to technical editor 3.Manuscripts returned to authors for revision if necessary 4.Manuscripts returned to scientific editor 5.Manuscripts to three blind reviewers 6.Reviewers'comments to scientific editor 7.Scientific editor distributes peer review comments to authors 8.Authors revise manuscripts in response to reviewers'and scientific editor's comments 9.Revised manuscripts sent to both UAF SRC and MMS internal review committee for 60-day reading and comment period 10.Written comments from UAF SRC and MMS sent to scientific editor 11.Joint Committee review meeting/scientific editor makes presentation 12.SRC and MMS prepare report with scientific editor 13.Scientific editor incorporates changes via report 14.Manuscripts sent to authors for final changes via report 15.Manuscripts returned to scientific editor 16.Recommend:Final Synthesis Workshop with UAF SRC and MMS Final technical editing -Revised manuscripts will receive a second technical edit and formatting check.Final technical editing will include (but is not limited to):correction for grammar,syntax,clarity,spelling,punctuation,and final cross-checks for figures,tables, charts,maps and other graphics,comparison of heading titles with the table of contents and checking overall organization and structure. Provide illustrations -One graphic artist will be assigned to work on this project.The services and equipment located at both Sea Grant and the Academic Services Center at Rasmuson Library to prepare illustrations to be used in the project.The technical editor, in concert with the graphic artist will develop the book cover.The book cover will be designed in collaboration with the MMS Review Committee and our Scientific Review Committee.