Helen S. Truscott ***************** The Ohio State ...

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

SLURRY PIPELINES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF COAL -

THEIR HISTORY AND STATUS

Senior Thesis

by

Helen S. Truscott

*****************

The Ohio State University

1985


OUTLINE

Introduction -Largest coal dep osits in world -use of coal -problems with western and eastern coals -slurry-what is it?

1)problems facing slurry industry a)eminent domain b)RR competition c)water

2)solutions to problems a)federal eminent domain b)state eminent domain c)aquisition of property

J)economics of slurry transport a)variable vs. fixed costs b)economy of scale c)consumer benefit

Successful Slurry Pipelines in U.S. t)Consolidation Coal

a)route b)purpose c)technical

!)pumping stations 2)flow J)amount transported

2)American Gilsonite a)route b)physical dimensions

J)Black Mesa a)rhysical dimensions b)route c)transit time/velocity of material d)source of coal e)personnel required f )problems !)clogging

g)solution to problem h)start-up and shutdown requirements

Proposed ETSI Pipeline 1)partners-coPporat1ons involved 2)route proposed J)technical aspects

a)length, dimensions b)pumping stations c)prep plants

4)CEP plant a)results of experiments

1)dewatering 2)storage of slurry J)meeting water requirements

5)Water situation a)Madison formation

1)stipulation b)Oahe Reservoir

1 )stipulation 2)supply J)aqueduct


4)reservoir detaiis 5)cost of water

6)why ETSI shelved? a)window program

Microbial Reduction of Sulfur !)organism-basic description 2)process

a)w::ter preparation b)"food" for organism c)enviroment

3)growth rate 4)factors affect amount removed 5)cost of plant

a)with dewaterin~ b)without dewatering

Economic Analysis of Pipeline Proposal t)BG&E contractor 2)coal source J)DCF analysis

!)expense and calculation 4)$ saved in the future

Other Methods of Slurry l)stabflow 2)oil agglomeration J)coal/oil dispersion 4)coaljmethanol 5)coaljliquid co2

Problems in Boiler Design to Burn CWS Fuel ilno coal facilities 2)minimize plant changes )}requirements for modification 4)ash content problems

Problems Facing the CWS Industry 1)maintain stable flame 2)complete burning ))combustion chamber 4)ash quantity lar~er

CWS Composition CWS cost vs. other costs Improve Market for CWS fuels

l)rise !~-~il'prices 2)r~duce CWS cost J)coal quali\r improvement 4)create domestic and export markets 5)successful demonstration.

AEP View i)their reode of transport 2)cost of east vs. west coal

Conclusmon

ii


INTRODUCTION

Today, we live in a world with a fluctuatin~ economy

and rising energy costs. Coal has been in the past, and is

presently, one of the cheapest sources of energy. Three

countries possess the majority of the world's coal resources,

these are: Russia, China, and the United States. Our

country is now attempting to become independent of foreign

energy supplies; coal will play an important role in achieving

this goal. The major use of coal is for generating electricity,

the burning of coal generates problems as well. Acid rain

is produced by the oxidation of sulfur (high concentrations

are found predominantly in eastern coal) which forms

sulfuric acid. The coal in the western United States

generally contains low sulfur concentrations. One solution

to the problem is to utilize western coal. The proble~

with western coal is the long distance to the major power

generating plants. (Refer to diagrB.!!l on p. 2). The

transportation costs of the western coal are expensive,

since the predominant mode of transportation is by rail.

To cut transportation costs the method of utilizing slurry

pipelines has been proposed. Slurrying, or transporting

coal by pipeline in a mixture of 50% water and 50~ pulverized

coal, has proved to be successful. The construction and

operation of the Consolidation Coal Pipeline in Ohio, and

the American Gilsonite Pipeline in Utah, both in operation

in 1957, marked the birth of a new transportation mode.

Since then slurry pipelines have been used throughout the

world to transport materials such as: coal, limestone, iron


WESTERN COAL DISTANCE TO MAJOR MARKETS

•

Source: Wasp, Thompson, "Slurry Pipelin~ - Energy Movers of the Future", Interpipe Conference, Hoston, Texas, November 1, 1973.

2

dittoe.1

Pencil


concentrate, gilsonite, copper tailings, kaolin, and gold

tailin~s. 1 (Refer to table on p. 4).

The major problems that are facinq slurry pipelines

today are to convince the utility companies that they are

a reliable source of coal, and to attain the power of eminent

domain. Presently, to cross highways, railroads, rivers,

streams, and canals, a pipeline must have a permit. These

permits are obtained from state or federal agencies. Due

to the lobbying power of the railroads the securing of these

permits has been obstructed. The options to circumvent this

problem are: 1) attain federal eminent domain ri~hts, 2)

attain state eminent domain rights or )) privately acquire

the necessary land.2

Slurry pipelines have proven to be an economical method

of transport. This is because 7o1> of the pipeline's cost

is a fixed capital cost. The railroads presently have a

75-85~ variable cost. (Refer to pp. 5-8). The low variable

cost of slurry pipelines can save the consumers many dollars

in the future. Pipelines use 1/8 of the labor railroads

use, and 4~ less steel over a 30 year period. They also

incorporate economies of scale; the ~ore material that is

transported, the lower the cost. The consumer also benefits

by the government not having to subsidize the pipeline,

unlike the railroads.) A slurry pipeline can also be used

to overcome the problems of difficult terrain at a lower

cost than other methods of transport.

The next section of this paper will c0ver the successful

operations of several slurry pipelines in the United States.

J


Length, Mill ion location Material Miles Diarneter 2 In. Tons/Year

Ohio Coal 108 10 1.30 Arizona Coal 273 18 4.80 Canada-I~* Coal 500 24 12.00 Utah Gilsonite 72 6 0.38 England Limestone 57 10 1. 70 Colombia Limestone 9 5 0 .3 5 Trinidad Limestone 6 8 o. 57 California Limestone 17 7 2.00 South Africa Gold Tailings 22 6 & 9 1.05 1asrnania Iron Concentrate 53 9 2. 2 5 Brazil Iron Concentrate 246 20 & 18 14 .oo Japan Copper Tailings 40 8 1.00 Ca nada~'r** Sulphur/Hydro. 800 12 & 16 Bougainville Copper Cone. 17 6 1.00 Wes:: Iran* Copper Cone. 68 3 0.30 Africa* Phosphate 3 12 s.oo Ohio Wastes (Raw Sew.) 13 12 Ohio* Wastes (Digested

Sludge) 45 6 New Zealand* Magnetite 6 8 & 12 1.00

* In design phase "-°* Under construction 'k-k* In planning phase

Sources Montfort, ''Operation Of The Black Mes& Pipeline System", Peabody Coal, P• 2.

4


INFLATION EFFECT ON COAL TRANSPORT COSTS

5.0---~--.....,...----r----,----,

4.0 I-en Q (.)

z Q

I- 3.0 ct I-cc Q a. en z ct cc 2.0 I-

w 2: I-

PIPELINE ct ...... w cc

1.0 1.1% ESC.

o-'-~~~~~~-+-~~---ifo--~~-t-, ~~---t

0 5 10 15 20 25 YEARS

Source: Wasp, Thol"lpson, "Slurry Pinelines - Energy Movers of the Future~, Interpipe Conference, Houston, Texas, Novemb~r 1, 1q71.

5


..... Ct> 0 (,.)

Zw o_, i= -ct ~ ..... z a: 0 Cl-~ a: z ·W ct a. a: v.i ..... .... z -'W ct(,.) :::> z z ct

COAL SLURRY PIPELINE TRANSPORTATION COSTS

1.5--------------.--------------.....,~----------,..------------,

1.0 0.9 -1-~~~~~.p!lo"""-"=~~~~~-t-~~~~---rtHROUGHPUT -1---~--~IC'.'""--...:::-..-.::-----t------t-Million Tons

0.8 per year 0.7

D.6 6.0---1

D.5

D.4

D.3

Includes Slurry Preparation

0.2

100 200 500

DISTANCE - MILES

1000 2000

September 1973

Source: Wasp, Thompson, "Slurry Pioelines - Ener~y Y.overs of the Future", Interpipe Conference, Houston, Texas, November 1, 1973.

6


::c 31:: :iii:

~ :i

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATE MODES OF COAL ENERGY TRANSMISSION

(FOR 1,000 MILE TRANSPORT DISTANCE)

5.0-----------------------.

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

0

0

. . . ~ • • • . . • • • . . . • . . . • • .. .. · . .. .. .. ..

•••• ••• f!f11 r •••••• -~~~~~.'SSION

···•····•·•··•······ UNIT TRAINS

----~-------@ 0.6,/Ton Mile

• EHV Cosu Ad1pted from FPC 1970 N1tion1I Power Survey Put I

e 1973 Cost BHis

2 3 4

Million Kilowatt Pl1nt C1p1city

3 6 9 12

Million Tons per Yur Coil

5

15

6

18

Source: Wasp, Thompson, " Slurry Pipelines - Energy Movers of the Future", Interpipe Conference, Houston, Texas, November 1, 1973.

7

TRANSPORTATION COSTS (fTRILLION BTU/DAY - 1000 MILES)

FUEL 'I MILLION BTU/100 MILE

01L aa COAL EXTRACT 1.5 GAS 2.0 COAL SLURRY 2.4 RAILROAD (0.6 ¢/TM:) 4.0

+10% Greater Distance

Source: Wasp, Thompson, ~slurry Pipelines - Enervy Movers of the Future~, Interpipe Conference, Houston, Texas, NoveMber 1, 197J.

8


SUCCESSFUL OPERATIONAL SLURRY PIPELINES

The Consolidation Coal Pipeline in Ohio, the American

Gilsonite Pipeline in Utah, and the presently operating

Black Mesa Pipeline in Arizona, are good exaMples of successful

slurry pipelines.

The Consolidation Coal Pipeline

The Consolidation Coal Pipeline began operating in

1957. Its purpose was to transport coal at a cheaper rate

than by rail. The project was a success. The original

rail freight was $2.63/ton, the raiJroad later raised

this to $3.47/ton. After the line was constructed and became

operational, the railroad reduced its rate to $1.88/ton.4

The line (10 inch diameter) extended for 108 miles between

Cadiz, Ohio and Eastlake, Ohio. They used 3 pumping stations

to keep the coal properly suspended. The flow was approximately

1/4 of the rate of the later constructed Black Mesa Pipeline,

approximately .38 m/sec.-.43 m/sec.5 The Ohio line transported

1.J million tons of coal per year, or about 4,600 tons/day.

The transit time for the coal was 32 hours. The line was

buried 3.5 feet below the ground (to prevent freezin~ in

the winter), and coated with a coal and ~lass wrap.6 (The

map on P• 10 shows the route of the Consolidation Coal Pipeline.)

The American Gilsonite Pipe~ine

The American Gilsonite Pipeline was 72 miles long,

6 inches in diameter, and extended from the Bonanza Mines,

Utah, to the proces~ing plant in Grand Junction, Colorado.?

9


ERIE

Consolidation Coal Co. Coal Slurry Pipe Line

SCALE OF MILES 10 0 10 20

I WARREN - SHARON

~ ~Ni les

lit Wadsworth

Orrv ille CANTON lei Solem

~ ~ \;, · Mossill~ )·,

Wooster

Dover

Tappan Rtstrvoir

~ ~

•Cadiz Cltndtning Rtstrvoir

Pitdmonl Rtstr110i\

Pum2ing Station No. I

Source: Halvorsen, "Operating Experience of the Ohio Coal P1peline", Coal Today and Tom~rrow, June 1964, P• 3.

10


The Black Mesa Pipeline

The operation of the Black Mesa Pipeline began in

1970. The s.vstem is 2?3 miles lomr, and mostl,'! constructed

of 18 inch diameter pipe. The final 13 miles of the line

is 12 inch diameter, due to a 3000 foot drop in elevation.8

The reduced diameter helot keep the veloci~y anrl pressure

constant. (The map on p. 12 shows the route and profile of

the Black Mesa Pipeline.) 'I'he slope o~ the line is 16~ to

reduce the solid builn-up during shutdown. The corrosicm

allowance per year is 2 mils.9 The average flow rate is

between 1.5 m/sec.-1.? m/sec. The capacity of the pipeline

is 5 million tons of coal/year, 660 tons of coal/hour are

transported. The total transit time for the slurry to complete

the route is 3 days. When the line is full it contains

45,000 tons of coal.10

There is a main slurry preparation plant with four

pumping stations to maintain suspension of the coal. The

slurry pipeline receives its coal from a mine located in

northeastern Arizona on the Navajo and Hopi reservations.

Coal comes into the preparation plant on a conveyor belt

and is dumped into bins. The dry coal is then crushed from

0" .. 1/4". Then it is ground with vater to the proper size

and further mixed with water and deposited into stora~e

tanks with pumps to keep it suspendect.11 This slurry from

the storage tank is later released through the line.12

The main preparation station is manned by operators. The

other pump stations are maintained automatically by mico-

wave remote cntrol with a few r&sidents to handle maintenance, .. 0


12000

• Las V1911

BLACK MESA PIPELINE

1-·- · I I

e Kingmtn

_ _ _J!T~ ·- ·-

• Seligman e Flagstaff

KAYENTA 0,~{:. MINE i.'?%

A R I Z 0 N A

• Pmcott

PROFILE OF BLACK MESA PIPELINE

Little Improved Colorado River State Hwy No. 68

12000

i 10000 Colorado Road

River No. 164 State Hwy No. 93 10000 i ~

I z Q j:: c > "" _, ""

Interstate

I State Hwy

Hwy No.64 8000 No.89

6000 6000

4000 4000

2000 2000 ,.">.

0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 272.6

MINE POWER SITE DISTANCE - Mills PLANT

Source: Wasp, Thompson, "Slurry Pipelines - Energy Movers Of The Future", Interpipe. Conference 1973, Houston, Texas, NoveMbP.r 1, 1973.

12

~

I z Q

;:: c > "" _, ""


There are approximately 52 permanent personnel. The~e

include administrators, technicians, and maintenance personne1.13

In 1971 some coarser size particles were pumped through

the line, and led to clogging when ~he line was restarted.

Clogs were located b.v using pressure taps. Taps were also

used to remove the plugs and beating upon the pipe was

also required. They eventually reduced the size from 14~-

325 mesh or 44 micrometers to 1~324 mesh or 44 micrometers.14

When the pipeline is shutdown the pump cylinders

and valve chambers must be flushed out o~ the slurry will

pack into the crevices. Most shutdowns have been caused

bv power failures. The start-up of the line is a critical

and complex operation. The pressure and velocity of the

fluid must gradually be established or it can lead to clo~ging.15

The Black Mesa Pipeline has been shutdown for periods

ranging to 4 days in length with successful restarting.

The Black Mesa Pipeleine has been a technical success and

has done much to advance the pipeline industry.16

Presently, there are several slurry pipelines proposed

throughout the United States. (Refer to pp. 14-15).

One of the largest pipelines proposed has been the ETSI

Pipeline.

THE PROPOSED ETSI PIPELINE

In 1973 ETSI (Energy Transport Syster.i.s, Inc., a

conglomeration of: Bechtel, Lehman Brothers Kuhn Loeb,

Kansas-Nebraska Natural Gas Co., and United Energy Reources),

was formed. They proposed a pipeline originating in Gillette,

1J

dittoe.1

Pencil

--- -

-

0 (/

) 0

0 ::s

s;:

...,

'1

(J)

0 '1

CD

Cl

"

~ ~

CD

Ill

.. (/

)

'O

t:1 .

. Il

l ::::: ~

Ill

<1>

(/)

'1

.. .....

0

., I

ll C

l ::s

>< .....

Ill

"U

~

(/)

<D

.. c+

'1

>

a

-:j

f--1

'1

<1>

~§

-H

-...

.:i ::s

.. (/

) c+

........

. '°

c+

-....:i

~

-D

r+

• <1>

.....

-D

-....:i '° "U

.....

'O

<D

f--1 .....

::s Cl

----

----

----

-P

LA

NN

ED

CO

AL

SL

UR

RY

PIP

EL

INE

S

WA

LSEN

BURG

CO

AL

' '

AR

IZO

NA

/D

EPO

SIT

I I

>.irw

ME

XIC

O

N.

DA

KO

TA

S.D

AK

OT

A

HN

G/

RIO

GR

AN

DE

-v

1-

(f'

+ ,,

(\

0

GU

LF

O

F

ME

XIC

O

FLO

RID

A

GA

S CO

•

~ ~<l

4nB

-

dittoe.1

Pencil

dittoe.1

Pencil

dittoe.1

Pencil

dittoe.1

Pencil

dittoe.1

Pencil

I I I PLANNED U.S. COAL SLURRY PIPELINES

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

PIPELINE LENGTH CAPACITY SYSTEM (Ml LES) (MMTA)

ETSI 1,378 25 NEVADA POWER 180 12 NORTl-IWEST /GULF 1, 100 10 HNG/DENVER RIO GRANDE 900 15 TEXAS EASTERN 1,200 25 FLORIDA GAS 1,500 25-50 BOEING 650 10

TOTAL INVESTMENT IN PRESENT DAY DOLLARS $10 BILLION

Source: Wasp, American Petroleum Institute 1979 Pipeline Conference, Dallas, Texas, April 17, 1979.

15


Wyoming, (in the Powder River Basin) extending to the south

central United States. The length would be approximately

1400 miles long, with a diameter of 38 inches, pump stations

would be located every 80-100 miles {approximately 19

pumping stations). The slurry would move 3.8 mph, with

a total transit time of 7-8 days. 1? The line was to have

transported 25-30 million tons of coal/year. The estimated

cost in 1985 dollars was $2 billion.18

A "coal evaluation plant" (CEP was constructed in

Redfield, Arkansas atthe Arkansas Power and Light's coal

burning generatin~ plant. This plant tested all aspects

of the grin~ing and dewatering processes of the Wyoming

coal. A dewatering plant was to be located at each

destination point of the slurry pipeline.19 Presently,

there has been no problem in treating the water to meet

EPA standards. The water is clearified to 10 parts per

million, lower than the public requirements. Coal also

acts as an absorbant, so even uranium, lead, .and arsenic

that are sometimes present in coal were not noticeably

20 dissolved. The study also concluded that the dewatered

coal could be stoc«piled and stored without affectinP-

thP. quality. The experiment also inv~lved transporting

the dewatered coal by barge to another location. This

experiment was also successful. There was no packing or

deterioration of the coal.21

In 1974 ETSI was given permission by the state of

Wyoming to use water from the Madison formation. The

Madison formation is a deep aquifer beneath the northern

16


Great Plains. There was a stipulation that they must

drill below 2500 feet.22 ETSI also proposed to build a

270 mile lon~, 136 inches in diameter aqueduct from the

Oahe Reservoir, S.D., to the coal slurKy preparation

station in Wyoming.23 (Refer to p. 18 for route of

aqueduct.) The Oahe Reservoir has 1 million acre feet/

year availible for industrial use. The reservoir stores

23.5 million feet/year with an avera~e downstraem flow

of 18.5 million acre feet. The Oahe Reservoir would have

provided up to 50,000 acre feet/year to ETSI, well over

what their actual need would have been. It has been

estimated that the cost of transporting the water would

have been approximately 6~ of the total cost of the transport

of coal (approximately $10/ton for total water cost).24

The ETSI line proposal was shelved in July, 1984, due

to problems in procuring water and eminent domain rights.

ETSI had attempted to circumvent eminent domain problems

through their "Window Program". This program secured the

easement rights where the railroads only held the surface

easements, subsurface rights belonged to the landowners.25

MICROBIAL REDUCTION OF SULFUR CONTENT IN COAL

To make eastern coal more desirable for slurry line

development, research has been carried on to reduce the

sulfur content of the coal.

"In 1983, Atlantic Research Corporation developed a

17


· .. - - . ,.._, ._ -~ :£T·· · .. ._ .. ... _ -- · ! .. ·, ",: :,. '·> · NORTH DAKOTA : -~ . .· ·J.Mf t~.~ ·~·/: ··. r:·:: -·'."·-·~·-·-·-........... ·-·-·-·-· :·· .· .,,..,. ; . - ..

t' •• ~ ;" •. • . . . • ~ •.

.. :/-: :. ::i: . <> •. :.- J : . . .. ' . . ~~~;:·:.:~~~·~~~-~--~·:;.: . .; -:·· ;:.· . :· :: .. :~ ... - _.1-·.· > : · .. '

.- <~: :::~~N~- ... · l .. : · r : ' ~; - ::::;: ·SOUTH. DAKOTA

~'~w~-~.:-~FD :. f :;;;07c · ... ~ . . " .

· ·. ... ... . • ; . r.· · · - ·~

. . ~ ..: ·:.'· -! , ~ . '. ·"' -:- '.;;. :\ ..

,. /; ·

--·-·-·-·"'Neefl'AstfA-·-·--·-·-·-·-·-

Surface water for Powder River Basin coal development. Water source is Oahe Reservo ir .

Sources Wasp, ''$10 Billion For Slurry Pipelines Expected During Next Decade .. , Pinelin~ & Gas Journal, February 19?9, P• 1.

18


microorganism capable of removing thioohenic sulfur from coal and converting the sulfur to water soluble sulfate. This microorganism, CB1, was developed from a mixed culture through muta~enic alteration of the ~enetic characteristics of the microbes to enable the survivor to utilize sulfur but not carbon from the model compound dibenzothiophene. CB1 is a unique microorganism having physical and biochemical characteristics that differ froM other known microbes of its species. A patent application on CB1 and its use in desulfurizing fossil fuels has been filed."

The first step in the process was to dechlorinate

the water used to produce the medtUJI! for CB1 ~rowth and

incubation. A salt and carbon mixture was added to this

to "feed" the CB1. This feed was kept under UV li~ht to

prevent the growth of unwanted microorganisms. The Ph was

kept constant between 25-35° C. The microorganisms were

then filtered and concentrated into a thick broth. The

coal slurry was then pumped into the coal reactor which

was kept aerated and at a constant temperature. The slurry

was then dewatered and washed to remove the sulfate and

any metals. The water then went back to the coal feed

tank to be reused. 27

The growth rate of CB1 was replication every sixty

minutes. Samples of high sulfur coal were treated with

CB1 to test the ability of the microbe to remove sulfur.

There are two factors which affect the amount of sulfur

removed; these ares 1)t~e amount of sulfur present in the

coal, 2) the surface properties of the coal. The ideal

coal surface shouldbe finely ground and no oxidation of

coal should have taken place. Oxidation of the coal inhibits

28 the attachment of the enzyme to the coal.

19

- I'\)

0

- -- -

- --1

00

M

ISH

F

llE

D

ClA

lllf

lfD

SU

PIE

llN

AT

AN

T

:3:

o en

lb

....

., 0

.,

i::

0 () .,

::

r' 0

()

lb

C])

f--1

.....,.

a '°

.. co

:x:

C]

) \.

]\

{/)

::1

>-3

0.

>CD .,

0 Cl

! 0

0 ::s

::s .....

, .. C

]) ., CD ::s ()

CD

~

,....

0 ., 0 >-

"a

' '°

µ.

'.))

lb

\.]\

f--

1

~~

;>;"

i::

~

f--1 ,..,

>-3

i::

lb

..,

::r'

I-'·

0 t'

I C

]) ll>

c+

I-

'· zo

C

]) ::s

~ a.

lb

TH

ICK

EN

ED

C

OA

L

llE

CY

CL

E

CA

KE

P

llO

DU

CT

-

WA

TE

ll

-M

IXIN

G/

DIL

UT

ION

TA

NK

-

TH

ICK

EN

Ell

- 11

TP

H

FL

OA

T

-F

LO

TA

llll

E

FL

OT

AT

ION

CO

LU

MN

S

1D

TP

H

llE

FU

SE

10

TP

H

llE

FU

SE

I lff

M

AK

E

UP

W

AT

Ell

WA

TE

ll

Tll

t:A

TM

EN

T

WA

ST

E

SL

UD

GE

F

il T

llA

TIE

DE

WA

TE

lllN

G

- -- -

-M

AK

E

UP

W

AT

Ell

WA

TE

ll

Pll

ET

llE

AT

ME

NT

FL

OT

AT

ION

P

llO

DU

CT

SU

llO

E

TA

NK

CO

NC

EN

Tll

AT

ED

F

EE

D

RE

CY

CL

E

ME

DIA

~ '

llT

PH

C

ON

TIN

UO

US

FL

OW

FIE

llM

EN

TIE

llS

llT

PH

CO

AL

llE

AC

TO

ll

CL

EA

N

CO

AL

Oll

OA

NIS

M

all

OT

H

UL

Tll

AF

ILT

llA

TIO

N

SY

ST

EM

Oll

OA

NIS

M

WA

ST

E

CO

NC

EN

Tll

AT

ED

O

llO

AN

ISM

S

De

mo

nstr

atio

n

Pla

nt

Flo

w

Sch

em

ati

c

dittoe.1

Pencil


Based on present information, the estimated cost of a

large scale processing plant to reduce the amount of sulfur

approximately 4-0% is $J5,ooo,ooo.oo. This plant would treat

100 tons/hour. For a plant with dewatering facilities

the cost is $26/ton, w.1.thout dewatering facilities the cost

is $21/ton.29 Refer to p. 20 for a schematic of a plant.

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS or A PIPELINE PROPOSAL

The Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BG&E) contracted

with Bechtel in September, 198), to study the feasibility

of constructing a slurry line to transport coal from south·

western West Virginia and Maryland to a port on the shore

of the Chesapeake Bay.JO The coal sources which were

investigated were in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and

Maryland; these sources comprised coal reserves of over

29 billion tons. The line would transport 15 million

tons/year, with an expected operating life of 25 years. 31

A DCF (discounted cash flow) analysis was used to

caleulate the feasibility of the line. The operation and

maintenance expenses were first put into 1984 d~llars,

then escalated to approximate the cost of the construction

and operational period. The result of the cost approximation

of transporting coal for a 1984 rate was $12.60/ton, this

included the weip,hing and transportation to a barge terminal.

The comparable rail rate pr~sPntly is $15.42/ton. The

monetary savings for the slurry pipeline will come in the

future, since the escalation rate for the slurry pipelines

has been at the Most 6~, wheras the estimated rail escalation

21


rates have been 8-10~ (which are not an accurate reflection

of past rates). A projected $11-23 billion dollar savings was

predicted for a 25 year period.32 On PP• 23-27 there are

maps of the proposed pipeline route as well as the detailed

DCF analysis.

Other methods of transporting coal by slurry instead

of the 50/50 coal/water mix have been proposed. Some of

the other methods under consideration are: stabflow,

oil agglomeration, coal/oil dispersion, coal/methanol, and

coal/liquid C02.JJ

Sta bf low

Stabflow, or stabilized flow is coarser coal (50 mm)

supported and carried by a mix of fine coal and water.

One advantage of this method is that dewatering is much

easier. The rate of degradation of the particles, and

the stability of the mix during the loading and unloading,

and the wear on the pipeline has not been studied in detail.34

Oil Agglomeration

Oil a~glomeration has been a method of coal cleaning

for years. The coal f~ finely ground and oil is added.

The oil adheres to the surface of the coal but not the ash,

allowing the ash tc be separated out. One of the problems

with this method has been the high cost of the oil used.

A 15-20~ mix of oil is necessary. There have been proposals

to inject the oil at points that are a distance from the end

oft.he.pipeline. The agglomeration would occur in the

pipeline and the separation would occur &t tlH1 ~·nd of the

pipeline with the use of screens and the oil could later

be recycled.J5

22

- l\)

\...J

- -- -

- ---

- -- -

-·-

J ) ? .r

' ,/

M

OR

GA

NT

OW

N e

•PA

RK

ER

SB

UR

G

(

r.E

ST

VIR

GIN

IA

) C

HA

Al.E

BT

ON

•

Cl.A

AK

SB

UR

G

•

l /

. /

BE

CK

LEY

I

/~t!

--J

l P

um

p&

-1

~ ""-

('-./

-~"

'-..

...... -·-

·-./

-rf

tLIH

E f

llOU

Tl

----• P

OW

ER

LIN

f SO

UT

H M

>ll

ll

---P

OW

Efl

lLIN

E N

OR

TH

ftO

UT

l

o..

....

....

....

. _ .

. .....

....... ,~ . ...,

..........

..........

.. .....mlllofU..~t..

-'''~~fl'dc_....

---ity

. \,

PRO

POSE

D P

IPE

LIN

E R

OU

TE

~

VIR

GIN

IA

1;)

' ~

Sou

rce

: H

aim

, "E

con

omic

Eva

luati

on

of

a Co

al S

lurr

y P

ipel

inei

fr

om

Wt!

St Vir~inia

to M

aryl

and"

, ST

A

Con

fere

nce

1 QR~

, L

ake

Tah

oe,

Nev

ada

, Ma

rch

1qR

5.

MA

RY

LA

ND

0

- -- -

dittoe.1

Pencil

- N ~

- 0 M N

0)

- -- 0 0

----

- -C

OA

L PR

OD

UC

ING

C

OU

NT

IES

SOU

THW

ESTE

RN

W

EST

VIR

GIN

IA

0 M

0 0

- -- 0 M

0 0)

- ---

LEG

END

• C

Ol\L

PR

EP

PLl\N

T

£ C

Ol\L

M

INE

l\

RE

l\S

----S

LU

RR

Y

P/L

R

OU

TE

(PR

EL

I M

I Nl\R

Y l

-++>

++->

-++-

<>-+

-R

I\ IL

R

Ol\O

~~~-

LO

Cl\L

G

l\TH

ER

ING

-

0 I

0 2

0

30

MIL

ES

HC

HT

IL

PE

Tll

llO

U:U

lo

llC

•

MIU

ITI•

BA

LTIM

OR

E G

AS

& E

LEC

TRIC

I ~

<

I I

CO

l\L

S

LU

RR

Y

p I P

EL

I N

E ~

FE

l\S

IBIL

ITY

S

TU

DY

FIG

UR

E 1

So

urc

e: H

aim

, "E

cono

mic

E

val

uat

ion

of

a C

oal

Slu

rry

Pip

elin

e fr

om W

est Vi

r~inia

to M

ary

lan

d'',

ST

A

Co

nfe

ren

ce

1985

, L

ake

Tah

oe,

Nev

ada,

M

arch

1

98

5.

dittoe.1

Pencil

----

----

----

----

---

N

\Jl

260

240

220 l

200

[

180

160

I-

z

PR

OJE

CT

ED

RA

IL A

ND

PIP

EL

INE

RA

TE

S

SO

UT

HW

ES

TE

RN

WE

ST

VIR

GIN

IA T

O B

AL

TIM

OR

E,

MA

RY

LA

ND

BASI

S:

BASE

RAT

ES (

1984

): $1

5.42

fTO

N R

AIL

$1

2.60

fTO

N P

IPE

LIN

E

ES

CA

LATI

ON

RAT

ES:

6% P

IPE

LIN

E

8% 1

0%1

RA

IL

THR

OU

GH

PU

T:

15 M

ILLI

ON

TO

NS

PER

YE

AR

c 14

0 t::

~

w ~

120

a:

100 BO

60

40

PIP

ELI

NE

, 6%

ESC

.

20 l:

:----.

-:::--

-0 ..._~.._~..._~.._~..._~..._~_._~_._~_._~_._~_._~...._~...._~_._~_.___.

1984

19

86

1988

19

90

1992

19

94

1996

19

98

2000

20

02

2004

20

06

2008

20

10

2012

20

14

YE

AR

Q) s:::

·rl

Q)

rl

..:.:

~j

·rl

P..

"'

\{\

>,C

(' ...

°' ~ ...

. rl

t>

{f)

{

) s:::

rl

Q)

.,, ...

0 Q

) C

,)

c..,

<

§ C,)

~

O<

E--

< s:::

{f)

0 ·rl

"'

+' ~

.,,

-0

;::!

s:::

r-i

.,,

.,, rl

• >

t>,

\{\

C>

:J ...

ex::

.,, °'

{) ~ ....

·rl Ee:

0 ..c:

: 0

E--<

{)

s:::

... 0

ell~

{)

..-1 ~

C>:J

s:::

~

·rl

"'

hC.,,

..

...

-0

E

•rl

I'll

·H !

> >

.,,

C

l :r:

+' z

Vl

••

Cl)

Q) ~

"'

()

Q)

J..

E

o ::1

b

..c::

0 ...

.,,

(/

) 1%

. E--

< •

dittoe.1

Pencil

dittoe.1

Pencil


Financial, Accounting and Econmic Bases

Capital Cost (1st quarter 1984) $615 million

Annual Operating Cost (1st quarter 1984) $103.5 million

Construction Period

Operating Period

Financial Structure

Debt

Equity

Debt Service

Term Loan

Repayment Schedule

1991-1994 inclusive

1995-1997 inclusive

1998-1999

2000

Interest Rate

DCF Return on Equity

Ad Valorem Taxes

Combined Federal and State Income Tax Rate

Investment Tax Credit

Base Time Period

Working Capital

Escalation Rates

Capital Costs

Ad Valorem Taxes

Operating and Maintenance Expenses

Unit Cost (or tariff)

3 years (1986, 1987, 1988)

25 years (1989-2013 inclusive)

75 percent

25 percent

15 years (1986-2000 inclusive)

5 percent per year

10 percent per year

15 percent per year

20 percent per year

11 percent

20 percent

1.5 percent of investment

50 percent

10 percent

1st quarter 1984

50 percent of first-year operating and costs

5 percent

2 percent

maintenance

6 percent after startup, 5 percent before startup

6 percent

Source: HaiM, "Econnmic Evaluation of a Coal Slurry Pioeline from ~est Virginia to Maryland", STA Conference 1995, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, ¥.arch 19R5.

26

dittoe.1

Rectangle

dittoe.1

Rectangle

dittoe.1

Rectangle

dittoe.1

Rectangle

dittoe.1

Rectangle


Item

Preparation Plants

Pipeline

Pump Stations

Estimate Summary

Terminal Facilities and Water Treatment

Other Costs

TOTAL

OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES

$ millions Total

86

158

77

158

136

~

Order-of-magnitude annual operating and maintenance expenses are

summarized in Table 4.

Summary of Operating and Maintenance Expenses

Item

Power

Operating Maintenance Labor

Supplies

Indirects (Headquarters)

Coal Gathering

Total

Annual Cost (1984 Dollars)

$ 30. 7 million

12. 7 million

25.0 million

1.0 million

34.1 million

h03. 5 million

Source:Haim, "Economic Evaluation of a Coal Slurry Pipeline from West Virginia to Maryland", STA Conference, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, March, 1985.

dittoe.1

Rectangle

dittoe.1

Rectangle

dittoe.1

Rectangle


Coal/Oil Dispersion

Coal/Oil dispersion is the suspension of ultra-line

coal in oil. The purpose of developing it was to substitute

the mixture for fuel oil in conventional oil burning units

for direct combustion. The coal is ~round to 50· ~)er\1fti~t.ers and

mixed with a no. 6 fuel oil in a 40~ Cw(slurry concentration

by weight) mix. One disadvantage to this method is ~~at

the mixture must be kept hot to be pumpable. In experimental

no settling has occurred during storage. A low

ash coal would probably burn the easiest in the oil burning

equipment presently used.:36

Coal/Methanol

A coal/methanol mix has also been proposed and studied

for direct combustion. The coal is ground to -150 um

particles and mixed with methanol to a 50~ Cw or methyl

alcohols to a 50-75~ Cw ~ix. The major disadvantage with

this method is the high cost of producing methanol or methyl

fuel. Methanol also requires large quantities of water

for preparation.37

Coal/Liquid co2

Coal/liquid co2 slurry pipelines have been proposed

and closely studied for use in the western United States

where the limited water supply is a problem. The coal/

liquid cei mixtures which have been tested show little

friction loss, and low pipeline wear rates (even at high

velocities and heavy loading of solids ). The major restriction

on coal/liquid CO slurry lines is temperature. The critical 2

28

dittoe.1

Rectangle


temperature of 32°c and constant pressure must be maintainett.38

Burning coal in boilers designed for oil can present

problems. The first problem is that existin~ boilers have

no facilities to handle coal, the coal must be prepared

somewhere else and transported. The sAcond problem is

utilizing the coal in order to minimize chan~ing the plant's

construction.39 Modifying an oil burning boiler usually

requires a steeper furnace hopper, deslaggers, soot blowers,

new burners, larger fans, and ash removal and handling

equipment. The ash content fromeoal forces the boilers

to be retro-fj,,tted. The trade-off of retro-fitting the

boiler compared with the cost of cleanin~ coal is about

equ~walent.40 Ultra-fine grinding of the coal needs to be

tested, they hope this will reduce the sla~ging, fouling,

and tube erosion of the conventional boiler.41

Some of the problems facing the C"NS(Coal Water Slurry)

fuel today ares 1) maintenance of a stable flame

over load fluctuations and coal ~VPes, 2) complete burning

of the slurry fuel, 3) smaller combustion chambers than

coal has been previously burned 4), larger quantities of

ash (100x greater than oil). The ash can create problems

on the surface that transfers the heat of the flame to the

water to produce steam. Ash in a molten state can stick

to boiler tubes and act as an insulating layer, reducing

heat transfer.42

The CWS fuel bein~ used in oil fired boilers today is

generally composed of 70-751' coal, 24-2~ water, and a

29


1~ chemical additive (to stabilize the slurry for storage).

It has a consistency similiar to latex paint, and stores

and burns like fuel oi1.4J The cost of the additive is

high, $7/ton. The cost of reducing the ash level of the

coal is also an expensive process. 44 Today the price of

no. 6 oil is $29.00/barrel ($4.6 per MBtu), CWS fuel is

$J.2 per MBtu, the differnce is $1.40 per MBtu. For the

market to grow the pricedifferential needs to increase.45

To improve the CWS fuel market the followin~are neededs

1) a rise in oil prices, 2) reduced CWS fuel production costs,

J) reduced de-rating costs of boilers, 4) an improvement

of coal quality, 5) a creation of domestic and export

markets, and 6) a successful demonstration for the consumers

of the product.46

With the technology existing for slurry pipelines it

is suprising how the largest purchaser of coal in the

United States, American Electric and Power.(AEP), has

not considered building a slurry pipeline. AEP delivers

coal by the following methodss 48

AEP Transportation in 1984

15.5 million tons 6.4 6.1 5.4 9.7

J6~ rail 14.8~ rail to barge 14.0~ barge alone 12.6~ truck 22.6~ conveyor systems

AEP also uses large quantities of western coal, suprisingly,

their transportation costs for eastern and western coal are

approximately the same. Western coal is worth $10/ton, with

transportation costs of $20-25/ton ($40/ton total). Eastern

JO


coal is worth $30-35/ton, with transportation costs of

$5/ton ($4o/ton total).49

·············••************************************************ CONCLUSION

·······················································••••**** The development of the coal slurry pipeline has been

a long, uphill battle. As our country's dependence on

foreign resources in©~~as~s, the development of our own

resources continues to ~row. Hopefully, in the future,

the traditional American ideals, r~~~ enterprise, and American

ingenuity, will dominate. The technology exists, only the

opportunity to expand awaits the sl:urry pipeline industry.

Meanwhile, the: rest of the world uses American technology,

constructing numerous pipelines. Unfortunately, here in

the United States the battle rages on between the railroads

and the slurry pipelines.

)1

dittoe.1

Rectangle


FOOTNOTES

1 Snoek, Thompson, Wasp, Chemical Technology, p.1.

2 Wasp, Pipeline & Gas Journal, p.2.

J Ibid, p.5.

4 Halvorsen, Coal Today & Tomorrow, p.J.

5 Snoek, Thompson, Wasp, Chemical Technology, p.4.

6 Halvorsen, Coal Today & tomorrow, p.4.

7 Snoek, Thompson, Wasn, Chemical Technolo&Y• p.4.

8 Montfort,(Operating Experience of the Black Mesa Pipeline), P• 16.

9 Ibid, P• 16.

10 Ibid, P• 16.

11 Montfort, (Operating Experience of the Black Mesa Pipeline), p. 16.

12 Ibid, p.16.

1J Ibid, P• 16.

14 Ibid, p.16.

15 Ibid, p.18.

16 Ibid, p.18.

17 Wasp, (Society of Mining Engineers Meeting), p. 7.

18 Wasp, (7th PIM Coal Conference), p. 14.

19 Ibid, p.12.

20 Ibid, p. 10.

21 Wasp, (Society of Mini~g Engineers), p.15.

22 Wasp, (?th PIM Coal Conference), p.5.

23 Wasp, (Society of Mining Engineers Meeting), p. 21.

24 Wasp, Pipeline & Gas Journal, p. 4.

25 Wasp, (?th PIM Coal Conference), p.5.

26 Henderson, (Microbial Desulfurization of Coal), p.1.

27 Ibid, p.5.

32


28 Ibid, p.5.

29 Ibid, P• 8.

JO Haim, (Economic Evaluation),p.2.

Jl Ibid' p. 31 •

32 Ibid, p. 32.

33 Brookes, Dodwell, (BP Ca.Al), p.4.

34 Ibid, p.4.

35 Ibid, p.5.

36 Ibid, p.6.

37 Ibid, p.6.

38 Ibid, p.?.

39 E-lab, p.2.

40 EPRI Journal, p.9.

41 Manfred, (Quo Vadis Coal Slurry?), P• 7.

42 E-lab, P• 2.

43 EPRI Journal, P• 9.

44 Brookes, Dodwell, (BP Coal), P• 11.

45 Manfred, (Quo Vadis Coal Slurry?),p. 4.

46 Ibid, P• 6.

4? Romanoski, Interview.

48 AEP Coal Courier, P• 28.

49 Romanoski, Interview.

33


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brookes, Dodwell, "The Economic and Technical Evaluation of Slurry Pipeline Transport Techniques in the International Coal Trade", BP Coal.

"Coal-Water Slurries", E-lab, January-March 1984, PP• 1-3·

Haim, "Economic Evaluation of a Coal Slurry Pipeline from West Virginis to Maryland", STA Conference, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, March 1985.

Halvorsen,"Operating Experience of the Ohio Coal Ptpeline", Coal Today and Tomorrow, June, 1964.

Henderson, "Microbial Desulfurization of Ca&l", STA Conference 1985, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, March 1985.

Manfred, "Quo Vadis Coal Slurry?", STA Conference 1985, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, March 1985.

Montfort, "Operation of the Black Mesa Pip~line System", November 9, 1978.

Montfort, "Operating Experience of the Black Mesa Pipeline", Peabody Coal.

"News Digest", AEP Coal Courier, March 1985, p. 28.

Romanoski, Bernie, interviewed by Helen Truscott, Lancaster, Ohio, 2sOO, May 1, 1985.

Snoek, Thompson, Wasp, "The Era of Slurry Pipelir..es",Chemical Technology, September 1971, PP• 552-562.

Wasp, E., ~coal Slurry Transportation Alternatives and the Prospects for Another Western Coal Slurry Pipeline", Society of Mining Engineers, Salt Lake City, Utah, October 19, 198).

Wasp, Thompson, "Slurry Pipelines - Energy Movers of the Future", Interpipe Conference 1973, Houston, Texas, November, 1, 1973.

Wasp, E., "$10 Billion for Slurry Pipelines Expected During the Next Decade", Pipeline & Gas Journal, February, 1979.

Wasp, American Petroleum Institute 1979 Pipeline Confernece, Dallas, Texas, April 17, 1979.

Wasp, "Outlook for the Long Distance Slurry Pipeline Industry", 7th Annual PIM Coal Conference on Production and Transportation, Houston, Texas, February 25-?7, 1981.

Many of the sources cited were obtained by my attendance at the Slurry Technology Association's Conference at Lake Tahoe, Nevada, March 26 & 27, 1985.

I I My sincere thanks are extended to Mr. Anderson for his

encouragement and patience.

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 35

Helen S. Truscott ***************** The Ohio State ...

Documents

Transcript of Helen S. Truscott ***************** The Ohio State ...