LONG RANGE SULFUR
SUPPLY AND DEMAND MODEL
FINAL REPORT
November, 1971
By.
M . H . Farmer
R. R. Bertrand
Prepared Under Contract No. EHSD 71-13
for
Division of Control Systems, Office of Air Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
ESSO RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY
Government Research Laboratory
Linden, New Jersey 07036
GRU.1GM.71
-------
LONG RANGE SULFUR
SUPPLY AND DEMAND MODEL
FINAL REPORT
November, 1971
By
M. H. Farmer
R. R. Bertrand
Prepared Under Contract No. EHSD 71-13
for
Division of Control Systems, Office of Air Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
ESSO
RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING COMPANY
Government Research laboratory
linden, New Jersey 07036
GRU.1GM.71
-------
FOREWORD
~
The report on the "Long Range Sulfur Supply and Demand Model" is
in three parts.
Part 1 deals with the Model itself, how it was used, and what
was concluded. It also suggests how it ~ be used by the Environmental
Protection Agency or others.
Part 2 discusses the relative merits of recovering abatement
sulfur in acid and elemental form. The discussion is in the context of
structures of the elemental sulfur and sulfuric acid industries as they
now, and as they may change during the next three decades.
the
exist
Part 3 brings together much of the statistical and forecast'
material in a series of appendices. When using the words "forecast" or
"projections", the authors are under no illusions about the hazards of trying
to look fifty years into the future. The proiections depend on various
assumptions, such as the rates at which the economies of the countries of
the world will grow. Since there are bound to be different views on such
matters, an attempt has been made to analyze or simulate the effects of
different assumptions. In this way, the user of the Model should be able to
introduce his own assumptions on specific points and to estimate the effects
that such judgments would have on the supply and demand situation aRd on the
value of sulfur at various times in the future.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The projections of fertilizer sulfur demand were provided by
Mr. J. H. Sprague, Jr., of Enjay Chemical Company, Inc. However, these
projections relate to the for~casts of economic development and population
growth made as part of the Sulfur Model and use the same aggregations of
countries. It must. be pointed out that Enjay's own projections of economic
development and population growth may differ from those used in the Model,
and that this would lead to different estimates of future demand for
fertilizer sulfur.
Assistance was also received from the Corporate Planning Departments
of the Humble Oil and Refining Company and of Standard Oil Company (N.J.),
and from the Agricultural Chemicals Department of Esso Chemical Company, Inc.
Such assistance was in the form of published reference material and other in-
formation. These organizations bear no responsibility for the way
in which the information has been used; the entire responsibility for this
lies with the contractor.
Although only a few of the individual references are to publications
of the British Sulphur Corporation and to its journal "Sulphur". these
publications were drawn on for much of the historical statistical information.
The perspectives gained from articles in "Sulphur" were invaluable. Never-
theless, the contractor is responsible for the interpretations placed on this
information.
Finally, the authors wish to thank Mr. Norman Plaks, Project Monitor
from the Office of Air Programs, for permitting and encouraging the evolution
of the project in such a way that a maximum amount of useful information
could be developed within the -framework of the contract.
-------
ABBREVIATIONS USED IN REPORT
.
Units of Measurement
LT, MT, ST
SCF, MSCF
BTU
CE, MTCE
= long ton, metric ton, short ton
= standard cubic foot, 1000 SCF
= British Thermal Unit
= coal equivalent, metric tons of coal
equivalent
.
Financial
R.O.1.
BT, AT
DCF
B.O.P.
= Return on investment
= before taxes, after taxes
= discounted cash flow
= balance of payments
.
Price, Value
F.O.B., F.O.R.
F.O.B.V.
M.D.V.
= free on board, free on rail
= free on board value
= maximum delivered value
.
Materials
El. S
NSP
TSP, DAP
= elemental sulfur
= normal (or single) superphosphate
= triple superphosphate, diammonium
phosphate
.
Other
EPA
E
F.W. ,
LP
IP
MITI
F.W. ex U.S.
= Environmental Protection Agency
= estimated
= Free World, F.W. excluding U.S.
= linear programming
= (British) Institute of Petroleum
= (Japanese) Ministry of International
Trade and Industry
= Oil anq Gas Journal
= Oil Paint and Drug Reporter
= Organization for Economic Co-operation
and Development
OGJ
OPDR
OECD
Note:
Explanation of terminology is given in the Glossary (Section 9),
starting on page 81.
-------
FOREWORD
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ABBREVIATIONS USED IN REPORT
1.
2.
INTRODUCTION.
SUMMARY
INDEX
PART 1
Page
. . . .
. . . .
1
. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . .
2
. . . . . . . . . .
Historical Background
. . . . . .
3.1
. . . . .
2
4
5
6
7
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
. . . . .
. . . . . . . .
Current Situation.
. . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
Parametric Cases. .
. . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . . .
Price Assumptions.
. . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
Construction of Sulfur Model. . .
Supply and Demand Forecasts.
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . . .
7
. . . . . . .
Computer Calculations. . . . .
. . . .
. . . 13
. . . 19
. . . .
. . . . .
2.9
Overview of Markets for Abatement Sulfur. .
Delphi Forecast. .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . . .
. . 22
. . 23
3.
2.10 Principal Conclusions
. . 26
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
STRUCTURE OF SUPPLY/DEMAND MODEL.
. . . . . . . . .
General Concepts Used in Model. .
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.1.5
3.1.6
3.1.7
3.1.8
. . . .
. . . 26
. . . . . . . .
Conventional Approach to Supply/Demand Balances. . . . . 26
Effect of Byproduct Supply. . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Byproduct Stockpiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Abatement Sulfur in Useful Form. . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Dual Pricing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Net Regional Demand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Maximum Delivered Value~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Abatement Sulfur as an Extra-Regional
Source of Supply. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 32
-------
3.2
3.3
3.4
4.
Page
The World Model. . . . . . .
. " " " . .
. . . . . . 32
. . . . . . 33
. . . . 34
.34
3.2.1
World Demand Model.
. . . .
. . " . " .
3.2.2 World Supply Model. . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.2.3 World Supply/Demand Balances. . . . . . . . . . .
The North American Model. .
. . . 34
Regionalized U.S. Model.
. .35
. . . .
" . . " . " " . "
. . . . "
. " . "
. . . .37
. . . .37
.38
. .40
PARAMETRIC CASES
" " . .
. . " .
. " . .
" " . .
. . " " . "
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
Exogenous Demand. . .
Exogenous Supply. . .
. " " . "
. " . " "
. " . " .
" . . .
. " " " .
National Stockpile of Elemental Sulfur.
. " " " " " "
Discussion of Gross Oversupply.
. . . . . .41
" . " " " .
. . . "
. " . " . " "
. .45
5.
COMPUTER CALCULATIONS AND CORRELATION CHARTS
. .45
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Input Data. .
. . " . . . "
. . . "
. . " " . "
Description of Correlation Charts. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
. . . . . . . . . . . .46
. . . . .48
Newark Region. . .
. . " . " " " .
Norfolk Region
Chicago Region
" " " .
. . " . . "
" . " .
. . " " . " . . " .
" " . "
. .48
" " " " .
" . . .
5.6 Memphis Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
5. 7 Omaha Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
5.8 Tucson Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
5.9 Tampa Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49
5.10 Boston Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
5.11 Seattle Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
5.12 Los Angeles RegiDn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
5.13 New Orleans Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51
5.14 Markets for Abatement Acid. . . . . . . . . .51
6.
SENSITIVITY OF ASSUMPTIONS USED IN REPORT. . . . . . . . . . .60
6.1 General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60
6.2 Long Range Projections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60
6.3 Regionalization and Marketing Factors. . . . . . . .60
6.4 Recovery Cost/Recovery Value Relationships. . . . . . . . . . .60
-------
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
7.
Page
. . .. ..
.. .. .. ..
. . . . . . 61
. . . 61
. . . . . . 61
. . . 62
Transportation Costs. .
Free Trade. . .
7.1
7.2
.. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. ..
.. .. .. ..
National Energy Policy.
Short Term Forecasting. .
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
.. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
CONCLUSIONS
Research Implications.
.. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . . . 62
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . 63
. . . . . . 63
. . . 63
.. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. ..
.. .. .. ..
8.
Economic and Demographic Projection
Energy Projections. . . . . .
.. .. .. ..
.. .. .. ..
Fossil Fuel Sulfur Content. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Sulfur Supply. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Sulfur Demand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Cost Projections.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Computer Model. ...
7.7
7.8
7.9
.. .. .. .. ..
-------
PART 2
FACTORS AFFECTING THE RELATIVE VALUE
OF SULFURIC ACID AND ELEMENTAL SULFUR
Page
1.
PRELIMINARY REMARKS. . .
. .. .. .. .
" . . . . . . .
, . . .
" . . .. . 1
2.
SUMMARY. .
. .. . .
. .. .. .
.. .. .. ..
.. . .. . . . .
. .. . . . .
.. .. . . 2
3.
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND SUPPORTING REASONING.
. . .. ..
.. .. . . .. .
. . 3
4.
INDUSTRY STRUCTURE. . .
.. . .. ..
.. .. .. .. .
.. .. .. . . ..
. . . .. .
. . . 5
5.
SHAPE OF INDUSTRY IN 1965 .
.. .. . . . ..
. .. . . ..
.. .. . ..
. . . . . . 7
6.
CHANGES BETWEEN 1965 AND 1969 . . . .
. .. . ..
.. .. .. .. .. .
. . . . . . 8
7.
ANALYSIS OF LARGER PLANTS. . .
. .. . . .. . . . ..
.. . .. .
.. .. .. .
. . 8
8.
POSSIBLE OFFTAKERS OF ABATEMENT ACID. .
.. . . .. .. . ..
. . . .
.. . . . 9
9.
RECENT ADDITIONS TO CAPACITY. .
.. .. . . .. .. . .. .. .. ..
.. . . . ..
. . .10
10. APPLICABILITY OF NEUTRALIZER, AND LOAD FACTOR
PROBLEMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. .. . .. . .
. . . .11
11. ACID MANUFACTURE IN THE MIDWEST.
.. . .. .. . .. ..
.. .. .. . .. ..
. . . . .12
12. STATISTICAL DATA FOR SULFURIC ACID. . . . . .
.. .. .. ..
.. . .. .. ..
. . .13
13. SULFURIC ACID MANUFACTURING COSTS AND IMPLICATIONS. . .
. . . .. .
. .14
14. DISCUSSION OF SULFURIC ACID PRICES AND IMPLICATIONS
FOR ABATEMENT ACID. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .. . .17
15. PHOSPHORIC ACID, PHOSPHATE FERTILIZERS AND
IMPLICATIONS FOR ABATEMENT ACID. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
16. FUEL SULFUR CONTENT MAY AFFECT CHOICE OF
ABATEMENT SYSTEM. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
-------
APPENDIX I
A.1.1
A.1.2
A.l. 3
APPENDIX 2
A.2.1
A.2.2
A.2.3
A.2.4
A.2.S
APPENDIX 3
A.3.1
PART 3
APPENDICES
BASIS OF LONG RANGE FORECASTS
Selection of Economic Forecasts.
. " " . .
" . . "
Problems with Economic Forecasts. . . .
" " " .
. " . "
Economic Projections Used in Sulfur Model. . . . .
ENERGY PROJECTIONS
Sources of Historical Data. .
. . . " .
" . . " .
Energy Demand/GNP Correlations. . . . . . . . . . . . .
U. S. Fossi 1 Fuel Demand. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Foreign Fossil Fuel. Demand .
World Energy Demand. . .
" . . " " "
" " " " "
" " " " " "
" " " "
SULFUR CONTENT OF FOSSIL FUELS
Sulfur Content of Petroleum. .
" " " " " " " " " "
A.3.l.1 Sulfur Content of U.S. Crude Oils .
A. 3.1. 2 Sulfur Content of Foreign Crude Oils. .
A.3.2 Sulfur Content of Natural Gas. . .
A.3.3 Sulfur Content of Coal . . .. . . . . .
A.3.4 S.ulfur Content Aggregates. .
APPENDIX 4
A.4.1
A.4.2
A.4.3
A.4.4
SULFUR SUPPLY FORECAST
Frasch Sulfur.
" " " " " " "
" " " " "
Petr.oleum. .
Natural Gas.
" " " "
" " " " " "
" " " " "
" " " "
" " " " "
" " " " " "
" " " " "
A.4.3.1
A.4.3.2
U.S. Natural Gas. .
" " " " " "
" " " " "
Canadian Natural Gas. . . . . .
" " " " "
Smelters and Other Sources. .
" " " " .. .. " " .. "
A.4.4.l
A.4.4.2
U.S. Smelters. . .
Canadian Smelters.
" " " " " "
" " " " "
" " " " " "
" " " " " " " "
Page
Al-I
AI-3
Al-3
AZ-I
AZ-2
A2-3
AZ-3
A2-4
A3-l
A3-1
A3-2
A3-3
A3-3
A3-4
A4-l
A4-2
A4-S
A4-S
A4-6
A4-10
A4-l0
A4-12
-------
A.4.5
A.4.6
A.4.7
A.4.8
APPENDIX 5
A.5.l
A.5.2
A.5.3
APPENDIX 6
A.6.l
A.6.2
APPENDIX 7
A. 7.1
A. 7.2
A.7.3
A.7.4
A.7.5
A.7.6
APPENDIX 8
A.8.l
A.8.2
A.8.3
A.8.4
APPENDIX 9
Total U.S. Supplies. . . . . . . . . . . .
U.S. Regionalized Supply/Demand Balances.
. . . ..
. .. . .
Foreign Supply Forecast. . . .
Foreign Supply/Demand Balances. .
. . . . . .
. . . .
. . . . . .
. . . .. .
SULFUR DEMAND FORECAST
Fertilizer Sulfur Demand.
Industrial Sulfur Demand.
. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. ..
Regionalized U.S. Demand
.. .. .. .. .. .. ..
COST ASSUMPTIONS. . . . . .
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Transportation Costs.
.. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. ..
Production Costs and F.O.B. Price Basis. . .
.. .. .. .. .. ..
COMPUTER MODEL
The LP Program
.. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. ..
The Computer Calculations. .
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. ..
Description of Specific Sulfur Model Programs.
.. .. .. .. ..
Listing of Programs. . .
.. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. ..
Instructions for LP Runs and Output. .
.. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. ..
Special Instructions. . . .
.. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
TEST ON HISTORICAL DATA
Introduction. . . . . . . .
.. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. ..
Basis and Input Data
.. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
Output Data. .
Discussion. .
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. . ..
DELPHI FORECAST. . . . . . . . .
.. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. ..
APPENDIX 10 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES.
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
A.lO.l Economic Projections.
.. .. .. .. .. ..
A.lO.2 Energy Projections.
.. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. ..
A.lO.3 Sulfur, Sulfur Content and Sulfuric Acid. . . .
.. .. .. ..
A.10.4 Costs and Economics. . . .
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. ..
Page
A4 -13
A4-14
A4-15
A4-15
AS-1
AS-6
A5-7
A6-1
A6-6
A7-1
A7-3
A7-3
A7-7
A7-7
A7-11
A8-l
A8-1
A8-4
A8-4
A9-1
AIO-l
AlO-2
AlO-2
AlO-4
-------
1.
INTRa DUCT ION
In its 1970 report on "Abatement of Sulfur Oxide Emissions from
Stationary Combustion Sources," the NAE/NRC panel* remarked that:
"Domestic reserves of sulfur are limited, and consideration
should be given to their conservation. It would be
desirable to conduct a study of the long range supply and
demand situation with regard to the several alternative by-
products to aid in establishing priorities for support of
control and abatement technology."
This recommendation was given effect in NAPCA** Contract No. EHSD 71-13.
The study began on August 21, 1970. Under the guidance of NAPCA's Project
Monitor, Mr. Norman Plaks, a progress report was made to the NAE/NRC Ad
"Hoc Panel on February 9, 1971. Consequent upon this review, the Contract
was modified to extend its scope and usefulness.
The Contract, in its revised form, called for projections to the
year 2020 of the supply, demand and price of sulfur. These projections
would be embodied in a computer model. The model, or correlation charts
derived from it, would then be used as a planning tool for establishing
R&D priorities, e.g., the relative emphasis that should be given to
development of technology for the recovery of abatement sulfur in (a)
marketable and (b) non-marketable forms. Included in the model would
be the simulation of different abatem~nt schedules, and also of additional
demand such as might be created by a national stockpile of elemental
sulfur. The foreign situation would be considered because of its impact
on domestic supply/demand/price relationships. Finally, the factors
affecting the relative values of recovered sulfur in acid and elemental
form would be analyzed.
*
Ad Hoc Panel on Control of Sulfur Dioxide from Stationary Combustion
Sources, Committee on Air Quality Management, Committees on Pollution
Abatement and Control, Division of Engineering, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C.
**
Now a part of the Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
- 2 -
2.
SUMMARY
The events that led up to the current, world oversupply of
sulfur and industry's reaction to this situation are summarized in
~ubsections 2.1 and 2.2. The potential recovery of abatement sulfur
and its future impact on the industry is fitted into this context.
Subsection. 2.3 indicates the ways in which the Sulfur Model
simulates future possibilities, while Subsection 2.4 outlines the basis
for the"F.O.B. price assumptions used in the computer calculations.
The geographical structure
in which the U.S. is regionalized, is
geographical structure is designed to
supply and demand.
of the Model, including the way
described in Subsection 2.5. This
accommodate the projections of
The remaining Subsections discuss
. present the principal conclusions or points
parts of the study.
the computer calculations and
that have emerged from the various
2.1 Historical Background
Although sulfur accounts for only 0.06 Wt.% of the earth's
crust, it is exceeded in importance to man only by five other elements
(C, H, 0, N, and P). It is essential to plant life and to human nutrition.
In these "uses", there is no subs ti tute for sulfur. However, it is also
of ubiquitous importance in the manufacture cf other materials and, for
the most part, is employed as an "acid value" in such operations.
Sulfuric acid is used widely because it is effective and economical. But
it is not irreplacable. Many materials could be manufactured with other
strong acids or by an entirely different processing route. Thus, the
demand for sulfur is primarily the demand for sulfuric acid at economic
prices.
Since the Second World War, there have been two occasions of
sulfur shortage, the first in 1951 and the more recent starting in 1965.
Prices rose on both occasions, although much more sharply during 1965-68
period. However, the primary factor that alleviated each shortage was
quite different. In 1954-55, a new source of Frasch sulfur, Nexican
production, entered the market. In 1968, it was sulfur recovered from
sour natural gas in Western Canada that swung the balance from world
shortage to oversupply.
-------
- 3 -
The difference between the Mexican and the Canadian cases is
important because the former involved deliberate production that could
be adjusted to match demand. Western Canadian sulfur, on the other
hand, is a by-product with output depending on the amount of natural gas
processed, i.e. on the demand for natural gas (not on demand for sulfur).
With the wisdom of hindsight, it may be noted that significant
recovery of sulfur from Western Canadian gas began in 1961. Furthermore,
sulfur from France's Lacq field had entered the market a few years earlier
and, by 1961, had already contributed to a world oversupply. However, this did
not deter several U.S. producers of Frasch sulfur from reactivating high
cost production or developing new production during the period 1963-1969.
By now, much of this capacity has been shut down, but not without economic
penalty.
The fertilizer industry accounts for about half of the world-
wide demand for sulfur, primarily in the form of acid to solubilize
phosphate rock (rather than as direct demand for S as a plant nutrient).
A tremendous over-expansion of fertilizer manufacuring capacity occurred
immediately prior to the collapse of sulfur prices in 1969. In fact, the
curtailment of growth in fertilizer demand was one of the factors that
contributed to the collapse. The business recession that started in 1969
has affected the industrial demand for sulfur. Thus, during the past
few years, total sulfur demand has been on a plateau while supply capability
has been increasing. Other factors, besides Canadian sulfur, that have
contributed to worldwide oversupply are:
.
expansion of pyrite roasting capacity in Europe (as a
delayed response to high sulfur prices in the 1967-68 period)
.
start-up of a large Frasch operation in West Texas
.
expansion of modified Frasch production in Poland
.
recovery of elemental S by desulfurization of petroleum
(in Japan, M.E., Caribbean and elsewhere).
.
increase in level of recovery of acid from smelter gas
(particularly in Japan and the U.S.)
In addition, it is generally recognized that air pollution
controls have the potential for recovery of sulfur values on a very large
scale.
-------
- 4 -
2.2
Current Situation
The starting point for the Sulfur Model is a condition of world
oversupply in which the imbalance is caused by by-product supply. Since
the demand for the primary product -- energy derived from fossil fuels --
is increasing steadily, there is no immediate prospect of bringing S supply
back into balance with demand via the conventional laws of supply and
demand. Previous studies (1), (2), (3) have indicated a low elasticity for
sulfur demand at low prices (even though high S prices do induce substitution
of processes that do not require S). Thus, attempts to stimulate demand for
sulfur by cutting prices are not likely to succeed. Demand is expected to
expand, but it will do so at a pace set by world economic conditions and not
as the consequence of actions that the sulfur producers can initiate.
The supply of by-product sulfur is also related to world economic
conditions. Thus, changes in the rate of growth of demand are likely to
be paralleled by changes in rates of by-product production. But this com-
pensation is only partial. The type and source of fossil fuel used to supply
incremental energy will affect the quantity of recoverable by-product sulfur.
For example, current Canadian natural gas production is sixty times as sour
as current U.S. production. Hence, incremental production of Canadian gas is
contributing significantly to world S supplies whereas incremental U.S.
ga s production is not. I< Of even grea ter importance, however, is the
"overhang" of abatement sulfur. ..!i a 11 of the latter were to be recovered
in useful ~ (in the course of meeting sax emission standards), there would
be an enormous addition to sulfur supplies. This disturbing prospect is
becoming widely recognized. Less obvious, however, is the possibility that
much of the "overhang!! k* will be recovered as a waste product rather than
in useful form. Still less obvious is the prospect that if much of the
retrofitting of sax controls avoids the recovery of S in useful form, then
the increment in abatement S potential may be in reasonable balance with
the increment in S demand.
*
One effect of importing an additional billion CF/D of Alberta
natural gas would be to cause an additional million tons of S
to be recovered in Alberta. The same quantity of gas, . if it
were available from U.s. sources of average S content, would add
less than 20,000 tons of S to U.S. supplies.
**
i.e., the supply that becomes available though retrofitting of
pollution controls to existing plants. At a hypothetical level
of zero SO emission, the overhang is 11 million long tons of S
equiva1ent~ Thus, each 10% reduction of emissions below the 1970
level approximates 1.1 million LT of S equivalent.
-------
- 5 -
Currently, there is a growing oversupply even before abatement
sulfur is included in total supplies. In consequence, the initiative has
been taken by Alberta's Energy Resources Conservation Board in seeking to
arrange export prorationing. In Alberta, this would take the form of
stockpiling recovered S beyond an agreed upon market volume. Similar
arrangements for stockpiling or restricting deliberate production have been
made, or are expected, by France, Mexico and Poland..
The U.S. anti-trust laws may prevent participation by U.S.
companies in what has been referred to as a world sulfur cartel(4). In any
case, the U.S. Frasch S producers may prefer to strengthen their position
in key domestic markets rather than attempting to expand exports. Now that
world shipping rates have fallen back to, or below, normal levels, Canadian
exporters could undersell the U.S. Frasch producers in foreign markets on
a sustained basis. On the other hand, the current Canadian initiative is a
step back from price-cutting in recognition of the probability that export
prorationing can bring a more satisfactory overall netback on sales. It
must be recognized, however, that implementation of this policy would be
accompanied by a steady build-up of Canadian stockpiles of recovered S.
Therefore, the potential dominance of export markets (with the threat of
stockpile liquidation) by Canadian S would increase. It must also be
recognized that exports of French, Polish and Mexican sulfur are in the
hands of government-controlled companies or agencies. Hence, the prospects
for reaching an export prorationing understa~ding with Canada seem good.
Nevertheless, abatement sulfur could disturb any such arrangement even
though not a ton of it were to move into export markets. This could happen
if an attempt were made to force a large amount of abatement S into the
key Florida market. It is considered a certainty that the U.S. Frasch S
producers would meet such an attempt by all means possible. It is not pro-
jected that this hypothetical situation will occur, but it is one of the
possibilities that has been investigated.
2.3
Parametric Cases
Many cases have been calculated by a computer program. Each is a
simulation of a hypothetical supply/demand condition rather than being a pro-
jection of a condition that is expected to occur. Indeed, the results obtained
from som~ runs make it clear that the simulated condition is unlikely. The
individua 1 cases say "with these assumptions, this is likely to occur. . . ."
By covering a sufficient range of assumptions, regar~ing the rate at which
abatement sulfur could enter the U.S. market, the user of the Model should
be able to investigate a variety of hypotheses. This can be done in an
approximate way using the correlation charts, or in a more complete way by
rerunning a computer case with a set of new assu~ptions.
-------
- 6 -
The computer calculations are made with the IBM's "LP MOSS"
program. The calculation minimizes the sum of the delivered costs of
sulfur received in a number of "regions" from various points of
"extra-regional supply". The Model could be simplified (smaller number
of supply and demand points) or expanded (larger number of supply and
demand points) without any change to the programs used.
2.4 Price Assumptions
The upper limit of the price range for sulfur is determined by.
.
The cost, plus return on inventment (R.O.I), of obtaining
S values from almost inexhaustible sources such as gypsum.
The cost of alternate manufacturing processes that avoid the
use of sulfur, e.g., nitrophosphate fertilizer processes.
.
In the short run, S prices may rise above these limits as they have done
in the past. In the long run, however, the above alternatives would
stabilize prices at levels sufficient to give a competitive return on
new capital invested.
The lower limit of sulfur values is indeterminate tmder conditions
of gross oversupply. At a certain point the value of incremental production
can become negative. If production is expanded further under these conditions,
and if attempts are made to market all such production, the value of all
sulfur to many producers could become negative. This is a difficult and
unusual concept that requires consideration of the following effects:
.
Attempts to market a steadily increasing excess of supply would
cause a downward price spiral.
.
Very little demand-elasticity at low price levels.
.
Inability to cut back production of byproduct S.
.
Economic inaccessibility of distant markets because of transporta-
tion and marketing costs.
Conditions of gross oversupply may not occur. Nevertheless, the possibility
exists. Moreover, the situation could beset an individual producer several
years after the start of his own production, i.e. it is a condition that could
be brought on by the subsequent actions of other producers. The potential
downside risk to a producer of elemental S is easy to estimate since it is
simple, and relatively cheap, to stockpile elemental S. The hypothetical down-
side risk to a producer of abatement acid is substantially greater and less
readily predictable.
-------
- i -
No cases have been calculated by computer that involve negative
F.O.B. prices. Nevertheless, the Model makes it clear that such prices
might be necessary in order to sell abatement acid from certain locations
at certain times in the future.
2.5 Construction of Sulfur Model
Geographically, the "World Model" for sulfur is divided into
individual countries, or groups of countries, that have broad economic and/or
political similarities. Figure 1 shows the subdivisions of the world
model for sulfur supply, in which the }liddle East is a separate unit because
of potential for producing sulfur from sour natural gas, by desulfurization
of petroleum and from deposits of natural sulfur in Iraq. The world demand
model is slightly different in that the Middle East is grouped with other
Asia/Pacific countries while Oceania is treated separately because of its high
demand for phosphate fertilizers.
The "North American Model" comprises the regions that are active
in the computer model. Figure 2 shows that besides true N. American
countries (Canada, U.S., Mexico), the model includes the Caribbean region
(symbolized by Aruba) and.W. Europe (symbolized by Rotterdam). The former
is a source of "extra-regional supply" from petroleum desulfurization, while
the latter is a region of net demand and, therefore, a target for S exports
from the U.S., Canada etc. The U.S. regions in Figure 2 are designated by
the names and numbers used in the computer calculations and tables. The
actual regions represented by these names are indicated in Figure 3 which is
an exploded map of the U.S.
2.6 Supply and Demand Forecasts
Unlike many "long range" proj ections that mar be little more than
10-15 year extrapolations, the Sulfur Model is concerned with the next five
decades. For this reason, it was considered necessary to start by making
economic projections and then to convert the latter into projections of
sulfur supply and demand.
The principal steps in the supply and demand forecasts are listed
in Table 1. It will be seen that a major step is to translate projections
of economic activity into energy demand. This is necessary because it is
from fossil fuels that the greater part of the by-product sulfur is coming,
and will continue to come, during the next several decades. In addition,
the demand for sulfur, whether it be industrial or fertilizer demand, also
correlates with economic activity and economic growth. Consequently, by
basing the overall proiections on correlations with constant dollar GNP,
there is some self-compensation in the net statistics. For example, if
economic development is overestimated this would have the effect both
of overestimating the potential for sulfur recovery and of demand for
sulfur.
Balances of supply minus demand for the "Free World ex U. S. " are
given in Table 2. * Western Europe and the developing countries (in aggregate)
are projected to continue in a net demand position, while Canada and Japan
are expected to continue in surplus. Communist countries are also expected
*
The statistics are in millions of long tons, because this is the
standard unit of the sulfur industry. However, in many parts of the
study metric tons are used because this is more usual in energy forecasts.
-------
FIGURE 1
WORLD MODEL
W~~~~~
wn~~
FCOMMUNIST ASIA9
~y~J~9~~~~fii~
E-s. 5.' R1
"FEASTERN EUROPE ~
FAR EAST
EXCLUDING JAPAN
-- --- -
'LATIN
AMER I CA
I MIDDLE EAST I
.').
I AFRICA I
LEGEND
~ ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT
I I COMMUNIST COUNTRIES
I I "DEVELOPING FREE WORLD"
-------
F :C HE 2
NORTH AMERICAN MODEL
~1~~~~
(7)
I SEATTLE I
(8)*
I SAN FRANCISCO I
I LOS ANGELES I
(8)
[~~~~~~~~
( I )
I BOSTON I
(6)
I OMAHA I
(4)
1 CHICAGO* (DETROIT) I (2)
I (BUFFALO) NEWARK* I
(5)
I MEMPHIS* I
(:3 )
I NORFOLK I
(10)
~~£~~~~
(II)
rJf~~: ~~~~~S~
~ig~fjA99Ass~S~
~
(9)
I TAMPA I
I ROTTERDAM I
~£~lf~AA
LEGEND
(1)-(11) DESIGNATE U.S. REGIONS
* SOURCE OF ''EXTRA-REGIONAL SUPPLY"
IN LATER YEARS OF FORECAST
) SUB-REGIONS
(
~ EXTRA-REGIONAL
SUPPLIER OF EL. S
~4 EXTRA-REGIONAL
. . ... ACID SUPPLIER
-------
i MONT.
\
10. .~
i,.
. \ .~._-----
._.~ WYO.
I
I
'--lUTAH.-j
. L-
I -lCOL:----'
i i
i MOUNT~IN
~RIZ-'-.-k-----_.
f"" ,N. MEX.
. I
I
I
FIGURE 3
U.S. REGIONS
lMINN.
'l
.-.---}
S. OA K. .'\
i
GO"WA---
----'''.-J
NEB. WEST NORTH
CENTRAL~ --
---_._-~o.
KAN. ~
\
N. OAK.
>--
c...
OKLA.
--', . ARK.
TEX. i ,
i i jMISS.
'"", . ,
-""'\...'~'.r'-'~ \
, LA:-'l
I... .
. I
WEST SOUTH CENT~AL \.'-''''.
-------
- ; 1 -
TABLE 1
FORECAST BASIS
. Supply
(1)
PROJECTIONS OF :
(2) CONSTANT $ GNP
(3) OOPULATION
(2) GNP/ENERGY CORRELATION + (2) --.(5) ENERGY FORECAST
(6) NUCLEAR AND HYDRO ENERGY FORECASTS
(5) - (6) --'(7) FOSSIL FUEL ENERGY FORECAST
(8) BREAKDOWN OF FOSSIL FUEL ENERGY BY SOURCE
(7) & (8) ~(9) NATURAL GAS FORECAST
--)(10) PETROLEUM FORECAST
--t(11) COAL FORECAST
(12) NATURAL GAS SULFUR CONTENT & (9)-+(13) NAT. GAS S RECOVERY OOTENTIAL
(14) PETROLEUM SULFUR CONTENT & (10) -. (15) PETROLEUM S RECOVERY OOTENTIAL
(16) COAL SULFUR CONTENT & (11)-4(17) COAL S RECOVERY OOTENTIAL
(18) % RECOVERY IN USEFUL FORM FROM NATURAL GAS
(19) % RECOVERY IN USEFUL FORM FROM PETROLEUM
(20) % RECOVERY IN USEFUL FORM FROM COAL
(13) & (18) -+ (21) S RECOVERED FROM NATURAL GAS
(15) & (19) -.... (22) S RECOVERED FROM PETROLEUM
(17) & (20) --4> (23) S RECOVERED FROM COAL
(24) PROJECTION OF S RECOVERY FROM SMELTERS» PYRITE AND OTHER SOURCES
(25) PROJECTION OF FRASCH S AVAILABILITY
(21) & (22) & (24) & (25) ~(26) TOTAL S SUPPLY (EXCLUDING STOCKPILES)
. Demand
POPULATION & GNP PER CAPITA/FERTILIZER S DEMAND/RELATIONSHIPS
(27)
(2)
(29)
(2)
(28)
& (3) & (27)~ (28) FERTILIZER S DEMAND
GNP/INDUSTRIAL S DEMAND CORRELATION
& (29) -4 (30) INDUSTRIAL S DEMAND
+ (30) -~ (31) TOTAL S DEMAND
. Supply/Demand Balance
(31)
- (21) - (22) - (23) - (24) --.. (32)
(31)
- (21) - (22)
- (24) -4 (33)
NET FOREIGN DEMAND» INCLUDING ABATEMENT S BUT
EXCLUDING FRASCH SUPPLY
U.S. . NET REGIONAL DEMAND» EXCLUDING FRASCH
SUPPLY AND ABATEMENT S
Note: The symbol & signifies the joint consideration of one factor
with another» not a simple arithmetic sum of the factors.
-------
TABLE 2
BALANCES OF SUPPLY MINUS DEMAND FOR REGIONS OF "FREE WORLD ex U.S."*
(MILL ION LT)
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000 l010 l020
Japan 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.8 1.6 2.1 3.0
Middle E./Far E. -1. 7 -2.7 -2.8 -4.5 -5.3 -7.0 -10.0 -U.6
Africa -0.3 -0.5 -0.7 -0.8 -1.0 -2.1 -3.4 -4.5
w. Europe -1. 3 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1. 8 -3.1 -3.6 -3.9
Latin America 0.7 0.5 -0.1 -0.2 -0.6 -1. 7 -3.8 -5.7
Canada 3.6 7.2 10.1 9.8 7.4 3.6 3.8 3.5
-
Net Position** 1.9 3.8 4.9 3.4 -0.5 -8.7 -14.9 -20.2
.....
N
*
After adj ustment for net imports from Communist comtries.
** The positive figures in this row imply some combination of:
- Net exports to U.S.
- Stockpiling
The negative figures imply some combination of:
- Net imports
- Drawdown of
- Alternative
processes)
- Higher than projected level of
from u.S.
stockpiles
ways of satisfying S demand, (e.g., nitrophosphate fertilizer
petroleum desulfurization outside the U.S.
-------
- 1] -
to be in surplus until after 1990. The overall effect is expected to
limit U.S. sulfur exports until recovery from W. Canadian sour natural
gas has peaked and the associated stockpile of elemental sulfur has been
reduced. This should occur by 1990, thereby providing the opportunity for
the U. S. to recap ture its position as the world's leading exporter of
elemental sulfur.
2.7
Computer Calculations
The linear program (LP) calculates the way
demand regions" in Figure 2 can secure the necessary
from "ext ra-regional supplie rs. "
that each of the "net
supplies at lowest cost
An "extra-regional supplier" is a region that has supplies of sulfur
available for shipment to regions in a net demand position. For example, the
"New Orleans region" (Okla, Ark, Tex, La, Miss) includes all of U.S. Frasch S
production as well as a high concentration of petroleum refining capacity and,
thus, is expected to be in a net supply position throughout the forecast
period. On the other hand, the "Tampa region" (Fla) is expected to remain in
a position of net demand.
The net demand of a particular region is the region's gross demand
minus whatever supplies of sulfur are available from within the region. The
base case of net demand excludes abatement S from the latter supplies. Other
cases include various quantities of abatement S in useful form. * .. The latte r,'
is conceived to reduce the net demand of the pertinent region be fore the pos:- .
sibility of shipment to another region is considered. Certain regions (Chicago,
Memphis, Newark) are permitted to become "extra-regional suppliers" as their
potential for recovering abatement S expands.
For reasons given in Section 4.2, abatement S as treated in the
Model is confined to what may be recovered by electric utilities. Other
actual or potential sources of recovered S are treated in different ways even
though they may usually be thought of as abatement S. However, the Model .makes
an exception in the case of the "Tucson region" (Le. the Nountain states) where
the smelter acid potential is considered to be abatement S for the purpose of
the computer calculations.
Other input data used tor the LP calculations are:
.
.F.O.B. price from each extra-regional supplier.
.
Quantity of supply available from each extra-regional supplier.
.
Transportation cost for each linkage between the extra-regional
suppliers and net demand regions.
*
i.e., elemental S or sulfuric acid, but not waste gypsum. Please refer
to the glossary in Section 9 for more detailed explanation of terminology.
I.
-------
- l~ -
In addition, certain special features are added:
.
upper bounds are placed on the amount of acid
that may be supplied to a given region in order
to simulate the capacity of the region to accept
merchant acid (this capacity increases with time).
.
an acid equivalency credit that recognizes that the cost
of manufacturing acid is avoided by a customer who pur-
chases acid rather than elemental S.*
.
lower bounds on certain supply linkages in order to
simulate the effects of marketing systems (e.g. captive
terminals in the net demand regions) and captive uses
of S by the suppliers (e.g. manufacture of P fertilizers
by the Frasch S producers).
In general, the various constraints placed on the Model are
removed with time, thereby simulating an evolution of market structure
in which the current marketing advantages possessed by certain suppliers
would be eroded as new suppliers developed marketing capability.
The output data from the LP program include a matrix of extra-
regional suppliers and net demand regions which shows how demand was
filled (i.e. who sold to whom), and what the delivered cost was. If no
sales were made by a particular supplier to a particular demand region,
the required reduction in minimum delivered cost (and, hence, in F.O.B.
price) for a sale to occur is printed in the matrix. Other output programs
tabulate the sales by and netback to each supplier, and the calculated
delivered value of S in each region.
*
The acid equivalency credit changes with time thereby simulating
the difference between:
(a)
having to shut down existing acid manufacturing capacity
in order to be able to purchase merchant acid
and
(b)
purchasing acid incrementally rather than building new acid
manufacturing capacity.
-------
- 1') -
With respect to estimation of the value of abatement S in a
particular region, each LP case calculates the value of an incremental
~ of supply rather than of supply increments of any size. However,
parametric cases involving substantially different quantities of abatement
S supply make it possible to obtain value estimates by interpolation. The
calculated values are considered to be maxima because new suppliers would
have to shave their prices in order to "buy into" an existing market.
These maxima are referred to elsewhere as "maximum delivered values" (M. D. V.).
As a first approximation, it is postulated that a recoverer of abatement S in
elemental form might expect a plant netback of about $lO/LT less than the M.D.V.
The $lO/LT represents a composite of transportation and marketing costs (includ-
ing price-shaving to buy into the market). Actual transportation and marketing
costs are likely to vary greatly from one specific situation to another. Thus,
the deduction of $lO/LT from M.D.V. to obtain the F.O.B. value (F.O.B.V.) of
abatement S should be used with caution.
The words "useful form" are used over and over again to distinquish
abatement S recovered in elemental form or as acid, from that recovered as a
throwaway by-product. Theoretically, a given degree of abatement* could be
achieved with no sulfur in useful form (if only throwaway by-products were
produced), or with 100% recovery in useful form, or with an infinite number of
intermediate cases. However, what matters ~ ~ computer calculations is the
quantity of ~ in useful form and not the percentage that this quantity represents
of the total amount abated or of the total abatement potential. This point is
crucial to understanding the workings of the Model. It is important to re-
cognize that a given quantity of abatement S in useful form can represent
many combinations of abatement levels and percentages in useful form. The
calculations of value depend on quantities, but the correlation charts in
Sections 4 and 5 provide the connections between (a) levels and percentages
of abatement, (b) quantities of S in useful form, and (c) values estimated
for what is recovered.
The years 1980 and 2000 have been chosen to illustrate the results
of the computer calculations. The choice permits significantly different
situations to be contrasted. In 19~0, production of W. Canadian sulfur is ex-
pected to be at peak levels and backstopped by huge stockpiles, world markets
will be under intense supply pressure, and the fitting (and retrofitting) of
abatement systems in the U.S. should be beyond the demonstration stage and into
widespread use. In contrast, two decades later, W. Canadian S is expected to
be a minor factor in world markets, S recovered from petroleum refining will
be of major importance while, in the U.S., the policies applied to abatement S
in prior years will have determined the shape of the domestic sulfur and sulfuric
acid industries and their relationship to world markets.
*
Treated in the Model as the % reduction from the total quantity of SOx
emitted in 1970.
-------
r-
- 16 -
Results that illustrate the conditions projected for the years
1980 and 2000 are given in Tables 3 and 4. The overall sulfur demand of the
continental u.s. is summarized in the top segment of each table. This is
followed by estimates of demand in two of the most important regions of the
Model, Chicago and Tampa. In both cases, sulfur supplies from within the
region are deducted to give the net regional demand. These sulfur supplies
do not include abatement S in useful form (as defined in p. 13 footnote).
The third segment of each table shows
fects of different levels of abatement combined
recoveries in useful form and, hence, different
useful form.
cases that illustrate the ef-
with different percentage
quantities of abatement S in
The fourth segment of each table shows the net regional demand for
the Chicago and Tampa regions, after subtracting the pertinent quantities of
abatement S in useful form from the base case of net .demand. The reason that
the net demand in cases (B) and (C) is the same as in case (A) is that the
two former cases make the assumption of no recovery of S in useful form. Even
though cases (A), (B) and (C) represent different levels of abatement, they
are identical in terms of the assumption that no useful sulfur is recovered.
This implies different levels of recovery in throwaway form. However, the
latter has no direct effect on the value estimated for abatement sulfur.
The fifth segment of each table shows the estimated value of abate-
ment S corresponding to each quantity of abatement S in useful form. Here, it
must be pointed out that, for both years, cases (A), (B) and (C) lie outside
the area actually investigated by computer cases. This is because it is con-
sidered an unrealistic assumption that no abatement S at all will be recovered
in useful form. With no useful abatement S in the year 2000, the M.D.V.'s of $31+
and $30+ (obtained by extrapolation from calculated cases) might be somewhat
higher. Additionally, some switching to processes not requiring sulfur would
be expected since cases (A), (B) and (C) correspond to a net deficit in sup-
plies for the continental u.s.
It may seem somewhat of a contradiction to have an M.D.V. for
abatement S if none is assumed to be recovered in useful form, as in cases
(A), (B) and (C). However, the M.D.V. applies, conceptually, to the first
units of abatement S that would be recovered in useful form.
For 1980, case (D) suggests an M.D.V. only slightly less than for
cases (A) - (C) in both regions. However, a marked difference should be noted
for case (E). Here, a marginally lower value is estimated for the Tampa region
while an "indeterminately low" value is estimated for the Chicago region. The
explanation is that abatement sulfur has hardly changed the net demand of the
Tampa region whereas, in case (E), it has produced a condition of gross oversup-
ply in the Chicago region, namely a net .demand of minus 0.14 million LT.
Because of general conditions of oversupply corresponding to case 1980 E,
no extra-regional outlet is envisaged for thelChicago region's surplus of
0.14 million LT.
-------
- 17 -
TABLE 3
ILLUSTRATION OF U.S. SULFUR SITUATION IN 1980
.
Continental U. S.
Million LT
Fertilizer S Demand
Industrial S Demand
Total S Demand
7.1
6.7
13.8
.
Demand in Representative Regions
(A)
Gross Demand
Regional Supply (exc1. Abate. S)
Net Regional Demand
Chicago Tampa
1.66 3.19
0.59 0.10
1.07 3.09
.
Illustrative Cases of Abatement Supply
Tot a1 SOx
Emitted
% 0 f Abate. S
In Useful Form
Quantity of Abate. S
In Useful Form (106LT)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
Same as 1970
40% Less Than 1970
Same as 1970
40% Less Than 1970
Nil
Nil
0.49
1.21
Nil
Nil
0.02
0.06
None
None
50
50
. Net Regional Demand After Inclusion of Abate. S in Useful Form (106 LT)
(B), (C)
(D)
(E)
1..07
0.58
-0.14
3.09
3.07
3.03
.
Estimated Maximum Delivered Value (M.D.V.) for Abate. S ($/LT)
(A), (B), (C)
(D)
(E)
26
25
Indeterminately Low
23.
22+
21
Note:
Estimates of Value are in 1970 constant dollars.
-------
- 18 -
TABLE 4
ILLUSTRATION OF U.S. SULFUR SITUATION IN 2000
.
Continental U.S.
Million LT
Fertilizer S Demand
Industrial S Demand
Total S Demand
11.0
14.2
25.2
.
Demand in Representative Regions (Million LT)
(A)
Gross Demand
Regional Supply (excl. Abate. S)
Net Regional Demand
Chicago
3.53
2.92
0.61
Tampa
4.20
0.30
3.90
.
Illustrative Cases of Abatement Supply
Total SOx % of Abate. S Quantity of Abate S
Emitted In Useful Form In Use ful Form (106LT)
(B) Same as 1970 None Nil Nil
(C) 40% Less than 1970 None Nil Nil
(D) Same as 1970 50 2.35 0.13
(E) 40% Less than 1970 50 3.50 0.20
.
Net Regional Demand After Inclusion of Abate. S in Useful Form (106 LT)
(B), (C) Same as Base Case (A)
(D)
(E)
0.61
-1. 74
-2.89
3.90
3.77
3.60
.
Estimated Maximum Delivered Value (M.D. V.) for Abate. S ($/LT)
(A), (B), (C)
(D)
(E)
31+
26
21
30+
29
28
Note:
Estimates of Value are in 1970 constant dollars.
-------
- 19 -
The drop off in estimated M.D.V. 's for the Tampa region is attri-
butable not to the relatively miniscule quantities of abatement S in useful
form assumed to be produced within the region but to the corresponding quantities
produced in other regions.
For the year 2000, it will be seen that both cases (D) and (E)
represent a surplus of supply over demand in the Chicago region. In spite of
this, significant M.D.V. 's are estimated for both cases. The explanation is
that, in contrast to the 1980 cases, extra-regional outlets for Chicago region
sulfur are anticipated, i.e., the Chicago region is expected to be an "extra-
regional supplier" by the year 2000. Nevertheless, if the percentage of abate-
ment S recovered in useful form were to be only slightly greater than in case
E -- e.g. 60% instead of 50% in useful form -- then the Chicago region would
become grossly oversupplied and the estimated value of abatement S in useful
form would be indeterminately low.
2.8
Overview of Markets for Abatement Sulfur
Even though many possibilities are considered in the Model, a highly
simplified overview of one possibility is shown in Table 5. This is an il-
lustration of the way in which the markets for U.S. abatement S could develop.
(A) is
form that may be
(B), (C) and (D)
for domestic and
representative of the quantities of abatement S in useful
marketable without creation of a grossly oversupplied condition.
illustrate a possible split of (A) into acid~and elemental S
export markets.
(E) is the estimated quantity of abatement S that would have to be
recovered in some form (useful or throwaway) in order not to exceed the total
quantity of SOx emitted in 1970.
(E) - (A) is the indicated minimlDll requirement for recovery of S in
throwaway form, consistent with the above assumptions. However, it is con-
ceivable that it may not be feasible to develop systems for recovering abate-
ment S economically in elemental form. In this case, the requirement for
throwaway systems would be (E) - (B).
At the bottom of Table 5, there are rationalized projections of what
might occur. It is assumed that systems for recovering elemental S will not
be available in 1975, and will be in an early stage of development in 1980.
Subsequently, development is projected to be rapid. Throwaway systems are con-
ceived to be very important initially, then to enter a relatively static period
as markets are found for abatement S in useful form, and ultimately to expand
once more as the abatement potential exceeds market availability again. The
last condition is sensitive to the assumption that coal will be a principal
~ource of gaseous and liquid fuels in the U.S. at the beginning of the 21st
century.
-------
TABLE 5
ILLUSTRATIVE CASE OF EVOLUTION OF ABATEMENT SULFUR POTENTIAL
(Million LT of S Equivalent)
1975 1980 1985 1990 2000
(A) Approx. Market for Abate. s* 0.8 2.4 3.8 4.6 7.5
(B) of which: Acid (max.) 0.2 0.5 1.3 2.1 3.9
(C) E1. S (domestic) 0.6 1.9 2.5 2.5 1.6
(D) E1. S. (export) 2.0
2010
10.0
4.8
1.6
3.6
. Recovery of S Values Required to Limit SOx Emissions to 1970 Level
(E) 1.1 1.9 3.0 5.5 10.3 17.5 N
o
. Indicated Minimum Requirement for Throwaway Systems
(E) - (A) 0.3 0.9 2.8 7.5
. Indicated Minimum Requirement for Throwaway Systems if Recovery of Abatement S in Elemental Form is not Feasible,
i.e., (C) = (D) = 0
(E) - (B) 0.9 1.4 1.7 3.4 6.4 12.7
. Rationalized Projections
Acid 0.2 0.5 1.2 2.1 3.9 4.8
Elemental S 0.2 0.5 1.9 3.5 5.2
Throwaway 0.9 1.2 1.3 1.5 2.9 7.5
-Percentage Basis
Acid 18 27 40 38 38 28
Elemental S 10 17 35 34 30
Throwaway 82 63 43 27 28 42
* Wit lout causing gross oversupply Note that (A) = (B) + (C) + (D).
-------
- 21 -
Stressing that only one "scenario" is represented, the quantities at
the bottom of Table 5 may also be viewed in terms of increments of production
during the various time periods:
Throwaway
0.9
1975-80 1980-85 1985-90 1990-00 2000-10
0.3 0.7 0.9 1.8 0.9
0.2 0.3 1.4 1.6 1.7
0.3 0.1 0.2 1.4 4.6
1970-75
Acid
0.2
E1. S
Among other things, the above figures suggest the possibility of first and
second "generations" of throwaway systems. The first generation would find
immediate application, while the second might not be needed for another 15
years. However, the possible alternative of storing elemental S rather than
throwing away gypsum is another possibility. Furthermore, if substantial
reductions from 1970 emission levels were required, it would be necessary
to add all of the associated increment in abatement S either in throwaway
form or as stockpiled elemental S.
-------
2.9
- 'I
~ - -
Delphi Forecast
Many factors affecting long range projections are not forecastable
in a rigorous way and must be dealt with by judgment. Any individual or.
organization is bound to have certain biases when projecting what may occur
in the future. Accordingly, a nQ~ber of economic, technological and
environmental questions were prepared in the format of a Delphi forecast.
The questionnaire was put to a group of Japanese "oracles" drawn from the
first rank of Japanese industry, universities and official positions. In
this way opportunities were provided for obtaining viewpoints quite independent
of those of the contractor, and also insights into the future that might be
radically different. Exceedingly interesting responses were obtained:
.
A progress ive decline in economic growth ~ is predicted
for Japan, the European Economic Community, and the United
States. One implication is that rates of increase of energy
demand will also decline. If this happens, the potential for
recovering sulfur from fossil fuels would be expected to
slacken. At the same time, lower economic growth rates imply
correspondingly lower rates for growth of industrial S demand.
.
Nuclear power is expected to develop rapidly. By the
1990's half of the energy input to electricity generation
in industrialized countries is expected to be supplied
by nuclear power. However, at the turn of the century,
fossil fuels are still expected to be supplying much of
the energy input to electricity generation. This is an
important point because, theoretically, the ubiquitous
use of nuclear power could curtail the use of fossil fuels
and, hence, remove the need for controls on SO emissions.
The implication of the projections by the Japa~ese
oracles is that this situation will not occur until after
the year 2000.
.
More than half of the sulfur present in fossil fuels
consumed in Japan, in 1985, is expected to be removed either
by processing the fuel before combustion or by removal of
sulfur oxides from combustion gases. More than three quarters
of the S that is removed is expected to be recovered in
useful form including by-product calcium sulfate (expected
to be used in building materials).
.
New applications for sulfur and sulfuric acid may account
for as much as 15% of total Japanese demand by the year 2000,
Almost all of this is expected to be in construction materials
of various kinds. Whereas most of the current demand for
sulfur is in the form of acid, "new uses" are likely to involve
elemental S.
-------
L
2.10
- 2\ -
Principal Conclusions
.
World oversupply of sulfur is a virtual certainty for at least
another decade. Under these circumstances, the introduction of
abatement S into the domestic market will be difficult to accom-
plish without causing chaos in the market - unless much of the
recovery is in the form of a throwaway product.
.
By 1990, however, it will be important for the U.S. to be able
to recover abatement S in useful form. This would help the U.S.
to recapture its position as the world's leading exporter of
elemental S. If the sulfur is not recovered in useful form, a
re-emergence of processes that do not use S and also of relatively
high cost processes for manufacturing acid and/or elemental S
from gypsum would both be expected.
.
There will not be a market for all the abatement S that might
conceivably be recovered in useful form. Attainment of a reason-
able sales value for abatement S will depend either on stock-
piling elemental S until it is needed or on avoiding the pro-
duction of more abatement S in useful form than can be absorbed
by the market at a given time. The quantity will increase with
time.
.
The domestic market is now essentially an "elemental S market",
L e. the merchanting of acid is less important than the
merchanting of elemental S. However, the market for merchant
acid is expected to expand progressively during the 1980's
and 1990's, i.e. industry structure will change.
.
There will be a need for recovery of abatement S in throwaway,
acid, and elemental forms. The most immediate need is for
economical and effective throwaway systems. The commercial
importance of acid recovery systems is expected to increase
slowly during the 1970's and more rapidly during the 1980's..
If a national stockpile were to be established for elemental
S, recovery of abatement S in elemental form would become
important during the 1980's; otherwise this need would be defer-
red until the late 1980's or early 1990's.
.
By the 1990's considerable quantities of elemental Swill
be recovered from petroleum. Most of this recovery will
occur in coastal refineries, which will be advantageous
from an export standpoint.
.
Large quantitites of S are also expected to be recovered from
coal gasification or liquefaction. The location of such operations
will determine the way in which the recovered S is utilized (or
whether it can be utilized at all). However, it is likely that
the Chicago region of the Sulfur Model will be the most important
center for coal conversion, with plants located on the Illinois
Waterway and Ohio River. "
-------
-" -
.
The production of elemental S from W. Canadian sour natural
gas is expected to peak soon after 1980. However, a surplus of
production over domestic demand will continue for some years
and export potential will he maintained by a stockpile
of elemental S that is not expected to peak until around 1985-6.
Once this peaking occurs, the world balance on a current basis,
and excluding U.S. abatement S, is expected to swing from
oversupply to net demand~n a current basis). Conceptually,
U.S. abatement S can incrementally fill this supply gap.
.
In the later years ot the forecast, smelters in Eastern
Canada are expected to contribute significantly to Canada's
export capability. Recovery of elemental S as well as acid
is expected.
.
Smelters in Arizona are expected to have a continuing excess of
S value potential over the quantity that can be marketed unless
an economical way of recovering elemental S is developed.
.
The projected reversal of the world S balance implies that recovered
S will move up to a delivered value of about $35/LT in the 1990's--
provided that gross oversupply of abatement S in useful form is
avoided. Subtraction of the delivery cost, e.g., from an Illinois
Waterway stockpile to Rotterdam, amounting to just over $lO/LT on
a constant dollar basis, suggests that the netback to a well-
located electric utility may be in the range of $20-25/LT compared with
about $12-l3/LT for the same hypothetical transaction today--
and a lower netback still during the next decade when world over-
supply is expected to intensify.
-------
- 25 -
REFERENCES
( 1)
"The Study of the Evolution of the World Sulfur Industry from
1965 to 1975," Battelle Memorial Institute, April 1, 1967.
(2)
U.S. Tariff Commission, Hearings on the Competitive Position of
U.S. Industries, Statement of Freeport Sulphur Company, December
1, 1970 (page 9):
"Because the price of sulphur is so minute a part of the
cost of the final products sulphur helps to make, the
level of sulphur price does not affect the level of consumption."
(3)
"Brimstone: The Stone that Burns," Williams Haynes, 1942: "A
stubborn fact of the brimstone market is that lower prices do not
increase sales. . ."
(4)
European Chemical News, 9/24/71, page 5.
-------
- .~ ~ -
3.
STRUCTURE OF SUPPLY/DEMAND MODEL
3.1
General Concepts Used in Model
This section begins with a brief discussion of the conventional
way in which imbalances between supply and demand are corrected. However,
in the case of sulfur, the conventional approach has already been modi-
fied by large and growing volumes of byproduct supply. Stockpiles of by-
product sulfur, already large, will grow larger. This, too, will have an
impact on the conventional "laws of supply and demand" and the price con-
sequences of these "laws."
Abatement sulfur, i.e., sulfur values recovered from utility
gases, will have a direct impact in the locations where recovery takes
However, the indirect impact in other areas may be equally important.
stack
place.
as they
of this
The foregoing definitions of abatement sulfur and of other terms,
are applied to the Model, are given in Section 9. A brief scanning
glossary is suggested before proceeding further with Section 3.
3.1.1
Conventional Approach to Supply/Demand Balances
balances.
changes.
may well
tions of
Supply and demand "balances" might more accurately be termed im-
The latter tend to be corrected by price adjustments and other
However, such corrections may occur over a period of years and
result in a new form of imbalance rather than in stabilized condi-
supply and demand.
In most industries an oversupply condition is corrected by curtail-
ing production and reducing prices. Conversely, temporary excess of demand
over supply is met by liquidation of inventory during the time that new pro-
ductive capacity is built. Excess demand is also curbed by increased prices.
These simple "laws" of supply and demand have broken down in the case of sul-
fur, because an increasing percentage of total supply is coming from byproduct
sources. Thus, the ability to reduce production is limited to non-byproduct
(i.e., deliberately produced) sulfur. The term "discretionary production" is
used, but is not wholly apt since there are commercial and economic limits on
the degree to which "discretion" can be applied.
also
All of the discretionary producers of sulfur, e.g., the U.S. Frasch
producers, have investments in their production facilities. In many cases,
these companies have additional investments in terminals and other distribution
facilities as well as in transportation equipment such as liquid sulfur tankers.
The investment downstream of the production facility (e.g., Frasch S mine) cannot
be fully utilized if production is' cut back. The same is true of the invest-
ment in the production facilities themselves.
-------
- 2': -
When new investments are being considered, it is normal to think
in terms of return on investment (R.O.I.) or discounted cash flow (DCF) re-
turn or some other indicator of the profit that can be made on the invest-
ment. The goal will vary, depending in part on the risk involved, but in
many cases will be in the range of 10% to 20% after taxes (A.T.). Thus, a pro-
posed investment with a calculated R.O.I. of less than 10% A.T. might be con-
sidered marginal. However, this does not mean that all investments achieve
their profit goals. Business conditions may change and expected profit mar-
gins may decline. In consequence, companies may face the decision of either
shutting down (or selling) a particular operation or of holding on until con-
ditions improve. If conditions are not expected to improve, a decision may
be made to continue the business until cash flow becomes negative.
For the purposes of the sulfur Model, it is assumed that:
a.
New deliberate ("discretionary") producers
values will not enter the business without
pects of an R.O.I. of at least 10% A.T.
of sulfur
the pros-
b.
Existing deliberate producers will not leave the busi-
ness until they face a continuing negative cash flow.
Cash
This
with
flow and R.O.I. are considered to apply to the business as
includes marketing and takes account of downstream captive
which the production of sulfur may be integrated.
a whole.
operations
3.1.2.
Effect of Byproduct Supply
The Model must also take account of byproduct sulfur. In this case,
the economic considerations are quite different. The controlling influences
are the demand for and profit margin of a main product (e.g., natural gas)
from which sulfur must be separated before the product can be marketed. In
the limit, this means that byproduct sulfur need have no recoverable value
at all and that project economics may be determined entirely by those of a
main product such as natural gas, or fuel oil, or copper. Nevertheless, the
producers of the main products will try to sell byproduct sulfur as profit-
ably as possible. This may require the stockpiling of a considerable frac-
tion of production (which cannot be controlled because it depends on the
demand for another product such as natural gas). Thus, the price at which
byproduct sulfur is marketed may have little to do with its cost of produc-
tion. This may not have been the case when the first plants for recovering
sulfur from sour natural gas were built in Alberta, but it is the case now.
The pricing basis must always be market oriented. It must recognize the
international structure of the sulfur business and the possible repercussions
of pricing in such a way that deliberate producers of sulfur could be forced
out of business or might seek protection against imports of byproduct sulfur.
The producers in the exporting countries must also recognize the impact of
their pricing decisions on foreign exchange earnings and royalty payments
(e.g., to the Province of Alberta). Thus, the decisions of the Alberta Pro-
vincial Government to call for stockpiling of recovered sulfur (which is
-------
- 2M -
equivalent
production
markets.*
to:
to export prorationing)and of the Mexican Government to proration
of Mexican Frasch sulfur may be seen as attempts to stabilize
Nevertheless, pricing is expected to remain competitive in order
a.
Discourage entry of new deliberate producers of
sulfur or sulfur values (e.g., acid from pyrite).
b.
Persuade marginal deliberate producers to shut down.
In the U.S., this means the continuing closure of
high-cost and, probably, medium-cost Frasch mines.
In W. Europe, it means the eventual shutdown of less
efficient pyrite operations. In Japan, it means
the closure of high-cost native sulfur mines.
c.
Cause intense competition in those export markets
in which all of the principal suppliers compete.
The North European market is the most obvious
example.
d.
Prevent any loss of sales by keeping prices below
those needed to encourage replacement of sulfur by
other means (e.g., nitrophosphate fertilizer manufacture).
3.1.3
Byproduct Stockpiles
A growing stockpile of recovered sulfur in Alberta will be of special
significance because it will overhang future export markets. It will not be
in the interests of the Canadian producers to move this sulfur into world
markets at prices that would net little or nothing back to Alberta. But it
would seem to be in the Canadian producers' interest to keep the major com-
petitive export markets under price pressure in such a way that incremental
demand is supplied by Canada (throughout the period in which Canadian sup-
plies greatly exceed local demand).
For the purpose of the Model, cases have been calculated that in-
volve a range of F.G.B. price assumptions. Cases that represent a further
penetration of Canadian sulfur in "offshore" markets without further penetra-
tion of U.S. markets are regarded as most probable. However, the consequences
of other price assumptions are apparent ~rom other cases that have been calcu-
lated using the Model.
*
Various descriptions of the Canadian and Mexican prorationing plans have
appeared in the press. Page 24 of the 9/24/71 issue of "European Chemi-
cal News" gives one of the clearer descriptions of what is planned.
Another account is given in Texas Gulf Sulphur's report covering the
first 6 months of 1971.
-------
- 29 -
3.1.4
Abatement Sulfur in Useful Form
Introduction of abatement sulfur in useful form, into domestic
markets is conceived to restrict the markets available to U.S. Frasch sul-
fur and to imports from Canada and Mexico. However, because of geography,
the impact will not be the same on the principal supply sources. The
"geography" involves not only the different costs of transporting sulfur
from the principal points of production to the principal points of demand
but also the differences in abatement potential in different parts of the
U.s. in relation to local demand. Qualitatively, without the need for cal-
culations, it is clear that the abatement potential is greatest in parts
of the Midwest that have been penetrated progressively by W. Canadian sul-
fur. There is also a significant abatement potential in certain E. Coast.
markets in which Mexican sulfur has been an important factor. and other E.
markets in which U.S. Frasch S has an even stronger position. On balance,
when the abatement potential begins to be translated into actual supplies,
the direct impact should be greater on Canadian and Mexican exports than
on U.S. suppliers. However, loss of exports to the U.S. may be expected
to sharpen competition with U.S. exports in foreign markets. Thus, an in-
direct effect of domestic abatement sulfur is likely to be a curtailment
of exports of U.S. Frasch sulfur.
Coast
3.1.5
Dual Pricing
Although the Model does not use a "dual price" system (one F.O.B.
price for exports and a different price for domestic sales) it is easy to
estimate what the effects of dual pricing would be. If, for example, abate-
ment supplies in the Midwest were to erode W. Canadian rail exports, compen-
satory sales of W. Canadian sulfur in N. Europe might be sought at the expense
of U.S. exports to the same market. The resulting competition would cause
N. European prices to fall. In turn, the netback to the U.S. Gulf (and to
Alberta) would be reduced. If the "delivered Tampa" price from the U.S. Gulf
were to be maintained, there would be a differential in the netback to the
Gulf for Tampa and N. European deliveries. This would be a typical example
of dual pricing. However, as the differential began to widen, it would soon
be to the advantage of W. Canadian (and Mexican) suppliers to attempt to
penetrate the Tampa market, thereby squeezing the U.S. Frasch producers in
their prime market. Faced with the alternative of losing export markets or of
fighting a price war in the Tampa market, it seems likely that the U.S. Frasch
producers would choose the former. This is because the Tampa market has an
excellent growth potential as well as being able to provide the best netback
per unit of sales. Conceptionally, in decreasing order of importance, markets
for U.S. Frasch sulfur as as follows:
a.
The Tampa/Bartow area.
Gulf Coast markets [almost as important as (a),
but somewhat more fragmented.]
b.
c.
Markets adjacent to owned terminals on the
Mississippi River system and the E. Coast.
-------
- h) -
e.
Markets adjace~t to owned terminals in N. Europe.
Other U.S. markets.
d.
f.
Other foreign markets (e.g., in Asia, Latin
America).
Under conditions of world oversupply, it is probable that (e) and (f) would
be relinquished if the alternative would be to invite greater competition
and price erosion in the other areas. In the case of (c) and (d) the U.S.
Frasch producers may be content to keep a reasonable volume moving through
their own terminals without aggressive marketing that would invite competi-
tion to seek alternative outlet in (a) or (b). Thus, U.S. Frasch producers
may be expected to defend (a) and (b)* strenuously and to maintain sales to
(c) and (d) long enough for growth in (a) and (b) to be sufficient to sup-
port total production at economic levels.
The above conditions are simulated
part of the demand'~< in a specific market is
certain sourc~ (such as U.S. Frasch sulfur).
thetica1 effect of removing such constraints.
in the Model by cases in which
required to be filled from a
Other cases show the hypo-
3.1.6
Net Regional Demand
For simplicity the Model, except in a few cases, deals in terms of
net regional demand rather than permitting concurrent movements (sales and
purchases) in and out of a particular region. In effect, it is assumed that
local supplies of elemental sulfur will be absorbed into the local market in
preference to extra-regional supplies. The same assumption is made for
abatement acid except that a limitation is placed on the fraction of the
local market that is permitted to be supplied with either local or extra-
regional abatement acid. This limitation is progressively removed with time
(i.e., the various time periods of the Model) in simulation of the progressive
development of markets for merchant acid. However, each region is treated
individually in this respect in order to take account of local situations
such as demand for elemental S (rather than acid) by the pulp and paper in-
dustry in the Pacific Northwest. The reasoning with regard to markets for
abatement acid is given in Part Z of the report.
ok
Except a portion of this market that must, unavoidably, be lost to
sulfur recovered from local oil and gas operations.
**
In linear programming language B "lower bound" is placed on supply from
a certain source. The net demand in a given "region" of the Model is a
"fixed bound" that will be equal to or greater than the "lower bound."
The Model also employs "upper bounds" on supply which are used to
designate the maximum quantity of regional demand that may be supplied
in the form of sulfuric acid (in a given year or case).
-------
- ]1 -
3.1. 7
Maximum Delivered Value
The "netting out" of regional supplies has the effect of reducing
the Model to a group of regions with net demand that can be satisfied from
a number of extra-regional supply sources. The calculations made by the
LP model indicate sales by and netbacks to the extra-regional suppliers
under a variety of cost and supply assumptions. At the same time, the Model
also indicates the delivered cost of sulfur in a given region. This delivered
cost may be considered to be the maximum delivered value of abatement sulfur
in the region. The maximum netback to a producer of abatement sulfur would
be the maximum delivered value minus the cost of delivery. The latter would,
of course, depend on the exact location of the recovery plant in relation to
local markets. The Model does not deal with specific cases of this kind,
although it could be modified to do so.*
By running (parametric) cases involving varying quantities of abate-
ments sulfur in useful form, the Model permits interpolation of "maximum
delivered values" within the range of simulated abatement supply. The LP
program calculates the value for an incremental unit of supply rather than for
any increment of supply. However, the interpolation approach overcomes this
1 imita t ion.
The term "maximum delivered value" is used because it is conceived
that a new supplier would have to lower his price somewhat in order to "buy
into the market." It is anticipated that this would be done in the local
market rather than in a distant one.
It is further assumed that local supplies of recovered sulfur enter
~ markets, i.e., are subtracted from net regional demand. The distinction
here is between sulfur recovered from petroleum refining, etc., and "abate-
ment sulfur" recovered from utility plant stack gases. It is recognized that
the former need not have any market preference over the latter. The question
of preference does not affect the calculation of "maximum delivered value,"
since it is the overall regional supply/demand situation in relation to
*
For a complete "solution", the sulfur recovery plant would be designated
an "extra-regional supplier" and its potential customer or customers would
be considered as "net demand regions." The additional supply and demand
regions would then be incorporated into the Model. Transportation costs
between the pertinent supply and demand points would be calculated for
use in the LP program (which would be unaffected by the incorporation of
additional regions). F.O.B. price from the new supplier would then be
varied until the new "net demand regions" took all of the new supplies.
Running the LP program in this way would indicate not only the F.O.B.
value of the new supply but also the effect of the latter on the rest of
the participants in the Model. However, an approximate estimate of
F.O.B. value could be obtained without any LP runs. All that would be
needed would be to subtract the transportation costs from the maximum
delivered value already established for the region.
-------
- j~ -
the external balance that is
theless, it is believed that
normally enter local markets
conceived to determine regional values. Never-
byproduct sulfur from non-utility sources would
ahead of abatement sulfur because:
a.
U.S. petroleum refiners and natural gas processors
already have experience in marketing sulfur (while
utility companies do not).
b.
Sulfur recovered fran refinery H2S streams is sure
to be in useful form, whereas abatement S from utili-
ties need not be in useful form (e.g., it may be
waste calcium sulfate).
3.1.8
Abatement Sulfur as an Extra-Regional
Source of Supply
Notwithstanding (a) and (b), certain regions that are now in a net
demand position are conceived to emerge eventually as major sources of supply,
i.e., to become "extra regional suppliers" to other regions of net demand.
The Model also permits the extra-regional suppliers to export sulfur to
N. Europe. The regions conceived to be eventual suppliers are those that
combine a high potential for producing abatement sulfur with favorable
logistics for delivering sulfur economically to regions of net demand. Other
regions with some potential for extra-regional supply are not expected to
realize this potential because of unfavorable logistics.
3.2
The World Model
In the previous section the term "model" was used in reference to
the LP computer program, its calculations, and the concepts used in fitting
the sulfur supply/demand/price problem into a standard linear programming
format. In this section, however, and in the several sections that follow,
"model" refers to the geographical structure of sulfur supply and demand.
Because sulfur is an international commodity, supply or demand
anywhere can affect the situation in other places. Exports of sulfur from
the U.S. or imports into the U.S. affect the domestic balance and have an
impact on sulfur prices in regional domestic markets.
The World Model has been developed in two parts: one for supply
and another for demand. In turn, each of these parts is made up of several
components.
-------
-3 J -
3.2.1
World Demand Model
Total demand for "sulfur in all forms", i.e., for sulfur values,
is assumed to be the sum of fertilizer and industrial demand.
Fertilizer S demand is related primarily to the demand for phos-
phate fertilizers that use sulfuric acid in their manufacture, but also in-
cludes ammonium sulfate and other fertilizer materials that contain sulfur.
It is important to recognize that there are "non-sulfur routes" to phos-
phate fertilizers (such as nitrophosphate manufacture or electric furnace
reduction of phosphate rock to elemental phosphorus). In the long run,
these manufacturing alternatives place an effective ceiling on sulfur prices.
Because it correlates with industrial activity and, hence, with
constant dollar GNP, the industrial demand for sulfur was calculated from
projections of GNP.
The fertilizer projections were made for:
. United States
. Canada
. Japan.
. European O.E.C.D.
Subtotal = O.E.C.D.
. Oceania
Subtotal (incl. O.E.C.D.) = Developed Free World
. Developing Asia
. Africa
. Latin America
Subtotal = Develop1ng Free World
Hence, Free World Total
. Communist Bloc
Hence, World Total.
,,<
If the sulfur shortage and accompanying high prices of the late 1960's
had continued, there is no doubt that a boost would have been given to
the construction of new nitrophosphate and electric furnace phosphorus
capacity. Plans of this kind were in preparation when the sulfur situa-
tion turned to oversupply in 1968.
-------
- J:' -
The industrial demand projections were made for similar groupings
of countries in terms of constant dollar GNP, and were then converted to
sulfur demand.
Combination of the fertilizer and industrial demand projections
gave the total demand for S values on a regionalized world basis.
3.2.2
World Supply Model
The supply projections were made in a similar manner to those for
demand, but were more complicated because separate regional estimates were
made for:
Frasch sulfur
Sulfur recovered from sour
S values from smelting and
S recovered from petroleum
natural gas.
pyrite roasting
and other sources
For all regions except the U.S., "other sources" included abate-
ment sulfur (primarily from petroleum). For the U.S., the abatement S po-
tential (primarily from combustion of coal) was separated from the estimates
of sulfur expected to be recovered from petroleum.
3.2.3
World Supply/Demand Balances
The projections in the two preceding sections were combined to
give net balances on a regionalized world basis. Thus, each region such
as Japan or W. Europe (European D.E.C.D.) would show either a net demand or
a net supply. The balances of the "Free World ex-U.S." were then modified
to take account of projected trade in sulfur with Communist countries. Cer-
tain other changes were then made to obtain the input data for the "North
American Model", as described below.
3.3
The North American Model
supply
have a
The North American Model comprises the U.S. and certain sources of
and demand outside the U.S. The latter sources are those expected to
direct impact on the sulfur situation within the U.S.
The external supply sources in the North American Model are:
.
Calgary
representing the principal supply point
for exports of W. Canadian sour gas S
to the Midwest and (via Vancouver) to
other countries and other U.S. destina-
tions.
-------
.
Sudbury
representing an E. Canadian source of
S values, recovered from nickel and
copper smelting, for potential export
to certain U.S. locations and to
N. Europe.
.
Coatzacoalcos
representing the principal supply point
for exports of Mexican Frasch sulfur.
.
Aruba
symbolizing sulfur available from petro-
leum desulfurization in the Caribbean
area (and associated with the demand for
low S fuels in tributary U.S. locations).
.
Rotterdam
symbolizing net demand for S values in
N. Europe.
For the purpose of the computer calculations that involve the
North American Model it was necessary to disaggregate the external supply
sources listed above from the net regional world balances.
The North American Model treats the U.S. on a regionalized basis
as discussed below.
3.4
Regionalized U.S. Model
The U.S. was divided into the eleven regions shown in Table 1.
Initially, nine of these regions have net demand for sulfur while two are
net suppliers ("extra-regional suppliers" in the terminology of the Model) .
In the later years of the Model, some of the regions that initially
were in a net demand position were projected to have the potential for becom-
ing "extra-regional suppliers." The projected changes of balance are due, in
large measure, to the given regions' potentials for recovering abatement sul-
fur in useful form. The supply potential of the California region, however,
is due to petroleum desulfurization rather than to recovery of S values from
utility stack gases.
As for the World Model (Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2), internal balances
for each U.S. region were obtained from projections of fertilizer and industrial
demand for sulfur and of supplies from different sources (including Frasch sul-
fur in the case of Region No. 11).
-------
TABLE 6
REGIONALIZED U.S. MODEL - INDICATING SUPPLY AND DEMAND REGIONS
Region Reference
No. Regional Name* Point S tates*
1 New England Boston Me., Vt., N.H., Mass., Conn., R.I.
2 Middle Atlantic Newark N. Y., N.J., Pa.
3 South Atlantic Norfolk Md., Del., W.Va., Va., N. C., S.C., Ga.
4 E.N. Central Chicago Ohio, Mich., Ind., Ill., Wis.
5 E.S. Central Memphis Ky., Tenn., Ala.
6 W.N. Central Omaha Minn., Iowa, Mo., N.D., S.D., Neb., Kan.
7 Pacific N.W. Seattle Wash., Oreg.
8 California Los Angeles California
9 Florida Tampa Florida
10 Mountain Tucson Mont., Wyo., Col., N .M., Ida., Utah, Ariz., Nev.
11 W.S. Central New Orleans Ark., Okla., Tex., La., Miss.
.
For the Year 1990
and Subsequent Years:
4
E.N. Central
Chicago
Ohio, Mich., Ind., Ill., Wis.
.
For the Years 2,010 and 2,020:
2
5
8
Middle Atlantic
E.S. Central
Treated As
Net Demand Extra-Regional
Region Supplier
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X '-.
o
X
X
X
Newark N. Y., N.J., Pa. X
Memphis Ky., Tenn., Ala. X
San Francisco California X
California
~':
Some of the regions do not comprise exactly those states usually
associated with the regional name, e.g., Mississippi is included
above in the W.S. Central region because of its reserves of sour
natura, gas.
-------
i ~
4.
PARAMETRIC CASES
Each case for which computer calculations have been made represents
a simulation of certain supply, demand and cost assumptions. In forecasting
jargon, each case is a "scenario". However, many cases are based on a
common set of assumptions, i.e. have the same scenario, except for variation
of a single quantity such as supply or demand. The term "parametric cases"
has been used to categorize such groups of related cases.
The Environmental Protection Agency required the examination of the
effects of sources of "exogenous demand" and "exogenous supply". This was done by
investigating cases of "parametric demand" and "parametric supply". The
cases were constructed by assuming a proportional effect in each U. S. region
of the Model. For example, for a parametric increase of 10% in demand it was
assumed that the demand in each region would be increased by 10%. Clearly,
other assumptions could have been made but no other rational basis for doing
this was apparent. Nevertheless, interpolation between the results calculated
by the computer is possible. In consequence, estimation of the effects of
non-uniform variations (from region to region) in supply and demand is possible.
examined.
exogenous
turns out
Additionally, the effect of a national stockpile of elemental S was
Initially, the stockpile was considered to be a source of
demand. However, for reasons given in Section 4.3, the stockpile
to be a source of "negative supply".
4.1
Exogenous Demand
The basis of the demand projections is given in Appendix 5. The
"base case", before consideration of exogenous sources of demand, is simply
the sum of industrial and fertilizer demand for sulfur in a given region.
This is the gross regiona 1 demand before "netting out" interna 1 regiona 1
supplies of sulfur from sources such as petroleum refineries. The latter
do not affect gross regional demand*, so the parametric cases are based on
the latter.
For the 1975 cases, only a 5% "parametric increase" over the
base case was examined. In subsequent years, larger percentage increases
were investigated, ranging up to 30% for the year 2020. Although the per-
centages chosen. are arbitrary, they are compatible with the anticipation
of new uses for sulfur derived from the Delphi forecast (Appendix 9) .
*
Except in so far as the availability of feedstocks etc. may influence
the location of petrochemical plants etc. and, hence,' the demand for
industrial S. However, such considerations were factored into the
"base cases" of regional supply and demand.
-------
- 38 -
4.2
Exogenous Supply
As treated in the Model, exogenous
investigated in terms of "parametric supply"
abatement supply in useful form".
supply sources have been
or, more precisely, "parametric
The basis of the supply projections is given in Appendix 4. As
discussed there, a narrower than conventional definition was applied to
"aba tement su lfur". Except for one region (compris ing the Mounta in sta tes
that have a large smelter acid potential), "abatement sulfur" refers to S
values that may be recoverable by electric utilities. This does not mean
that other sources of what, conventionally, would be regarded as abatement
S were ignored. It means that the other sources were treated differently
than sulfur potentially recoverable by electric utilities. This approach
has both advantages and disadvantages that will be explained.
Different types of company can recover sulfur. Some have done it
for years while others are not yet in the business. Being in a business
during conditions of oversupply may be unpleasant, but entering a business
under such conditions is likely to present extreme difficulties. Established
companies have all evolved some form of offtake arrangement, possibly direct
marketing, possibly an offtake agreement with another marketer, or possibly
a variety of different arrangements. In consequence, recovery of incremental
quantities of sulfur, e.g. from a petroleum refinery or a sour gas processing
plant or acid from a (Eastern) smelter, can be channeled into an existing
marketing system. In contrast, a new producer has to force his way into
the market under conditions of oversupply and may meet with limited success
at least for some time*. Thus, the narrow definition of "abatement sulfur"
has the advantage of separating electric utilities as a group with essentially
no experience in marketing S va lues. It a lso has the advantage of isolating
a specific problem rather than entangling it with by-product sulfur in
general. The major disadvantage of this approach is that it may be "unfair"
to net various regional sources of recovered S out of regional demand
before giving elec~ric utilities a chance to supply the regional market, i.e.
leaving the utilities with only the net or residual demand in a given region.
The "unfairness" may be rationa lized in terms of the superior marketing
ability of other by-product producers. But this superiority, while real
enough, is relative rather than absolute.
It must also be pointed out that the
with general industrial and commercial sources
are offered in support of this approach:
Model deals in an indirect way
of SOx' Two rationalizations
~'<
For example, there are many published references to the W. Canadian
producers of sour gas sulfur "ga ining experience in the market".
Apparently, the process has required several years and is not yet
comp lete .
-------
- \4 -
(a)
The smaller combustion sources of sax, that are many
in number but small in terms of individual output, will
(eventually) gain access to low sulfur fuels*.
(b)
Stack gas treatment systems are not likely to be applicable
to small installations and, even if they were, the
''marketing capability" of such producers is likely to
be sma 11 .
Having explained the "pecking order" assumed for various sources
of recovered sulfur and the specia 1 definition of "aba tement S", it is
possible to introduce a further concept that is of crucial importance to
the functioning and understanding of the Model. This is the concept of
"useful form". From the standpoint of the computer calculations, it makes
no difference whether a certain quantity of useful S represents complete
or only partial recovery -- what matters is the quantity itself. Thus,
1000 LT of S in useful form might represent 100% recovery in useful form
from a potential of 1000 LT, or it might represent 10% recovery in useful
form from a potential of 10,000 LT. The relationships in Figures 4 and 5
are constructed on this basis.
Looking at the correlations for 1975, the straight line designated
"0" simulates a condition wherein the total quantity of SO emitted by
- x
electric utilities would be the same as in 1970. This case implies that
some sax would be "abated" because the case is predicated on the assumption
that the ~ fuel supply to electric utilities will contain more sulfur
in 1975 than in 1970. This is based on the further assumptions that even
though the average S content of utility coa 1 will be lower, the quantity
of coal consumed will be sufficiently higher to result in a net increase
in S fed to electric utility boilers.
The correlation lines marketed "10", "20", "30", "40" refer to
10%, 20%, 30% and 40% reductions in the total quantity of 50 emitted
by electric utilities in 1970. The correlation lines pass t6rough the
origin (since if the percentage of S recovered in useful form is zero,
then no long tons of 5 values are recovered in useful form). Aside from
this obvious point, greater reductions in S emissions below the 1970
level and increasing percentages in useful form translate into larger
quantities (volumes) in useful form.
Looking next at the correlations for 1980 and later years, it
will be seen that the % reduction from the 1970 emission level becomes
relatively less important than the percentage of recovered S assumed to
be in useful form. The reason is that the differences among the various
*
Thus, such sulfur appears in the Model as recovery from petroleum
refineries, coal gasification plants, etc.
-------
- .. I.! -
percentage reductions from the 1970 emission level are fixed quantities
whereas the abatement potential increases steadily from year to year.
Figures 4 and 5 apply to the continental u. S. However, similar
Figures may be constructed for individual regions using the statistics
tabulated in Appendix 4.
An understanding of the "useful form" relationship is an essential
prerequisite for using the correlation charts presented in Section 5. These
charts relate net regional demand to different levels of regional abate-
ment supp ly in usefu 1 form and, thence, to the va lue of such supp ly in a
given region at a given time.
4.3
National Stockpile of Elemental Sulfur
For many years, farmers have had the option of selling certain
agricultural products, e.g. corn, to the Government. Such surpluses have
been stockpiled until needed, and with the purpose of putting a floor under
producer prices to prevent damage to the industry. In principle, there is
no reason why surplus industrial commodities should not be treated in a
similar manner. Normally, of course, industrial production can be varied
in accordance with demand. Thus, with the exception of stockpiles of
certain strategic materials, there has been no need to stockpile raw
materials. However, the rate at which by-product sulfur is produced is
not related to the demand for sulfur. In fact, the production of abatement
S will depend on air pollution regulations. Thus, it might be argued
that a surplus of sulfur induced by government regulations should warrant
treatment as an (unavoidable) surplus industrial commodity.
Clearly, the establishment of a national stockpile (or stockpiles)
of elemental sulfur* would be a matter of governmental and national policy.
In discussing the subject, the contractor takes no position pro or con but
merely analyzes the effects that a stockpile might be expected to produce.
As treated in the Model, a national stockpile would introduce
"negative supply", i.e. it would remove supply from a given region or
from all regions with excess supply of recovered abatement S. There is
a distinction between "negative supply" and "parametric (increased)
demand". The difference occurs because the principa 1 areas of aba tement
supply do not correspond with the principal areas of S demand. For
example, a general increase in abatment supply produces the largest volume
of increase in the Chicago region while a general iocrease in demand has
the greatest effects in the Tampa and New Orleans regions.
*
Elemental S is considered to be the only practical form in which S
could be stored for extended periods.
-------
, ,
- "'1 .
Additionally, a national stockpile
sulfur in later years on the assumption that
will eventually be corrected.
would permit re-entry of
general oversupply conditions
A further discussion of the different purposes that might be
served by a national stockpile is given in Subsection 8.1.3. In concept,
a stockpile could serve as a "storeway" a lternative to a throwaway by-
product, or as a springboard for exports in the late 1980's and sub-
sequently, or as a means of accomplishing both purposes.
4.4
Discussion of Gross Oversupply
The calculated value of abatement S in a given region declines
somewhat as the regional abatement supply increases. This expected result
is quantified in Section 5. However, once the regional supply equals or
exceeds regional demand its value is conceived to fall sharply and,
possibly, to become indeterminate.
When a given region becomes oversupplied, the value of abate-
ment sulfur may still be establishable from the calculated delivered value
in another region, after making allowance for the inter-regional delivery
cost. However, if a concurrent oversupply is occurring in many regions,
there is no possibility of achieving a large enough volume of extra-regional
sales to avoid the need for stockpiling.
. Once stockpiling of abatement sulfur occurs (except in a national
stockpile) the value of abatement sulfur in elemental form would be indeter-
minately low. The value would be the weighted average of the netback obtained
for sulfur actually sold and the "value" of the sulfur not sold (Le.,
forced into a stockpile). The former value would be low while the latter
would be indeterminate, thus leading to an indeterminate weighted average
value. The reason for this indeterminacy is that the unsold sulfur would
have a value that would be largely a matter of concept (i.e., the value
would be arbitrary) .
For accounting purposes, inventory may be credited with the
same unit value as current sales. This is a normal procedure in
businesses where production can be regulated to match sales, and inventory
is merely the "working inventory" necessary to support sa les. On the other
hand, if production can not be controlled and inventory increases steadily,
then the "value" that should be assigned to such increases is debatable.
A zero value is one possibility. A negative value is possible too, since
this would reflect the cost of storage and of transporting the sulfur
from the point of recovery to the point of storage. In this case, it
might be cheaper to give the sulfur away rather than store it. But, if
this were done, it would not be possible to make concurrent commercial
sa Ie s .
-------
- ~2 -
The above considerations lead to two important conclusions:
(a) As long as regional S supply is less than regional demand,
the value of an incremental unit of abatement sulfur will approximate
the cost of obtaining an incremental unit of supply from an external
source (after making due allowance for transportation costs).
(b) If the regional supply of abatement S exceeds regional
demand, and cannot find sufficient extra-regional outlets, then the average
value of all abatement S in the region becomes indeterminate and close
to zero.
The cases calculated by the computer are concerned with the
conditions in (a). However, an adequate response to the problem requires
also that the circumstances under which (b) would occur be quantified
(in terms of regionalized S demand). This quantification has been made
outside the LP computer calculations. Stated another way, LP calculations
of value have been made where value is conceived to exist. Other calcula-
tions have been of the boundaries of regional supply and demand beyond which
abatement S would have an indeterminate value or essentially no value at all.
This subject is discussed further in Section 8.1.2.
-------
-43-
Figure 4
1.8
1.6
~ 1.4
a::: 1. 2
o
I.J...
...J 1.0
::>
t:J 0.8
U)
::> 0.6
z
0.4
0.2
o
o
w
a:::
w
>
o
u
w
a:::
I-
z
W
...J
«
>
::>
C1
w
a:::
::>
I.J...
...J
::>
U)
5 (1980)
4
3
2
1
0
I.J...
o
U)
z
o
I-
<.:>
z
o
...J
Z
o
...J
...J
~
7 (1985)
6
5
4
3
2
1
o
PARAMETERS ARE THE
PERCENT REDUCTION
FROM THE 1970 LEVEL
OF TOTAL SOx EMITTED
BY ELECTRIC UTILITIES
o 20 40 60 80. 100
PERCENT OF ABATEMENT SULFUR RECOVERED IN USEFUL FORM
-------
Figure 5
16
14 (1990)
I- 12
z
w
-.J 10
8
S~
ocr::.
wo 6
cr::.l.1..
=>-.J 4
l.1..=>
-.Jl.1..
=>w 2
(/) (/)
=>
l.1.. 0
oz
(/)0
Zw
Ocr::. 30
I-w
c..:»
zO 25
OU
-.Jw
cr::. 20
z
°
-.J 15
-.J
~ 10
5
0
(2000)
.10-
.10-
I
80
60
40
20
o
(2020)
PARAMETERS ARE THE
PERCENT REDUCTION
FROM THE 1970 LEVEL
OF TOTAL SOx
EMITTED BY
ELECTRIC
UTILITIES
60
40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60
PERCENT OF ABATEMENT SULFUR RECOVERED IN USEFUL FORM
80
100
-------
- .:.) -
5.
COMPUTER CALCULATIONS AND CORRELATION CHARTS
~.l
Input Data
The supply and demand input data are tabulated in Appendix 4,
while the cost assumptions are tabulated and discussed in Appendix 6.
The structure of Model is covered in Section 3, while details of the
computer programs are given in Appendix 7. Additional concepts con-
cerned with parametric cases of supply and demand are explained in
Section 4. With the understanding that these data and considerations
were used in the computer calculations, it is possible to chart and
discuss the principal results of the LP runs*.
5.2
Description of Correlation Charts
The correlation charts in Figures 6-12 cover individual
regions and years. The charts indicate:
(a)
The variation in net regional demand with increasing
regional supply of abatement sulfur in useful form.
(b)
The maximum delivered value (M.D. V.) of abatement
sulfur corresponding to a given level of supply in
useful form.
In addition, a rough estimate of the F.O.B. value (F.O.B.V.) of abate-
ment S in useful form is shown on the charts. In most cases, F.O.B.V.
is M.D.V.-10 ($/LT), i.e., it is merely the M.D.V. minus an arbitrary
delivery cost of $lO/LT**. In a few cases, the F.O.B.V. refers to net-
back estimated for abatement S shipped to another region. This will be
explained further. There are also cases in which it was not possible
to estimate either an M.D.V. or F.O.B.V. This, too, will be explained.
No charts were prepared for the year
obtained, while similar to those for 2010, are
to the assumptions made.
2020 because the results
judged to be too sensitive
-----
* It is impractical to reproduce all of the computer printouts
which run to hundreds of pages. However, the information is
stored on IBM cards and, with the help of pertinent output
programs (described in Appendix 7), can be printed out if needed.
** In several other parts of the report it has been stressed that
"average delivery cost" is not a satisfactory concept and that
estimates of transportation costs should be made for specific
cases. F.O.B.V. is included on the correlation charts for
illustrative purposes only, except where a region becomes an
extra-regional supplier of abatement S. In this case, F.O.B.V.
was calculated by the computer program.
-------
- ..I, -
Each figure is a composite of six charts covering the years
1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, 2000 and 2010. This permits the year-to-year
projections for a given region to be reviewed without turning pages.
However, attention should be paid to the change in scale used in
different years.
All of the charts have certain features in common:
.
Regional abatement S in useful form is plotted
as an abscissa.
.
Net regional demand is plotted as an ordinate, with
the scale at the left.
.
M.D.V. and F.O.B.V. are plotted as ordinates, with
a common scale at the right.
.
The numbers 0, +5, +10, and +15 refer to parametric
demand (as discussed in Section 4).
.
All volumes are expressed in million LT of S
equivalent.
.
All values are expressed in $ per LT of S
equivalent.
5.3
Newark Region
The charts may be used to estimate the (changing) value of
different quantities of abatement S in useful form. The procedure
will be explained by reference to the 1975 chart of Figure 6. If no
abatement S were to be recovered in useful form within the region,
the net demand of the Newark region would be 0.55 million LT in the
base case (or 0.6 million LT with a parametric demand increase of 5%).
The M.D.V. corresponding to the base case is $26/LT. This value is
obtained by dropping perpendicularly from the supply/demand coordinates
~, 0.55)to the M.D.V. correlation curve and then reading the value off
the r~ght hand scale. Similarly, the (arbitrary) F.O.B.V. is $16/LT.
For reasons discussed in Section 4, an increase in the quantity
of abatement S in useful form is matched by an equal decrease in net
regional demand. On the other hand, an increase in parametric demand
would permit an equivalent increase in abatement supply without changing
the value relationships*. For example, with 0.1 million LT of abatement
-----
* This is an approximation. Actual computer cases of parametric
demand were run. Conceptually, increased demand over the base
case might be expected to firm prices more than decreased supply.
However, within the Model's accuracy and assumptions, the two
conditions are equivalent within a given region.
-------
- 47 -
supply in useful form, we may locate the point (0.1, 0.5) on the "+5"
parametric demand line. The same ~ demand for the base case has the
coordinates (0.05,0.5), with a corresponding M.D.V. of $24.5/LT. This
is also the M.D.V. for the "+5" parametric demand case with coordinates
(0.1,0.5).
The "0" parametric demand line (Le., base case demand) is
always used to obtain estimates of M.D.V. With other parametric demand
assumptions, the first step is to move along the ordinate of equal net
regional demand (Le., move horizontally to the left) to the "0" para-
metric demand line and then drop a perpendicular to the M.D.V. correla-
tion curve.
A regional stockpile of abatement S* would act as a "negative
supply" of abatement S in useful form. Thus, if there were to be pro-
duction of 0.2 million LT of abatement S (in elementai form) in the
Newark region in 1975, and this same quantity were to be stockpiled
then, obviously, the immediate net effect would be the same as if no
abatement S in useful form had been produced. Thus, the estimated M.D.V.
would be $26/LT. This compares with about $19.5/LT without the stock-
pile.
It may seem unreasonable that a mere 0.2 million LT of sulfur
could depress M.D.V. from $26/LT to $19.5/LT. The explanation is that
it has been assumed that the degree of abatement represented by recovery of
0.2 million LT of S in the Newark region would be paralleled in other
regions. For the continental U.S. this total increment would be almost
1.5 million LT. It is this increment added to an oversupplied world
market that is responsible for a general lowering of prices including
those in the Newark region. In the hypothetical case of recovery of
0.2 million LT of S in the Newark region and no recovery anywhere else,
it may be judged that M.D.V. for Newark would be higher than $19.5/LT--
perhaps close to $25/LT (estimated by using a crude prorating procedure).
However, neither the correlation charts nor the computer cases we!e
designed to investigate extremely skewed assumptions.
Looking next at the 1985 portion of Figure 6, it will be seen
that the M.D.V. curve begins to turn down sharply as regional net demand
approaches zero, i.e., as a regional condition of gross oversupply is
approached. It must be pointed out that sharply curving portion of the
correlation was not calculated by computer. It has been argued in Section
4 that a (hypothetical) condition could be reached in which the market
became saturated, i.e., no incremental production could be sold, and
that under such a condition the value of abatement S would be indeter-
minately low. This is the basis on which M.D.V. and F.O.B.V. curves
were bent sharply. Neither the exact shape of the curves nor the point
-----
* Elemental S is assumed.
-------
- .~ -
of inflexion has been defined*. In spite of this, the chart is believed
to make the important point that up to a volume of about 0.4 million LT
(and perhaps a little more) of abatement S, recovered in the Newark
region in 1985, would be expected to result in a significant value for
the sulfur produced--the M.D.V. would be about $20/LT. If more abate-
ment S were to be recovered in useful form,chaos would be expected un-
less the increment were stockpiled.
5.4
Norfolk Region
The curves in Figure 7, for the
similar to those in Figure 6, except that
to be in a position of net demand. Thus,
are less in evidence. Nevertheless, this
dicated in the chart for 1985.
Norfolk region, are generally
Norfolk is generally conceived
sharply bending M.D.V. curves
condition is possible as in-
5.5
Chicago Region
The correlations for the Chicago region, in Figure 8, require
special comment. This region has a significant demand for sulfur but it
has an even greater potential for producing abatement S. Markets for
all of this potential cannot be conceived. Hence, ~)l of the M.D.V. and
F.O.B.V. curves have sharp downturns. A calculated F.O.B.V. curve is shown for 19~,
based upon the assumption that Chicago region sulfur will be moving to
extra-regional markets by then. In retrospect, the contrast between the
1985 and 1990 charts suggests that a turn around may not come so quickly.
However, a national stockpile in the Chicago region could be a spur to
exports and could support the conditions projected in the 1990 chart.
5.6
Memphis Region
Figure 9, for the Memphis region, is similar to Figure 8 except
that the absolute volumes of abatement S are much less. This is the
basis on which the Chicago region was conceived to have export potential
in 1990 while the Memphis region was not assumed to enter export markets
until after the turn of the century. Memphis region locations on the
Mississippi River system would have a slight advantage in transportation
costs over corresponding Chicago region locations with respect to export
markets. This might enable the ~lemphis region to enter export markets
sooner than has been assumed. Any increase in the market potential of
the Memphis region should be deducted from that of the Chicago region
because both are conceived to be in competition for the same extra-
regional markets.
- - - - -
* Nor can it be in advance, since future pricing
actions are unpredictable under conditions of a
crisis in oversupply with no apparent remedy.
-------
- ~ I -
5.7
Omaha Region
Currently, the Omaha region receives most of its supplies
from Alberta. While the latter may be displaced with locally produced
abatement 8, Figure 10 indicates that the absolute demand of the region
is small. Thus, the market potential for abatement 8 appears small,
i.e., a condition of oversupply could develop quite readily. This is
reflected in the M.D.V. curves. The Omaha region is poorly located
with respect to external points of sulfur demand. Although some of
the region has access to the Mississippi River system, it is upstream
from other regions that have a more powerful abatement potential. Thus,
it is inferred that throwaway systems could be of general interest to
the region. Low sulfur coal, perhaps after a pretreatment process, is
another possibility.
5.8
Tucson Region
The Tucson region is large geographically and completely land-
locked. Furthermore, recovery of acid rather than elemental 8 is prob-
able from copper smelting. In spite of the transportation penalty
associated with acid, it is conceivable that some market could be
developed in 80uthern California for the excess potential of the Tucson
region*. Some market for merchant acid may develop in the Los Angeles
area. This is the basis for the F.O.B.V. calculations plotted in
Figure 11. However, the size of the market (if any) is expected to be
quite small. Consequently, another solution to the problem of excess
S values from Western smelters appears to be required**. 11 it is
economically impractical to recover elemental 8 from the Western smelters,
there is a remote possibility that smelter acid could move to California
while elemental S from petroleum refineries in California could be moving
into export markets by the end of the century. The hypothesis is flimsy.
Nevertheless, it accounts for the higher F.O.B.V. shown for the year 2000
and for the $15/LT F.O.B.V. indicated for 2010. This is equivalent to
about $4.50/8T of 100% acid.
5.9
Tampa Region
As discussed elsewhere, the net demand in the Tampa region
greatly exceeds its abatement potential. But, as pointed out in Part 2,
most of the demand involves captive production of acid from purchased
elemental 8. The charts in Figure 12 suggest that reasonable F.O.B.V.ls
may be possible for local deliveries.
-----
*
The excess potential has its greatest concentration in Arizona.
Neutralization of 802 or acid has been suggested.
**
-------
- )') -
of acid in the Tampa/Bartow area*. As mentioned when discussing
Figure 6, the downtrend in M.D.V. for the Tampa region with increasing
supplies of abatement S in useful form is due to the general level of
recovery in the U.S. not to the impact of the Tampa region's own abate-
ment potential.
5.10
Boston Region
No charts have been provided for the Boston region
its extremely small net demand for sulfur. If oversupply is
the M.D.V. should parallel that in the Newark region.
because of
avoided,
5.11
Seattle Region
The demand of the Seattle
S. If this small demand were to be
ture should approximate:
region is predominantly for elemental
met by abatement S, the M.D.V. pic-
1975
1980
1985
1990
2000
2010
$/LT
22-25
21-25
20-25
22-26
about 35
about 35
5.12
Los Angeles Region
The supply/demand balance for the Los Angeles region appears
likely to depend on relative growth rates for petroleum refining and
petrochemicals. As long as supplies of elemental S from petroleum re-
fining are ample, there is unlikely to be a significant market for abate-
ment S. However, as discussed above some outlet for Tucson region acid
may develop eventually. Also, once the W. Canadian stockpile of sour
gas sulfur is exhausted, California may be in a position to go after
Pacific export markets. With these predications, M.D.V. 's for the
Los Angeles region are projected to be:
$/LT
1975
1980
1985
1990
2000
2010
21-24
20-23
18-23
20-24
22-34
22-34
*
Direct negotiation between potential producers of abatement acid and
users of fertilizeL acid would seem to b~ required.
-------
-
5.13
New Orleans Region
Currently, the New Orleans region is dominated by Frasch
sulfur. However, recovery of sulfur from both petroleum and natural gas
will increase significantly in volume. Nevertheless, the price of Frasch
S is likely to set the value for recovered S in local markets. The range
of F.O.B. Frasch prices used in the computer calculations was:
1.975
1980
1985
1990
2000
2010
$/LT
18-23
18-22
16-22
18-23
28-33
28-33
5.14
Markets for Abatement Acid
The concept that markets for merchant acid will develop slowly
in the 1970's and more rapidly in the 1980's has been discussed else-
where (particularly in Part 2). Table 7 is constructed on the basis of
this concept combined with the estimates of the net sulfur demand of
each region. Thus, Table 7 indicates what is conceived to be the maxi-
mum market for abatement acid in each region. The correlation charts
may be used to estimate M.D.V. for acid as well as elemental S. In one
case of acid, however, Table 7 provides the additional constraint of the
maximum quantity of abatement acid assumed to be marketable in a given
region. In addition, the "acid equivalency credit" and the relatively
higher transportation cost of acid per LT of S equivalent should be taken
into account. In spite of the multiple constraints on abatement acid, it
may be the best choice (relative to elemental S or a throwaway by-product)
provided that allot the constraints can be satisfied.
-------
~
...J
-0
a
r-I
z
o
c.:J
I.J.J
a::
~
a::
~ -0.2
=>
If)
~
I.J.J
Z
-0.2
-0.6
0.7
+5
0.6 (1975)
0.5
0.4
M.D.V.
0.3 ......
"
'....
0.2 ,F.O .B.V.
..........
.....,
0.1
0
52
Figure 6
NEWARK REGION
1.0
0.8 +10
+5
0.6
(1985)
o
0.4
M.D.V.
--~---......
F.O.B.V. "
\
o
0.2 0.4 0.6
o
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
1.8
(1980)
+10
+5
o
(1990)
--
--
'.....
F .0 . B. V. ....
"
,
,
+15
+10
o
1.4
(2000)
0.6
0.2
F.O.B.V.
(2010)
0.4 0.8 1.2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
REGIONAL ABATEMENT SULFUR RECOVERED
IN USEFUL FORM <106 L T)
o
25
20
15
10
5
o
......
~
...J
"-
VI-
I.J.J
25 :3
20 ~
15
10
5
o
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
o
-------
,......
.....I -0.2
o,!)
o
M
z
o
l:)
UJ
c:::
~
.....I
o
I.J..
c:::
o
z
I.J..
o
C
z
<{
~
UJ
C
c:::
:::)
I.J..
.....I
:::)
(/)
,......
UJ
Z
53
Figure 7
NORFOLK REGION
0.4
1.0
+~975)
0.8~~
0.6
M.D.V.
M.D.V.
0.2
--
-
-,
- - F .O.B.V.
'-
-
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
F.O.B.V. -.
NIL
o
0.1
0.2 0.3
o
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
1.6
(1985)
(1990)
0.8
M.D.V.
0.4
F.O.B.V.
NIL
o
0.4 0.8 1.2
0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
o
3.0
2.5
+15
+10
o
(2010)
0.5
+10
2.0
(2000)
1.5
M.D.V.
-,
,
\
,
F.O.B.V.
1.0
NIL
o
0.5 1.0 1.5 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
REGIONAL ABATEMENT SULFUR RECOVERED
IN USEFUL FORM <106 L n
25
20
15
10
5
o
0.5
,......
.....I
"'-
tI'I-
UJ
:::)
.....I
<{
>
25
20
15
10
5
o
30
25
20
15
10
5
o
-------
54
Figure 8
CHICAGO REGION
1.4
1.2 +10
0.4
0.2
NIL. M.D.V.
-0.2 - - - -
--
-0.4 "
-0.6 - - - _F .O.B.V. "
--
-0.8 "
,
-1.0 ,.
-1.2
t= -1.4
...J
...0
o
r-I
<1980>
--
-,
M.D.V. ,
\
o
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0.5 1.0 1.5
25
20
15
10
5
o
2.0 2.5
--
-"
F.O.B.V. \
,
2:
Q (1985)
t.:)
lLJ
a::
0
t.:)
«
u NIL
:I:
u
lL. M.D.V.
0 -1 -,
CI \
2:
« -2 \
~ -.....
lLJ \ ,
CI
a:: -3 \
::> \
lL. F.O.B.V.
...J
::> -4
VI
I-
lLJ
2:
(2000)
NIL
-2
-4 "
"
F.O.B.V.,
-6 \
\
-8 \
-10
+10
+5
o
<1990>
I-
...J
"-
tA-
-"
.....
'.
F.O.B.V.
lLJ
25 :3
20 ~
15
10
5
o
5
(2010)
.....
"
,
F.O.B.V. ......
,
\
30
25
20
15
10
5
o
o
2 4 6 024 6 8
REGIONAL ABATEMENT SULFUR RECOVERED
IN USEFUL FORM <106 L T)
10
-------
55
Figure 9
MEMPHIS REGION
0.6 (1975) (1980)
+10
5 +5
0.4
0' 0
0.2
--', --
--
NIL -,
M.D. V... M.D.V.
-- -- \
-0.2 """, --- ,'
.. F .O.B.V.
F.O.B.V. \
,
-0.5
F.O.B.V.
~ -0.4
I-
.....I
..0
o
~
z
Q
t.:I
~ 1.2
V)
~ 0.8
:2
I.JJ
:2
I..L.
o
o
z
«
:2
~ -0.4
e:::
::I
~ -0.8
::I
V)
I-
I.JJ
Z
-1.0
25
20
15
10
5
o
o
0.2
o
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
0.1
(1985)
(1990)
+10
+5
o
I.JJ
25 :3
«
20 >
15
10
5
o
I-
.....I
.......
tA-
,
M.D.V. "
" ,
" \
,
,
\
"-
NIL "-
"
M~.V. ,
....
....
\
F.O.B.V.'
F.O.B.V.
2.0
30
25
20
15
10
5
o
(2000)
(2010)
1.5
0.5
F.O.B.V.
NIL
o
0.5 1.0 1.5 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
REGIONAL ABATEMENT SULFUR RECOVERED
IN USEFUL FORM <106 L T)
-------
56
Figure 10
OMAHA REGION
0.3 (1975) +10 (1980)
0.2 +5 +5
0
0.1 o~
NIL --..... 25
.....
M.D.V.' M.D.V. , 20
-0.1 ..... \ -- \ 15
" "" ,'
" F.O.B.V. 10
-0.2 \ \ 5
F.O.B.V. 0
t- 0 0.1 0.2 0
-I
..0
0
r-f
Z
0 (1985) (1990)
c.:J
UJ
a::
« 0.4 +10
I +10 +5 t-
« -I
:2: +5 0 ........
-
o 0
u.. 0.2 UJ
o ~ " 25 ::J
" -I
£:) NIL M.D. M.D.V." «
z 20 >
« ' ,' ,, \
:2: " , 15
UJ
£:) -0.2 \ , 10
a:: \ F.O.B.V. \ 5
::J \
u..
S -0.4 F.O.B.V. 0
(J')
t- 0 0.2 0.4 0 0.6 0.8
UJ
z
(2000) (2010)
0.8 +15
10 +10
0.4 5 0
0
,
NIL \ 30
, \ 25
-0.4 \ \ 20
\ M.D.V. 15
-0.8 \ . M.D.V. & 10
I F .O.B.V. ARE 5
-1.2 F.O.B.V. INDETERMINATE 0
o
0.4 0.8 1.2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
REGIONAL ABATEMENT SULFUR RECOVERED
IN USEFUL FORM <106 L TJ
-------
....... 0.6
~
...J
"'0 0.4
...-i
z
a 0.2
~
w
a:::
z
a
(f)
u
:::>
~
u.
a
CI 1.6
z
«
~
w
CI
a:::
:::>
u. 0.8
...J
:::>
(f)
~ 0.4
w
z
-0.4
-0.8
0.8
(1975) (1980) (1985) (1990)
+10
+5
~~ +~~~+~~~ 0 15
F.O.S.V. F.O.B.V. 10
M.D.V. & --.
F.O .B.V. ARE -. 5
.......
INDETERMINATE 0 ~
...J
..........
~
w
:::>
...J
«
>
(2000) (2010>
57
Figure 11
TUCSON REGION
o
NIL
F.O.S.V.
, ---
-- ~ F.O.S.V. WITHIN
THI S RANGE
--
o
0.4 0.8 1.2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
REGIONAL ABATEMENT SULFUR RECOVERED
IN USEFUL FORM <106 L T)
20
15
10
5
o
-------
~ 3
-I
--0
o
8 2
z
o
t:)
.~ 1
«
a..
~ 0
t-
l.J...
o
C
z
«
~
w
c
t-
W
Z 3
58
Figure 12
TAMPA REGION
(1975)
(1980)
4
+10
+5=:
0-
+5
0=
--
---.,
.......
M.D.V.
M.D.V.
- - ...... ......
F.O.B.V. F.O.B:V.
(1985)
(1990)
-
+10
+5=:
0-
+10
+5=:
-= 0-
-
-
-
.....
""
M.D.V. '.
"
'-
"
F.O.B.V.'-
"
"
"-
M.D.V. "-
.
.....
,
,
F.O.B.V.'....
o
0.1
(2000)
M.D.V.
--
--
2
F.O.B.V.
1
o
o
(2010)
M.D.V.
-- --
-----
F.O.B.V.
0.2 0.4 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
REGIONAL ABATEMENT SULFUR RECOVERED
IN USEFUL FORM <106 L T)
o
0.2
-
-
-
25
20
15
10
5
o
,...
t-
-I
...........
tA-
w
=:)
-I
«
>
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
o
-------
TABLE 7
ESTIMATES OF REGIONAL ABATEMENT ACID POTENTIAL
(Million LT of S Equivalent)
Region 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000 2010 2020
Boston 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.09 0.14 0.2
Newark 0.09 0.14 0.23 0.54 1.03 1.59 2.2
Norfolk 0.01 0.07 0.26 0.45 0.90 1.44 2.2
Chicago 0.04 0.14 0.50 1.00 1. 79 3.26 4.4
Memphis 0.21 0.28 0.37 0.47 0.76 1.14 1.7
Omaha 0.01 0.03 0.07 0.12 0.21 0.47 0.8
Seattle neg1. neg1. 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.33 0.6
Los Angeles 0.03 0.04 0.09 0.17 0.25 0.73 1.4
Tampa 0.13 0.16 0.35 0.38 0.50 0.90 1.4
Tucson 0.21 0.33 0.51 0.81 1.43 2.15 3.0
New Orleans 0.12 0.14 0.33 0.37 0.46 1.20 1.5
,-
::
Notes:
(1)
The above figures apply to abatement acid that might be recovered by
electric utilities, except for the Tucson region where additional
acid may also come from NFM smelting. In other regions, acid production
from smelters has been taken into consideration before making the above
estimates.
(2)
Estimates are of regional demand. Thus, excess demand in one region
might permit additional production in another, e.g., shipment of Tucson
acid to Los Angeles.
Estimates are of maximum potential not of marketing probabilities.
(3)
(4)
Estimates are approximate only (2 decimal places are the result of
calculations).
-------
- ~n -
6.
SENSITIVITY OF ASSUMPTIONS USED IN REPORT
6.1
General
Throughout the report, note has been taken of the assumptions used
in making projections, calculations, interpretations etc. However, in total,
the number of assumptions is large and it may not be easy for the reader to
make an assessment of those that merely affect details and those that may
influence what has been concluded to a major degree. This, then, is not a
recapitulation of every assumption. It is an attempt to draw attention to
major "sensitivities" in what has been assumed.
6.2
Long Range Projections
Projections for the years 2010 and 2020 are regarded as highly
tenuous. One advantage in having made them is that the approach path for
prior years is better defined. Another advantage is that certain factors
become identified as having critical importance in the later years of the
forecast. However, identification of these factors (particularly the quanti-
tative role to be played by nuclear energy during the first part of the 21st
century) is merely a first step. Analysis of their probable impact would
require considerable additional study.
6.3
Regiona1ization and Marketing Factors
The Model deals with the U.S. on a regionalized basis. This
leads automatically to the questions "What would happen if the regions
were subdivided further? What additional information would come to light?"
It seems certain that additional insights would be obtained. The "Chicago
region", the East North Central states, is an obvious candidate for sub-
division. However, for such an extension of the study to be really useful
would require concurrent effort on analyzing the structure of local markets
for sulfur and sulfuric acid. The factors that affect the marketing of sulfur
values have been recognized, but the detailed examination of different market-
ing strategies (that are, or may be, employed by the various companies in-
volved in the business) would require a large additional effort. The current
(false) assumption is that the regions of the Sulfur Model are homogeneous
internally. However, what has been done is sufficient to illustrate important
dissimilarities among the various regions.
6.4
Recovery Cost/Recovered Value Relationships
The different ~ of recovering S in various forms (acid,
elemental, throwaway) should be considered along with the estimated values
of the various forms. This has not yet been done because the matter of
recovery process costs was outside the scope of the contract. The point
being made here is that the optimum choice of abatement system depends not
merely on the delivered value of a particular form of sulfur, but on:
(Delivered Value) minus (Marketing and Transportation Costs) minus (Recovery
Process Costs).
-------
- b 1 -
6.5
Transportation Costs
Transportation costs are, perhaps, one of the two most important
factors affecting the future of the sulfur and sulfuric acid industries.
(The other factor is the growing importance of by-product sources of S
values, such that these sources will dominate all others long before the end
of the century). The very great difficulties of projecting relative shifts
in the cost of transportation by rail, barge etc. are discussed in Appendix
6. The asslUTlptions made seem "reasonable", yet this may be because of
inadequate knowledge. What appears to be needed is an analysis of the long
range, relative costs of different transportation modes combined first with
the implications of such costs to the U.S. economy, and then with iterations
of the problem that would involve the postulation of different ways in which
the relative escalation of rail costs might be avoided. The latter problem
is not specific to sulfur; it is fortuitous that the fifty year projections
of the Model focus a strong light on it. .
6.6
Free Trade
If the U.S. were to impose an import duty or import quota on sulfur,
the effect would be to keep some foreign sulfur out of the U. S. market. This
would increase the price of U.S. sulfur and, hence, the value of abatement s.
There will be a similar consequence if Canadian and other plans for export
pro rationing are successful. The original "free trade" assumptions specified
by the contract were modified slightly to take the "most probable" effects
of export pro rationing into account. However, a range of possibilities
exists. One is that export prorationing will breakdown either immediately or
(more likely) if a flood of U.S. abatement S were to divert W. Canadian S
from Midwest markets.
6.7
National Energy Policy
The relative incentives and disincentives given to domestic anq
imported fossil fuels (natural gas, oil, coal, shale) affect the recovery
potential for by-product sulfur in the U.s. Once a national energy policy
is established, the effects on the sulfur industry could be investigated via
the Model. Alternatively, the effects of different policies could be simulated
in a series of parametric cases. At the moment, however, only one "reasonable"
case has been examined.
.It must be recognized that many "energy forecasts" are projections
of what could happen unless something else happens first. A purpose of
"normative" and "exploratory" forecasts is to influence future events in a
favorable way. However the projections in Appendix 2 are not "normative".
They have the sole purpose of providing the basis from which sulfur recovery
potential can be calculated. This does not make the Model's projections
correct, but it does explain why they differ greatly from some of the many
other forecasts that have been made.
-------
- h2 -
An article on "Energy, the Economy, and the Environment"* discusses
a modelling approach to energy in the U.S. economy and the interrelationships
among disparate factors. By coincidence, the approach and rationale used by
Professor White has much in common with that used to develop the Sulfur
Model except that the latter attempts to place the U.S. economy in a world
perspective.
6.8
Short Term Forecasting
The long range model assumes that aberrations in the current
situation will disappear and that long term trends will be rational. Short
range projections, however, must take account of current aberrations and
changes that could occur in the immediate future. Recent changes in spot
charter rates and the expectation that export prorationing of sulfur will
begin in 1972 are examples of such aberrations.
Short term forecasts are essential to day-to-day business but
are not suitable for planning long range research. The Model is concerned
with the latter and is not directly applicable to short range forecasting.
6.9
Research Implications
The sensitivity of the research implications that can be drawn
from the Model is likely to be much less that the sensitivity of quanti-
tative estimates of sulfur supply and demand. This is because many of the
assumptions that could be varied would affect only the level of excess
supply rather than the existence of an excess.
*
"Technology Review", October/November 1971, pages 18-31, David C. White,
Ford Professor of Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
-------
- nJ -
7.
CONCLUSIONS
This Section summarizes some of the main projections and
conclusions of the study.
7.1
Economic and Demographic Projections
In the year 2000, the U.S. is projected to have a population
of 282 million and an average GNP/capita of about $8,000 in 1958 con-
stant dollars. World population is expected to be close to 6.2 billion
with an average GNP/capita of ~1,500. Thus, the U.S. would have
less than 5% of the world's population but approximately 25% of its GNP.
Alternate, lower growth rate assumptions for economic development sug-
gest U.S. and world per capita GNP of about $6,900 and $1,250 respectively.
7.2
Energy Projections
At the end of the century, the U.S. is projected to have a
total primary energy demand of 6.7 billion metric tons of coal equiva-
lent (MTCE) or 208 x 1015 BTU. World demand is projected to be 23.6 billion
MTCE or 716 x 1015 BTU. These estimates correspond to the higher levels
of economic development projected in 7.1.
7.3
Fossil Fuel Sulfur Content
On a worldwide basis, the sulfur content of natural gas reserves
averages about 0.7 wt %; crude oil reserves average 1.5 wt % S.
When the S content of all types of coal
average heat content of U.S. bituminous coal, the
to 1.5 wt %. U.S. reserves of coal are estimated
tons of sulfur.
is corrected to the
average is also close
to contain 18 billion
On the average, worldwide, one metric ton of sulfur is associated
with each 2.5 billion BTU of primary energy demand supplied by fossil
fuels.
7.4 Sulfur Supply
Remaining reserves of U.S. Frasch sulfur are believed to exceed
200 Million LT. At anticipated production rates, these reserves should
be adequate for another 40 years or more.
Domestically, by the year 2000, sulfur recovered from U.S. natural
gas, from coal used to make synthetic gas, and from petroleum is expected to
be about 11.7 million LT, with the following breakdown by source:
-------
- ~.:. -
natural gas
coal (synthetic gas)
petroleum
8%
16%
76%
This quantity is projected to be at least twice as much as production
of U.S. Frasch sulfur. Recovery of sulfur after combustion of fossil
fuels is not included in the 11.7 million LT total.
Almost 7 million LT of S values are expected to be generated
by U.S. smelters in the year 2000. About half of this total may be
recovered in useful form.
For the continental U.S., the supply/demand balance might
approximate (million LT in year 2000):
Supply
Demand
Nat. & Syn. Gas
Petroleum
Smelting, etc.
Frasch
2.8
8.7
3.2
5.0
19.7
Domestic Demand
Net Exports
25.2
2.0
27.2
Abatement S in Useful Form
7.5
27.2
More than half of the abatement S in useful form may be re-
covered as acid. The Chicago region, i.e., the E.N. Central States,
is expected to be the most important source of abatement sulfur.
7.5
Sulfur Demand
By the end of the century, the U.S. split between industrial
and fertilizer demand is projected to be about 56% and 44%. On an abso-
lute basis, U.S. fertilizer S demand is expected to be 11 million LT or
26% of world demand for fertilizer sulfur. For non-Communist countries,
the approximate split between industrial and fertilizer demand for sul-
fur is expected to be (million LT):
-------
- 65 -
Industrial Fertilizer
W. Europe 14.7 8.6
Japan 8.0 1.8
Canada ---L1 -1:.l
24.6 12.1
Mid. E./Far E. 7.1 11.2
Lat. America 4.1 5.4
Africa -L& -1..&
13 .0 18.6
Thus, in what are now considered to be the developed countries,
the year 2000 split is expected to be 67% industrial and 33% fertilizer
demand. The corresponding split in the developing countries is projected
to be 41% and 59% respectively. When the projections for the two groups
of countries are combined, the split becomes 55% industrial and 45% ferti-
lizer, almost exactly matching that projected for the U.S.
7.6
Cost Proiections
In spite of effective use of unit trains for transporting sul-
fur in both the U.S. and Canada, rail costs are projected to increase
relatively faster than the costs of various kinds of water-borne trans-
portation. This is seen as a disadvantage to:
(a)
Landlocked locations (e.g., the Western states and
Alberta) .
(b)
Mine-mouth power plants where abatement S may be
recovered.
The transportation cost for acid, whether by rail or water, is
expected to increase relative to the process cost of recovering S values
as acid.
For the next 15 years, the F.G.B. price of sulfur recovered
from Alberta sour gas is expected to be a major factor in establishing
world prices for sulfur. It is judged that the Alberta price will not
be less than $5/LT, is more likely to be about $lO/LT and could be as
high as $15/LT. Such prices are equivalent to F.G.B. prices for Frasch S
on the U.S. Gulf of about $17/LT, $22/LT and $27/LT, respectively.
-------
-----.--
- 'Jh-
7.7
Computer Model
IBM's Mathematical Optimization Subroutine System (LP~OSS)
can be used to calculate the value of sulfur in different locations,
given:
(a)
Demand in each location.
(b)
Availability of supplies and (assumed F.O.B. price at
various locations.
(c)
The cost of delivering sulfur from points of
supply to points of demand.
The linear program calculates the solution giving the lowest
overall cost to the purchasers. Such a "buyers' market" is consistent
with projections of continuing oversupply or potential oversupply and
also with the concept that the marketing advantages currently held by
certain producers will be eroded with time. Thus, as long as "reason-
ably" free trade conditions apply to sulfur, customers may expect to ob-
tain sulfur economically. "Reasonably" implies a middle eourse between
(a) the hypothetical marketing conditions that could result from the
dumping of gross oversupplieo'of sulfur at any price, and (b)
resumption of high-cost Frasch production or return to high profit marg-
ins for Frasch production in general.
Different assumptions, falling within the "reasonable middle
ground," may be investigated by computer calculations. After running a
number of cases, it is possible to construct correlation charts which
may then be used to investigate other "reasonable" assumptions without
the need for additional computer runs.
Constraints can be built into the computer program to simulate
factors such as the marketing strengths of certain producers or the ship-
ment of sulfuric acid instead of elemental sulfur. However, no way has
been found of calculating "value" under hypothetical conditions of gross
oversupply and dumping. Judgment suggests a zero or negative value under
such conditions.
When applied to historical data for the period 1960-1970, the
computer program tracked price movements adequately. Nevertheless, the
Model is not, and is not intended to be, a tool for predicting short
range price movements.
. I
, .
-------
7.8
- c:: -
Supply/Demand Balance
and Constraints
.
World oversupply is a virtual certainty for at least another 10-15
years, and is not likely to be corrected until after two related
events have occurred:
(a)
Recovery of sulfur from W. Canadian sour gas has
peaked--probably about 1980/81.
(b)
W. Canadian sulfur (which is
steadily for another decade) has
about 1985/86.
The stockpile of
expected to grow
peaked--probably
.
Subsequently, the actions taken with respect to abatement sulfur in
the U.S. may determine which of the following comes to pass:
(c)
A re-emergence of sulfur shortage, leading to high
cost production and/or substitution of manufacturing
processes that do not require sulfur.
(d)
A reasonable balance, in which U.S. abatement S in
useful form plays an essential part in domestic
supplies and a significant part in recapturing export
markets for sulfur.
(e)
Chaotic marketing conditions due to gross oversupply.
.
Achievement of (d) would seem to require recognition that:
(f)
The demand for abatement S in useful form will be much
less than the maximum quantity that (theoretically) could
be produced.
(g)
For high levels of SOx emission control, it will be
necessary either to recover large quantities of abate-
ment S in non-useful form or to recover elemental S
and place it in national stockpiles.
(h)
Development of market outlets for abatement acid will
be a slow process because changes in market structure
are required.
(i)
Non-acid recovery systems will be essential for many
installations during the next decade.
(j)
There may be no significant market outlet for abatement
S recovered in places separated by high transportation
costs from areas of net demand.
-------
- "" -
(k)
The post-1980 increment in abatement S potential
may be of the same magnitude as the post-1980
increment in demand for sulfur.
(1)
The choice of recovery system during the period of
retrofitting emission controls will be extremely
important because the decision will have to be made:
in the context of growing world oversupply even
before inclusion of any significant increment
of supply from treatment of stack gases.
in recognition that ratber small increments
in supply could create a gross oversupply in
individual markets.
(m)
There are great differences among individual markets
and that these markets are not fully connected from a
supply standpoint, e.g., it would be quite possible for
the U.S. as a whole to be in numerical balance while
individual markets were seriously out of balance.
(n)
The U.S. sulfur and sulfuric acid industries have well
established structures.
(0)
Purchase of elemental sulfur for manufacture and captive
use of sulfuric acid is an extremely important feature
of the current industry structure, particularly in the
case of fertilizer acid.
(p)
A new marketing structure may have to be evolved for
abatement acid, and may well depend on the willingness
of existing marketers to offtake such acid.
(q)
Acid and elemental S have different values to different
types of prospective customer, as well as different
production (recovery) and transportations costs per ton
of S equivalent.
( r)
The best choice of abatement system for a given location
will depend on the overall cost or credit to the operation.
For planning purposes, this overall "profit" is [Maximum
Delivered Value] minus ~ransportation Cost plus Marketing
Cost] minus [Recovery Process Cost].
( s)
In many cases, the overall "profit" in (r) will be negative,
i.e., abatement will involve a net cost.
( t)
A throwaway system will always involve a net cost, but may
be the optimum choice.
-------
- 69 -
( u)
If a net cost is indicated, the feasibility and cost of
obtaining fuel of sufficiently low sulfur content (as
not to require an abatement system) should be investi-
gated. The possible need to abate emissions other than
SO should be considered.
x
(v)
Actions of other producers, who may not enter the market
until (much) later, can affect the future "profit"
obtainable by the original producer. Thus, when con-
sidering (r), (s), (t) and (u), it is also necessary to
assess how the situation may change over a period of
many years.
.
In the distant future nuclear energy is expected, first, to be able to
supply all of the incremental demand for energy and, subsequently, to
make further inroads into markets supplied by fossil fuels. This may
happen because of declining availability of certain types of fossil
fuel or for economic reasons. It seems. more likely that combinations
of these reasons will apply, and that the pattern will not be uniform in
different parts of the world or even in different parts of the U.S.
However, once there is a decline in the consumption of fossil fuels,
the world demand for sulfur may be expected progressively to overtake
the potential supply of sulfur recoverable from fossil fuels.
.
In aggregate, reserves of coal, oil shale, tar sands, and heavy crudes
are very large. In the Model, it is assumed that these reserves will
be a major source of U.S. energy supply during the next five decades.
In consequence, a potential excess of sulfur is expected to extend
through the year 2020. On the other hand, despite these fossil fuel
reserves, it is conceivable that their economic competitiveness relative
to nuclear energy may decline faster than has been anticipated in the
Model. If this were to happen, both the world and the U.S. sulfur
situations could swing to shortage sometime after the year 2000 but
before the year 2020.
7.9
Future Value of Abatement Sulfur
Provided that gross oversupply is avoided, the delivered
value of abatement S should be close to that obtainable for Frasch S
in many parts of the U.S. (and for Alberta S in certain Midwest and
Pacific N.W~ locations). Geographical differences will reflect trans-
portation costs and marketing factors such as captive terminals. In
view of these differences, any single number may be misleading. However,
on an order of magnitude basis, $22-25/LT delivered would be representa-
tive of the current situation. By the year 2000, delivered values are
expected to be about $lO/LT higher. The upturn is not expected to come
until after 1985, i.e.. not until after the W. Canadian stockpile has
peaked. In fact, prices in the interim could go lower. TIlis may be
avoided if export prorationing by Canada, Mexico. France and Poland
succeeds. If it does not. sulfur prices may bottom out around 1980
when W. Canadian production is expected to peak.
-------
- 70 -
Abatement sulfur from U.S. sources
pattern just described. The expected values
supply of sulfur in useful form.
will be superimposed on the
depend on avoidance of over-
As an order of magnitude illustration, marketing and transporta-
tion costs of about $lO/LT have been assumed for abatement S in elemental
form. On this basis, the netback to the producer, before subtraction of
process costs, might be about $12/LT in the early 1980's and about $22/LT
a decade later. No generalization can be made for the value of abatement
acid; it must be estimated for individual cases taking location and
marketing factors into account.
-------
- 71 -
8.
POSSIBLE WAYS OF USING MODEL
8.1
Approaches Suggested for Use by E.P.A.
The model was developed specifically to help the Environmental
Protection Agency to establish the relative merits of different research
strategies. This section is confined to suggesting short-cut ways of
doing this. The "long" ways are, of course, to run additional computer
cases to investigate other assumptions or to expand the model as sug-
gested in Section 6.3. Other possibilities are indicated in two sub-
sequent subsections. Additional data may be needed for some of these
potential applications.
Recovery Costs, Marketing Costs
and Delivered Values
To investigate the optimum choice of abatement system, as
suggested in Section 6.4, it is necessary to:
8.l.1
(a)
Obtain the respective costs
S in different forms (or by
systems) .
of recovering abatement
different proprietary
(b)
Estimate the cost of marketing or otherwise
disposing of recovered abatement sulfur.
(c)
Subtract (a + b) from the estimates of maximum
delivered value calculated by the computer runs.
It is believed that the Environmental Protection Agency already has
estimates of the costs of different recovery processes. No doubt,
these are on the basis of current expectations, i.e., applicable to
systems that are already under development or have reached the demon-
stration stage. It is suggested that these estimates be supplemented
with projections of what may be possible in the future. The estimated
costs of second and third "generations" of abatement systems are needed
for assessment of what choices may be available in the 1980's and later.
Estimation of marketing costs must be dealt with on a specific
basis, even if the cases investigated are hypothetical. The regionalized
demand forecast data indicate the volume potentials for abatement s.
These potentials could be disaggregated into potentials for specific
locations within a particular region. The capacity of existing sulfuric
acid plants might be the basis for this disaggregation. Next, specific
sources of abatement S should be located within the region. Different
volumes and different forms of abatement 5 would be investigated in
separate cases. The transportation cost data in Appendix 6 (using costs
per ton-mile for a given year and trahsportation mode) would then be
used to obtain the cost of moving all of the abatement 5 (assumed to be
-------
- 72 -
produced in each case) to the disaggregated points of demand (i.e.,
potential customers). The latter would be chosen to minimize the cost
of disposing of the total quantity of abatement 8 assumed to be produced.
Acid equivalency credits, as described in Appendix 6, could be applied in
order to correct for the different value of sulfur in acid and elemental
form. The sum of all of the costs and credits ("negative costs") would
then be deducted from the "maximum delivered value" already estimated by
the computer calculations. The result would give an indication of whether
recovery of acid would be preferable to elemental 8. The result could be
either a net cost or a positive netback. If the latter, it would be
prefereable to a throwaway by-product. If the former, it would be neces-
sary to compare the net cost with that of making and disposing of a
throwaway by-product.
The foregoing involves a number of simple steps that lead to a
preliminary indication of "best choice." However, three other questions
remained to be answered:
( a)
How would the marketing be accomplished?
(Clearly, this cannot be calculated.)
(b)
How would the choice be affected by other (additional)
quantities of abatement 8 in the same region?
( c)
Would it be feasible to obtain fuel of sufficiently
low 8 content to avoid the need for an abatement
system, and what would this approach cost? (Taking into
consideration that abatement of more than 80 may be
required) . x
The marketing question might be left unanswered (i.e., by making
the tacit assumption that a way will be found) or by making contacts with
acid marketers as suggested in Part 2 of the report. A suggested way of
dealing with (b) is explained below. A separate study would be needed
for (c).
8.1.2
Establishment of Regional Market Potentials
The charts correlating net regional demand with the quantity of
abatement 8 that may be marketable also indicate the maximum delivered
value for abatement 8 corresponding to a given quantity ot the latter in
useful form.
The parametric demand cases have the effect of increasing the
quantity of abatement 8 that could be absorbed by the market without
depressing the delivered value. Transfer of abatement 8 to a national
stockpile (analogous to a stockpile of a surplus agricultural commodity)
would have a similar effect on a current basis. It would have the addi-
tional effect of making tne stockpiled ,sulfur potentially available in
subsequent years. This will be discussed in the subsection that follows.
For the moment, the potentialities of a national stockpile will be dis-
regarded.
-------
- 73 -
At this point, it is assumed that the E.P.A. will be interested
in investigating cases in which abatement S has a value rather than
hypothetical cases representing gross oversupply with consequent zero or
negative value. As discussed here, "gross oversupply" occurs when abate-
ment S in useful form is assumed to be produced in excess of net regional
demand and there is no obvious extra-regional outlet for the excess. The
point of gross oversupply for each region is apparent from the pertinent
correlation chart. What has not been established is the point of "incipient
oversupply." Conceptually, this would occur before the regional supply of
abatement S in useful form exceeded the net regional demand. Arbitrarily,
it might be assumed that this would occur when about 90% of net regional
demand was filled with abatement S (but E.P.A. may prefer either to assume
a different % or to investigate the effect of several different percentages).
The point of incipient oversupply establishes the quantity of
abatement S in useful form that is conceived to be marketable at prices
capable of giving a positive netback to regional suppliers. In con-
sequence, this is the quantity that may be divided up among individual
recoverers of abatement S within the region. This, then, is the suggested
answer to (b) in the previous subsection.....any number of regional abate-
ment sources may be located within a given region provided that the total
of their assumed production of sulfur in useful form does not exceed the
quantity representing the point of incipient oversupply.
8.1. 3
National Stockpiles
The establishment of national stockpiles of elemental S derived
from abatement sources would be a matter of national policy. Clearly,
it would provide incentives for recovery in elemental form. However, it
could also provide benefits to recoverers of abatement acid since a cer-
tain quantity of elemental S would be removed from the market. It might
also be a mid-term alternative to throwaway systems.
It is suggested that the E.P.A. defer detailed investigation of
the stockpile question until headway has been made with the suggestions
given in Sections 8.1.1 and 8.1.2 because the latter would provide the
"base cases." If it is accepted that world oversupply will continue until
late in the 1980's, then it follows that the prospects for exporting abate-
ment S* will not be favorable until the late 1980's. From an export stand-
point, elemental S will be required, but this ~ may not develop for
almost two decades. In this context, there is no immediate need for
research that would lead to recovery of elemental S, if, at the same time,
the only outlet for the recovered S were to be in stockpiles.
*
or for permitting other U.S. production of S to be exported.
-------
- 74 -
The previously suggested tasks would establish the relative
values of different forms of abatement S in terms of the quantities
expected to be marketable in different regions. This would be done
without consideration of stockpiling, i.e., the implicit assumption is
that abatement S would not be recovered in useful form unless it was
estimated that it could be marketed at the rate at which it was produced.
11 recovery in elemental form is favored under these conditions, e.g., for
the years 1980 and 1985, then the desirability of speeding the development
of effective and economical systems for recovering elemental S would be
obvious--without the need for any justification relating to national
stockpiles. However, recovery in elemental form may not be favored. This
could be because the recovery cost is projected to be relatively much
higher than that of acid or of a throwaway by-product. On the other hand,
difficulties with the safe disposal of throwaway products are conceivable.
Such a situation would seem to make it essential to develop elemental S
recovery systems as soon as possible--with the definite expectation that
much of the sulfur so produced would have to be stockpiled for many years.
Thus, there would seem to be at least two substantially
different purposes for national stockpiles:
(a)
To provide a springboard for eventual exports of
abatement S.
(b)
To overcome a (hypothetical) difficulty with throwaway
by-products by development of a "storeaway" alternative.
Although (a) is not incompatible with (b), it would seem preferable
to obtain a preliminary assessment of the merit of each. In this way,
investigation of stockpile cases (extensions of 8.1.1 and 8.1.2) could
be undertaken in the light of the purpose that the stockpile was ex-
pected to accomplish. It is believed that the purpose could nave a
bearing on the total quantity of abatement S that might reasonably be
stockpiled and, thus, on the quantitative assumptions that should be
investigated.
Two further possible uses for national stockpiles may be mentioned.
The first depends on the reasoning given in the final paragraph of Section
7.8, namely that nuclear energy is expected, eventually, to cause a decline
in the potential for recovering sulfur from fossil fuels. In this context,
sulfur stockpiled during the next several decades would be conserved for
future use, even though such use might be long delayed.
The second possibility is entirely different. Here, it is con-
ceived that stockpiles of elemental S might be used to give flexibility
to an overall abatement program. The latter might be designed to balance
the production of abatement S in useful form with market requirements.
However, demand cannot be predicted exactly, and certainly not for the
entire life of an "abatement plant". In this case, temporary surpluses
of abatement S might be taken off the market and placed in national stock-
piles. At the same time, policy with respect to new abatement plants
-------
- 75 -
might be varied (through revision of projected future markets for abatement S
. in useful form) in order to keep the stockpiles at a lo~ average level.
Used in this ~ay, the stockpiles ~ould be a means of partially protecting
individual abatement plants from errors in the estimation of future supply/
demand balances for sulfur. With the further assumption that accelerated
depreciation may be permitted for abatement systems, stockpile "protection"
might be given during the period ~hen the capital cost of the abatement
plant ~as being amortized.
The third and fourth stockpiling possibilities appear to be
matters of policy that cannot be investigated by use of the Model. On the
other hand, the establishment of policy ~ith respect to such possibilities
could be helpful to the investigation of (a) and (b).
8.2
Investigation of Alternative Assumptions
Section 6 discussed the sensitivity of the assumptions that pro-
vided the basis for computer inputs etc. Some of these sensitivities could
be investigated through the simple expedient of making other assumptions,
~hile others would require additional information.
8.2.1
Economic Development
The effects of different rates of economic growth could be in-
vestigated by following the procedures outlined in Appendices 1-5. Such
variations would be translated into differences in sulfur supply and demand.
Approximate values could be obtained. without detailed calculations, by
proration (i.e., direct correlation) of sulfur supply and demand with
constant dollar GNP (e.g., 90% of GNP relative to Model's GNP projection
would imply 90% of Model's projections of pertinent supply and demand). If
significant differences were indicated by this short-cut approach. detailed
calculations might be undertaken.
8.2.2
F.O.B. Prices and Transportation Costs
Cost assumptions may be varied once the low cost supplier (who
has incremental supplies) in a given market is known. This supplier is the
price-setter. If it is assumed, arbitrarily, that he ~ould lo~er his
price by $)(/LT, then other suppliers ~ould be forced to do the same.
Investigation of higher price assumptions is somewhat more complicated in
that another supplier may become the price setter for an increase of less
than $ X ILT . Thus, a new LP case might have to be nm. However. the
general effect of a hypothetical price increase (by an individual supplier
of a given market) above the delivered price capability of the next incremental
supplier would be "no sales" in that market. While the foregoing applies to
assumptions concerning "minimum F.O. B. prices". exactly the same approach
could be used to investigate different transportation cost assumptions.
-'
-------
- 76 -
8.2.3
Deviations from Free Trade
As discussed in Section 6.6, it would be possible to examine a
spectrum of different assumptions involving departures from free trade.
This would involve the placing of constraints on the U.S./foreign linkages
in the "North American Model". Both imports and exports would be affected
by such constraints. While recognizing the key role that sulfur plays in
industry and agriculture, it must be pointed out that international trade in
sulfur represents a minute percentage of the total value of all international
trade. Thus, restrictions on sulfur imports or exports would have a small
impact on the Balance of Trade (or B.O.P.) of most countries. However, local
effects could be significant, e.g., to the Province of Alberta or state of
Louisiana (or counties of Jefferson or Plaquemines). Considerations of
this kind were brought out in testimony by the U.S. sulfur industry to the
U.S. Tariff Commission during the period November 1970 to March 1971. A
listing of this testimony is given in Table 8.
8.2.4
Future Domestic Possibilities
The concepts of what is fair and reasonable in foreign trade may
set precedents for the future of the domestic sulfur and sulfuric acid
industries.
In the long term, the business of the U. S. Frasch sulfur producers,
who have reserves for another 40 years or, perhaps, longer, is threatened
not by sulfur recovered from Canadian sour gas but by S values recovered
from fossil fuels in the U.S. itself.
Just as there is a demand for Canadian gas, there will be a con-
tinuing demand for fossil fuels in the U.S. Increasing quantities of sulfur
will be recovered in elemental form before the fuels are burned. In addi-
tion, S values will be recovered from stack gas and smelters. If acid is
produced, it will reduce the demand for elemental S that would otherwise
be used to manufacture acid. If elemental S is recovered, it will compete
directly with U.S. Frasch sulfur.
Fortunately for the Frasch producers, the principal areas of S
demand are in Florida and on the Gulf Coast. These markets are reasonably,
but not completely, insulated from abatement sulfur. But the markets are
not insulated if abatement sulfur were to be moved at any cost. Quoting
from Freeport's testimony (Item 2 in Table 8):
"They have stockpiled some of their excess production and they
could easily stockpile more. Instead, they have elected to
follow a policy of persistently cutting prices in an effort
to force their sulfur into markets already fully supplied."
and:
"Unless some way is found to enable the U.S. sulfur industry
to market its sulfur on a fair and equitable footing with
this by-product competition, the industry faces continued
shutdown of mines, cutbacks of production and reduction of
employment."
-------
- 77 -
These remarks were aimed at Canadian recovered sulfur. However, they might
well become applicable to U.S. abatement sulfur. The parametric cases of
the Sulfur Model reveal the conditions under which this could occur. These
cases are hypothetical. Abatement sulfur, surplus to regional needs, may
be produced in throwaway form or may be stored in stockpiles until needed.
The Model considers the arithmetic of these possibilities, but it is not
able to deal with the economic and political implications of gross over-
supply and (hypothetical) sale of recovered sulfur down to, or even below,
zero netback. Others may wish to use statistics developed for the Model
as a starting point for investigating the consequences of different abate-
ment sulfur policies.
8.2.5
Revision of Model to Accord With Energy Policy
How much fossil fuel energy is consumed, the proportions of each
fuel type, and the split between domestic production and imports will all
affect the abatement sulfur potential. However, the fossil fuel questions
themselves will be worked out in the context of national energy policies.
As suggested in Section 6.7, once a national energy policy is
established, it would be possible to investigate its impact on the sulfur
industry by use of the Model. Alternatively, a broad range of possible
policies could be postulated, and the expected effects of these policies
could be simulated by the Model.
-------
- 7b -
TABLE ~
TESTH!ONY ON THE SULFUR INDUSTRY SUBMITTED
TO THE U.S. TARIFF COMNISSION
1.
Statement, dated 11/13/70, on behalf of the Duval Corporation (a sub-
sidiary of Pennzoi1 United)--15 pages.
2.
Testimony of the Freeport Sulphur Company, dated 11/13/70--9 pages.
3.
"A1ternati ve Approaches to Determining the Production Costs of Sulfur
from Sour Gas Fields in Hestern Canada," report dated 12/1/70, by A. D.
Little Inc. to the Duval Corporation--59 pages.
4.
Opinion of Arthur Anderson and Company concerning accounting principles
applicable to by-products and co-products, dated 12/1/70--3 pages.
5.
Statement of Freeport Sulphur Company dated 12/1/70--34 pages.
6.
"The Sulphur Crisis: Causes and Remedies," statement by the Duval
Corporation dated 3/15/71--37 pages.
7.
Supplemental statement of Freeport Sulphur Company dated 3/30/71--8 pages.
-------
- 79 -
8.3
Other Applications
8.3.1
Comparison with Specialized Forecasts
The appendices contain information that could provide input or
departure points for other studies. Economic development, energy demand,
fossil fuel availability, fertilizers, sulfuric acid, phosphoric acid are
all possibilities.
It may seem presumptuous to make this suggestion since each one of
these subjects will have been studied in great detail by others. However,
the particular advantage of the Model is that all of its components have a
common and compatible basis. In general, this would not be true of specialized
forecasts for a given business sector and, perhaps, confined to the U.S.
Such forecasts may be highly sophisticated, e.g., in their assessment of
future technological developments, yet also naive in treating business develop-
ments as if they could occur in isolation from the rest of the U.S. or world
economy. Thus, it may be of interest to compare the results of specialized
forecasts with those in the Model. Differences are probable, partly because
of the crudities in the Model but a180 because a given specialized forecast
may have been made without sufficient attention to its fit with external and
international factors. Uncovering the reasons for the differences could
lead to improvements in the Model and the specialized forecast.
8.3.2
Development of Natural Resources
The Sulfur Model would not be directly applicable to this suggestion.
The work done merely indicates that such a study might be desirable.
Many foreign centers of population and industry are within cheaper
access of corresponding U.S. centers than are landlocked locations in the
U.S. This problem will be of critical importance to the development of
natural resources in the Western states. Coal, phosphate rock, minerals
recoverable from the Great Salt Lake, shale, dawsonite, trona etc. are in
locations distant from points of major demand. However, the problem is
transportation cost rather than distance per se. Looked at this way, in
relation to commodities of low unit value, Chicago may be "closer" to
Rotterdam than Tucson is to Los Angeles. And Los Angeles is "closer" to
Nagoya than to Detroit.
The escalation of rail transportation relative to water borne
transportation costs has been discussed in Section 6.5 and in Appendix 6.
Water availability has always affected the location of industry and distribu-
tion of population. In the future, the dependence may be even greater and
may extend to the need for navigable water in addition to that needed for
general industrial or agricultural purposes.*
Pipelines offer a solution to the transportation cost problem in
some cases but not in others. Long distance pipelining of low BTU synthetic
gas from coal may not be economically feasible, while the technology for
moving solids by pipeline is still relatively new. Furthermore, efficient
*
"The Nation's Water Resources", U.S. Water Resources Council, Washington,
D.C., 1968 provides much information on these subjects including projections
of resource needs until the year 2020.
-------
- 80 -
use of pipelines requires continuous use at almost constant, and
throughput. Anhydrous ammonia and fertilizer solutions can move
by pipeline but, in general, agricultural produce cannot.
high,
effic iently
The foregoing observations lead to the suggestion that the further
development of natural resources may be studied in terms of transportation
costs between points of occurrence and points of demand. The individual
resources will have different transportation costs that, in some cases, will
depend on their form (e.g., whether coal is transported as such, or as a
slurry, or as a gas, or as electricity). Hence, a computer model could be
constructed that would permit calculation of the lowest cost total system
of resource utilization. The theoretical lowest cost "solution" might have
unacceptable implications (e.g., impact on exisiting industries and employ-
ment patterns). However, a computer model should make it feasible to investi-
gate many different cases. The implications of these cases could provide
insight into the long range consequences of different policies for the develop-
ment of Western or other natural resources.
8.3.3
Business Applications of Sulfur Model
The Model is based on the assumption that all sulfur from a particu-
lar point is supplied at the same F.G.B. price, regardless of destination.
In reality, however, Canadian, U.S. and Mexican producers have operated
what is usually referred to as a "dual price" system, but what is actually
a multi-price system. Thus, the true netback of sulfur sold in Alberta has
been different from the netback for a shipment to the U.S. and different
again from the netback for an "offshore" sale. In the case of the
U.S. Frasch producers, different netbacks are being obtained for deliveries
to Tampa, Chicago, and N. Europe. These differences have a relatively
minor effect on the values calculated for abatement sulfur, but would
be extremely important to sulfur producers. The Model could be adapted
to simulate multiple pricing and to the planning of marketing strategies to
obtain maximum profitability under conditions of general oversupply.
-------
~- --------
,
- 81 -
9.
GLOSSARY
The precise implications of more than forty terms must be
known in order to remove possible ambiguity from the language of the
report. Many of the terms are in current use, but may have different
implications when used by different authors. Other terms have been
coined for specific application to the 1'10del. In one case, "abatement
sulfur," the definition for the purpose of the Model is much narrower
than conventional usage. This Section is confined to definition of
such terms. The reasoning behind the choice of terminology will be
found in other Sections of the report. Certain terms that are specific
to computer terminology are explained in Appendix 7 and are not repeated
here. .
The glossary follows what is believed to be a logical sequence
of .concepts, rather than being arranged alphabetically.
.
Deliberately produced sulfur is also referred to as discretionary
sulfur. It implies production where the sole, or principal, purpose
is to produce sulfur for sale. Frasch S is the most obvious example.
Production of acid from pyrite, particularly outside the U.S., is
usually in this category also.
.
Co-product sulfur is also produced deliberately. In this case,
however, the other co-product (frequently "metal values" from which
copper and other non-ferrous metals are recovered) may be of equal
importance. For this reason, the economics of producing co-product
S differ from those where sulfur is the sole product.
.
By-product sulfur is associated with producing something else as
the main product. In most cases, the by-product sulfur is produced
in the course of making another product marketable or more readily
marketable. Examples are by-product S from sour natural gas or
from desulfurization of petroleum. An unequivocal distinction
between co-product and by-product sulfur is not possible because
the situation may vary geographically or with time. The practical
distinction is that co-product S must bear a share of production
costs while, in the limit, the principal product may have to bear
all the cost of producing by-product S.
.
Recovered sulfur is a broad term covering sulfur
process except mining. Recovered S values refer
form and produced in any way except by mining.
produced by any
to sulfur in any
.
Abatement sulfur, for the purposes of the Model, refers to S values
(in useful or throwaway form) recovered by electric utilities. The
term also includes the special case of S values recovered in excess
of local needs from smelters in the Mountain states ("Tucson region"
of the Model).
-------
- 82 -
.
Abatement potential is the total quantity of abatement S that could,
theoretically, be recovered. It does not imply the market potential
for abatement S.
.
Abatement sulfur in useful form, for the purposes of the Model, is
limited to abatement S recovered as sulfuric acid or in elemental
form. "Waste gypsum," "throwaway form," and "non-useful form" are
synonymous in the Model (even though the possibility of utilizing
waste gypsum is recognized).
.
Overhang or abatement overhang refer to the quantity of abatement S
that could be recovered as the consequence of retrofitting systems
for recovering abatement S in order to comply with SOx emission
standards.
.
Abatement level implies the degree of control of SOx emissions
achieved at a given time. In general, the abatement level is con-
sidered in relation to the total quantity of SOx emitted in 1970.
In most cases, the abatement level is measured in terms of million
long tons of sulfur equivalent rather than in terms of sulfur oxides.
.
Increment over 1970 (abatement) level implies the quantity of S
equivalent contained in abatable emissions above the 1970 level of
such emissions.
.
Percentage reductions from 1970 level of SOx emitted refer to the
percentage abatement from the 1970 level. Such reductions may also
be expressed in terms of million long tons of S equivalent, but do
not necessarily imply that such sulfur would be in useful form.
The quantity of sulfur abated multiplied by the percentage of such
recovery in useful form is the quantity of abatement S in useful form.
.
Gross regional demand refers to the total sulfur demand of
region of the Model, before taking account of any supplies
from within the region.
a given
of sulfur
.
"Netting out" refers to subtraction of regional supplies from gross
regional demand in order to obtain net regional demand.
.
The base case of net regional demand excludes regional supplies of
abatement sulfur in useful form. Parametric cases of supply of
abatement S in useful form lead to cases of net regional demand that
do take account of regional abatement supplies in useful form. Such
parametric supply cases simulate "exogenous supplies."
.
Parametric demand cases
is increased by certain
demand~" When permuted
parametric cases of net
involve assumptions that gross regional demand
percentages. Such cases simulate "exogenous
with the parametric supply cases, a series of
regional demand is obtained.
-------
- 83-
.
National stockpiles of elemental sulfur, as treated in the Model,
are conceived to remove abatement S in elemental form from the
market until needed. From the standpoint of computer calculations,
the immediate effect of a national stockpile is mathematically
equivalent to a reduction in the supply of abatement S in useful
form and, thus, is called "negative supply." .
.
Extra-regional suppliers refer to regions projected to have both an
excess of supply over regional demand for sulfur and also the capa-
bility of delivering such supplies to one or more regions of net
demand. Certain regions that start out in. a net demand position
are projected to become extra-regional suppliers in later years.
.
Gross oversupply may be regional, multiregional, or general (i.e.,
essentially worldwide). On a regional basis, gross oversupply is
considered to occur when (a) regional supplies of sulfur exceed
regional demand, and also (b) no outlet for the regional surplus can
be envisaged outside the region, or (c) extra-regional markets are
insufficient to accommodate the surplus. For the purposes of cal-
culation, gross oversupply has been considered on an annual basis
and as if there were complete flexibility in offsetting intra-
regional demand with intra-regional supplies. These assumptions
are recognized to be inadequate, and lead to the concept of incipient
oversupply. This is the condition under which individual regional'
producers of sulfur are postulated both to anticipate the onset of
oversupply and also to attempt to market their own production before
their competitors saturate the available market. Rapid erosion of
delivered prices is assumed to begin beyond the point of incipient
oversupply. Arbitrarily, this point is assumed to occur when, under
conditions of (a) plus (b) above, 90% of regional demand is satisfied
by regional supplies. However, this 90% concept does not apply to
condition (c) i.e., when the given region becomes an extra-regional
supplier. In this case, no percentage can be postulated because the
regional balance will depend on the extent of extra-regional markets
while taking account of the potential action of other extra-regional
suppliers in the same extra-regional markets.
.
Indeterminately low value for abatement S in useful form refers to
value under conditions of gross oversupply.
.
Sulfur mayor may not be offered for sale on the basis of free-on-board
(F.O.B.) or free-on-rail (F.O.R.) prices. In concept, such prices,
after the addition of the total costs of delivery (i.e., transportation
plus marketing costs), are equal to delivered prices.
.
Prices, costs, and values have different meanings. The computer program
uses (assumed) F.O.B. prices and delivery costs in order to calculate
maximum delivered values (M.D. V.) for sulfur in the various regions.
The M.D.V. for abatement sulfur in useful form is equal to the delivered
price of deliberately produced sulfur (usually from an extra-regional
-------
- 84 -
source) in a given region, up to the point of regional oversupply.
Beyond this point, M.D.V. is assumed to decline rapidly as regional
supplies increase (i.e., the delivered price of extra-regional
supplies is no longer assumed to "support" sulfur prices within
the region).
.
The term free-on-board value (F.O.B.V.) is used in relation to
abatement .sulfur in useful form. . It is equal to the calculated
M.D.V. minus total delivery costs (i.e., transportation plus market-
ing costs) from the plant where abatement sulfur is recovered to
the points to which it is delivered. In cases where abatement S in
useful form is assumed to enter extra-regional markets, F.O.B.V. is
a value calculated by the computer program in the same way that the
netback to other extra-regional suppliers is calculated. Where no.
extra-regional outlets for abatement S are assumed, rough estimates
of F.O.B.V. have been provided by deducting $lO/LT from the M.D.V.
calculated for the particular region. This deduction has been made
solely for the purpose of giving the reader an order of magnitude
impression of what the regional F.O.B.V. might be. Specific
information on location, marketing costs, etc., is needed in
order to calculate F.O.B.V. from M.D.V.
.
Abatement acid, for the purposes of computer calculations, is assumed
to be 100% sulfuric acid of conventional commercial quality. Devia-
tions from this quality should be considered when assessing the value
of abatement acid that may be produced in a given location. The cal-
culations treat abatement acid in terms of millions of long tons, of
sulfur equivalent in the form of 100% sulfuric acid.
.
Acid equivalency credit is a device for taking account of the fact
that the receipt of S equivalent in the form of acid may be more
valuable than in elemental form. In the computer program, the credit
is subtracted from the delivered price of sulfuric acid to permit
rational competition between acid and elemental S in the LP calcula-
tions. The credit and other factors concerning acid are expressed as
$ per LT of S equivalent.
.
References will be found to "marketing strengths" and similar qualities
attributed to existing production/marketers of elemental suflur and
manufacturer/marketers of sulfuric acid. These "qualities" refer to
physical facilites (such as liquid sulfur terminals and tankers) and
also to the intangible advantages of business experience.
fI}
Captive uses may be considered as a special aspect of "marketing
strengths." Various structures of captive consumption are possible.
The most notable are (a) forward integration by producers of Frasch S
into the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers, and (b) purchase of
elemental S for manufacture and captive use of sulfuric acid.
-------
- 85 -
.
Merchant acid sales may be integrated with captive utilization of
sulfuric acid.
.
Free trade is used in its international sense (and has no relation
to U.S. "fair trade" concepts). It must be recognized, however,
that free trade is an ideal rather than a reality. Hence, the
Model deals with "relatively free" trade and takes account of the
more significant deviations that concern sulfur.
.
Production prorationing refers to compliance with production quotas
set by (foreign) government authority (in the interest of maintaining
what may be judged to be reasonable price levels by the avoidance of
oversupplies). In some cases, minimum F.O.B. prices may be established
directl~ instead of through the indirect mechanism of production
prorationing. In the case of by-product sulfur, where production cannot
be controlled, a similar result may be achieved by export prorationing.
This form of prorationing is equivalent to compulsory stockpiling.
.
Dual pricing in its most common form refers to a different
base being used for domestic and export sales. The F.O.B.
may be explicit or implicit (i.e., calculable by deduction
delivery costs from delivered prices).
F.O.B. price
price base
of estimated
-------
PART 2
FACTORS AFFECTING THE RELATIVE VALUE OF
SULFURIC ACID AND ELEMENTAL SULFUR
1.
Preliminary Remarks
It would be convenient to be able to give concise,
answers to questions about the absolute, or relative, values
acid and elemental sulfur. However, such values will depend
of factors and circumstances:
all inclusive
of sulfuric
on a variety
.
geographical--location of sulfur source (e.g. S recovery
plant) in relation to prospective markets.
.
time--next year?, 1980?, 2000?
.
Who is recovering what?--the business characteristics of
the S producer, and whether elemental sulfur or acid is
produced, may affect the ease with which marketing of S
values can be accomplished--a given company may produce
in different locations; this would affect overall marketing
strategy as well as the value of incremental production.
.
Who will market the product?--direct marketing may be
involved, perhaps as an addition to existing business--
or a long term offtake contract may be signed--What type
of customers are in prospect?--are captive operations
involved?
.
How much is to be produced?--perhaps it will be a small
quantity in relation to local demand--perhaps it will
exceed what local markets could absorb, even if current
suppliers were to withdraw.
.
What storage and transportation facilities will be needed?--
There may be interactions with how much and what is being
produced.
.
What is the overall context and what repercussions are
possible?--a new supplier may have a minimal or an important
impact on the existing market structure--in the latter case
repercussions must be expected--also, other new suppliers
will enter later and may change market structure or price
levels even if the subsequent entry points are geographically
distant from the new sulfur source presently under consideration.
Neglect of anyone of the above factors could make our new
supplier come to wish that he had made a different choice.
-------
- 2 -
Generalizations about recovered sulfur values may be needed to
illustrate the broad perspectives of future possibilities, but they are
not a basis for planning. In particular, they are not a basis for
planning the recovery of abatement S as sulfuric acid. As a generalization,
there will be a need for effective acid recovery systems. However,
installation of any such capacity in certain locations or of more than
certain capacities in any location could lead to a negative value for acid
produced. The reasoning behind these statements is explained in the
report sections that follow.
Location is of paramount importance in the sulfur industry. An
example will dramatize the point. It happens that the reserves of natural
gas in Alberta and in Louisiana are of the same order of magnitude.
However, on average, the former are very sour while the latter are sweet.
If the reverse were the case, most of the U. S. Frasch mines might be
shut down, and the remainder would be facing closure as production of
by-product sulfur from sour gas grew steadily next door to prime markets
for sulfur. In practice, however, the isolated location of the Alberta
sour gas fields and, hence, the transportation costs to areas of significant
demand afford a measure of protection to the U. S. Frasch S producers. If
location is important in the case of elemental sulfur, it is even more
important in the case of sulfuric acid, because acid costs more than three
times as much to transport per ton of sulfur value.
2.
Summary
U. S. consumption of sulfur is mostly in the form of acid.
Thus, recovered sulfur has a different value depending on whether it is
recovered as acid or as elemental sulfur. Theoretically, acid has the
higher value because it means that the customer does not have to bear
the cost of manufacturing it. However, the cost of transporting acid is
at least three times greater than for elemental S per ton of S-value. In
consequence, the greater value of recovering acid rather than elemental
sulfur is critically dependent on assured, local markets for all of the
acid produced. Unless these conditions are fulfilled, the value of acid
may be low and it may even be negative. Elemental sulfur can be stockpiled;
in most cases at small cost. Sulfuric acid can not be stockpiled.
At the end of 1965, just over half of U. S. sulfuric acid capacity
was in 6 states: Florida, Texas, New Jersey, Illinois, California and
Louisiana. Today, the industry is even more concentrated on the Gulf
Coast and in Florida, with a relative loss of capacity in the Midwest.
The geographical trends reflect the importance of Florida's pebble
phosphate deposits and the development of chemical industry on the Gulf
Coast.
Most of the acid used to manufacture P fertilizers is produced
captively. This is true of a significant percentage of industrial acid
-------
- 3 -
as well. Some of the acid manufacturers also have captive production of
S values. This applies not only to the special case of acid recovered
by smelters but also to combinations of:
.
Frasch S production and P fertilizer manufacture.
.
S recovery from oil-and-gas operations and P fertilizer
manufacture.
.
S recovery by chemical companies and manufacture of industrial
acid.
The structures and geography of the elemental sulfur and acid
industries will make it difficult for abatement acid to enter the market.
The willingness of existing acid marketers and captive users to offtake
abatement acid is necessary if a significant outlet is to be developed.
The incentives for such offtake have not been established yet. Currently
the acid manufacturers, particularly those who merchant industrial acid,
stand to benefit if abatement S were to enter the market in elemental
form but to lose if entry were to be as acid. On the other hand, a
significant amount of old acid plant capacity will soon need replacement.
The shutdown of such capacity may provide the opportunity for some
abatement acid to enter the market.
The total potential for abatement acid systems until 1980
may be equivalent to the acid recoverable from twenty 800 MW power
stations operating at 60% load factor on 3 wt.% S coal. Thus, develop-
ment of outlet for acid recOJ erable from power plant SO is expected to
be slow. It follows that alternatives to acid recoveryXwill be essential
for the near term.
Details of the age, capacity, location and ownership of U.S.
acid plants have been tabulated and analyzed.
A mathematical treatment of the relative economics of recovering
abatement S in the form of (a) sulfuric acid, (b) elemental sulfur, and
(c) as a throwaway product is given in Section (13).
3.
Overall Conclusions and Supporting Reasoning
The development of outlet for acid recoverable from power plant
SOx will be a slow process and, for this reason, non-acid recovery systems
will be essential for many installations for the near term.
The willingness of existing acid marketers and users to offtake
abatement acid is necessary if a significant outlet is to be developed.
However, this will require the off takers to make radical changes in
their business operations. The changes will involve difficulty and
risk, and will not be undertaken without adequate incentives.
-------
- 4 -
Currently, the incentives for off taking abatement acid are not
clearly defined. In fact, the abatement acid potential may be regarded
more as a threat than as an opportunity. The potential threats are
erosion of acid prices, loss of market position by individual acid
merchanters, and premature obsolesence of existing investments in
manufacturing plants and other facilities. Nevertheless, many existing
acid plants are old, and some will be shut down by 1975 because economic
compliance with pollution control regulations will not be possible.
The latter will supply an incentive for arranging to offtake abatement
acid instead of building a new captive acid plant.
It must be considered that many acid manufacturers are benefitting
from today's low prices for elemental sulfur. If recovery of abatement
sulfur were to be in elemental form, such manufacturers would continue to
enjoy this advantage. In fact, the delivered price of sulfur might well
drop further in some locations. In contrast, if recovery occurs in acid
form, this will tend to put pressure on acid prices in local markets.
Matching the size of an abatement .acid plant to the outlet
available to an existing acid marketer or consumer may be difficult
even if the latter shuts down an existing plant. A single 800 megawatt
plant, burning 3 wt. % S coal and operating at an average 60% load
factor, could produce about 140,000 ST/yr. of 100% acid.
Considering the states in which coal accounts for a significant
percentage of electricity generation, there are only three; Florida,
New Jersey, and Delaware, in which the electric utility abatement acid
potential does not exceed conceivable acid outlet several fold (assuming
an abatement acid price low enough to induce existing manufacturers to
shut down their own acid plants). Eventually, this situation may change.
Indee~this is expected in the 1980's. However, it seems certain that
only a fraction of the abatement sulfur that is recovered during the
next decade can be in the form of acid. The limitation is one of market
outlet within a given industry structure. The structure will change,
but this will require time.
An important implication of the above reasoning and conclusions
is that, near term, it will be essential for many power stations to
recover or remove sulfur in forms other than acid. The market for S02
is small, and that for ammonium sulfate is declining. Hence, apart from
using low sulfur fuels (if available), the only broadly applicable choices
appear to be elemental sulfur and waste gypsum. This is not to say that
acid recovery systems will not be useful, but it does say that the larger
part of the problem will require another solution.
-------
- 5 -
4.
Industry Structure
The industry has several, almost separate elements. The most
significant points are that (a) most of the demand for sulfur is in the
form of sulfuric acid, (b) most of the basic supply is in the form of
elemental sulfur, and (c) the sulfur producers and the acid manufacturers,
for the most part, are different companies. These facts are highly
pertinent to the value that can be ascribed to recovered sulfur, because
the latter will have one value in elemental form and another value as
acid, and these values will vary with location such that acid may be the
more valuable product in one place while elemental sulfur may be more
valuable in another.
Table 1 is a fairly complete listing of the companies par-
ticipating in the U. S. sulfur/sulfuric acid business. A rough classifi-
cation by type of company* reveals:
.
3 Frasch producers (Duval, Freeport, TGS)
.
10 oil companies (including agricultural affiliates such
as Continental's Agrico and Union's Collier Carbon)
.
3 major acid companies (Allied, Olin, Stauffer)
.
12 major chemical companies (Dow, DuPont, Monsanto, etc.)
.
6 "special situation" or recovered acid companies (e.g.
N.J. Zinc, U.S. Steel, etc.)
.
7 agricultural and agricultural specialty companies
(including Grace and Columbia Nitrogen)
.
15 small specialty chemical companies
.
12 resellers
It is apparent that very few companies are both producers of
sulfur and marketers of acid. This means that most of the acid is
manufactured either from purchased sulfur or is the by-product of smelting,
etc. Some of the companies that make by-product acid are direct marketers
of acid, while others (not listed in Table 1) sell spent acid or H2S
to companies such as Stauffer and Allied Chemical.
Future producers of by-product acid may wish to avoid becoming
direct marketers, i.e. merchanters of sulfuric,acid. Such companies may
try to arrange for their production to be taken off their hands by
existing marketers. The acid from several such operations might be
removed to a central point in a given marketing region. The central
point would have blending facilities to permit the marketing of various
grades of acid, oleum, S02' etc. It is anticipated that the transfer
price for such recovered acid, F.O.B. plant, may be. much lower than the
*The classification is not intended as a complete characterization of
the named companies' business.
-------
- 6 -
normal market price for sulfuric acid. Conceptually, a significant
differential will be required to compensate a res eller/marketer for his
collection/blending/marketing operations and for providing security of
supply to customers (not possible from a single by-product acid source).
Within the next decade or two, the U.S. industry and its
Canadian affiliates may be classifiable as follows:
(1)
Frasch producers-- marketers of elemental S via liquid
terminals in Gulf Coast, W. Florida, Mississippi river
system, and E. Coast--having substantial forward inte-
gration into manufacture of P fertilizers.
(2)
Some oil companies with integrated elemental sulfur/acid
operations and, in some cases, P fertilizer manufacture.
(3)
Nationwide sulfuric acid companies -- major purchasers of
U.S. Frasch and imported (mainly Canadian) sulfur-- major
purchasers/resellers of recovered acid, and contract
operators of recovered acid plants for electric utilities.
( 4)
Chemical companies with capability for mer chanting some of
own acid production -tJurchasers of elemental S from Frasch
producers and Canadian/Mexican suppliers -- Eventually the
increasing supply of recovered acid obtainable by special
arrangement or from nationwide acid suppliers may induce
these chemical companies to shut down their own acid plants
(i.e. not add new capacity when existing plants are worn out).
(5)
"Special situation" producers of recovered acid in individual
locations (not nationwide marketers) primarily NFM smelters
who elect to market their by-product acid rather than sell it
under contract to nationwide acid companies.
(6)
Specialty marketers and chemical companies, mostly small in
size, and mostly operating only on a local (not a national)
basis--who will obtain their raw materials from a variety
of sources.
(7)
Small-scale resellers of acid, etc.---some companies of this
type will come into being in response to the opportunities
created by availability of recovered S-values in locations
where prices are currently high because of distance from
primary supply points.
(8)
Fertilizer manufacturers---who will purchase either elemental
S or acid depending on location---much of the total volume
of P fertilizer manufacture will be shared between Frasch S
producers and agricultural chemicals affiliates of oil
companies--new manufacturing operations may be established
(mostly by other companies) in the Corn Belt or the Mississ-
ippi River system, to take advantage of by-product acid from
power stations in the S. Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee area
(also a possibility in Ohio/W. Virginia)--before 1990, Western
phosphate rock deposits may be exploited on a large scale
using by-product S-values.
-------
- 7 -
5.
Shape of Industry in 1965
In 1965, the continental u.s. had 233 sulfuric acid plants
with a total capacity of 24 million ST/yr. The details, rearranged
from a study by the Battelle Memorial Institute,* are given in Table 2
and summarized in Table 3. Just over half of the capacity was located in
only 6 s ta tes .
Florida
Texas
New Jersey
Illinois
california
Louis iana
Capacity, 1000 ST/yr.
4242
2339
1811
1587
1255
1118
12352
% of u.s. Capacity
17.7
9.7
7.6
6.6
5.2
..!!.:.2
51.5
The age distribution of the acid plants is recorded in Table 4.
The age profile indicates:
a fifth of the total capacity was built in 1937 or
earlier, i.e. was at least 28 years old in 1965.
nearly two fifths of the total capacity was added
during W~W. II.
almost no new plants were built between 1946 and 1952,
while the wartime capacity was being digested.
a steady rate of new plant additions occurred from
1952 to 1965.
Thus, at the end of 1965, 40% of the capacity might be considered
relatively new, 40% could be called ageing, while 20% could be des-
cribed as vintage. The latter included 62 of the 67 chamber plants
still operating in 1965.
The final column of Table 4 shows the average size of plant
that was built in a particular year. The year-to-year scatter in
average size, which tends to reflect the purpose for which individual
plants were built, masks the significant increase that occurred over
a 25 year period.
*"rhe Study of the Evolution of the World Sulfur Industry, 1965-1975,"
Battelle Memorial Institute, April 1967.
-------
- 8 -
6.
Changes Between 1965 and 1969
Table 5 shows, on a state-by-state basis, how the number of
acid plants changed between 1965 and 1969. Not surprisingly, a large
number of old chamber plants were shut down. At least 18 old contact
plants were also shut down but, because new capacity was added, there
was net increase of 3 cOntact plants from 1965 to 1969. However, the
state-by-state changes were far from uniform.
States with net loss of contact plants
S.tates with net ga in of contact plants
N.J. - 1
De L - 3
W.Va.- 1
Va.- 1
S.C. - 1
Ohio - 1 Wyo. - 1 Pa. - 1 Iowa - 1
Ind. - 1 CoL - 1 Md. - 2 Mo. - 2
Mich. - 2 N.M. - 1 N.C.- 2 Ark. - 1
Wis. - 1 Ariz. - 1 Ga. - 2 La. - 3
Utah - 2 Fla.-l Tex. - 3
Wash. - 1
Cal. - 2
..
The following trends are apparent:
De~line in N.E., Midwest and Mountain states
Expansion in states producing P fertilizers
(e. g. N. C., Ga., F la., La.)
Expansion in states producing petrochemicals,
e.g., La. ~nd Tex.
Expansion on West Coast
Chamber plants account for less than 2% of total acid production
and, thus, can have little effect on prospects for marketing abatement acid.
Almost all of the chamber plants are more than 30 years old. Many Hill.have
difficulty in complying with pollution control regulations. It is expected
that almost all of the remaining chamber plants will be shut down by 1980.
7.
Analysis of Larger Plants
Table 6 shows the age distribution of the larger acid plants,
with capacities of at least 100,000 ST/yr., that were operating in
1965. The corresponding capacity distribution of these plants is given
in Table 7.
After digestion of the over-capacity created by W.W. II,
large acid plants were built at a fairly uniform rate in such a way
that each year accounts for about 4% of total capacity. This leads
to a conceptual "average plant life" of about 26 years. The "average
life" has a bearing on the rate at which abatement acid can enter the
market because, in many cases, room for the latter may be provided
by the shutdown of existing capacity.
-------
- 9 -
Of the 80 plants listed in Table 6, only 56 were located in
states where consumption of coal by electric utilities is significant.
The 56 plants are relisted in Table 8. Their capacity is also summarized
in Table 9 which also identifies the source of sulfur used to manufacture
acid. It will be seen that almost three quarters of the capacity used
elemental sulfur exclusively, while a further 15% used it to balance
manufacture from smelter gases, spent acid or H2S. Only 10.3% used
smelter gases exclusively, while only 2.2% burned spent acid (sludge)
exclusively.
The plants in Table 9 accounted for 56% of total U. S. capacity
in 1965 (including all of the small plants excluded from Tables 6 and 7).
Thus, each of these larger plants averaged 1% of total U. S. capacity.
Table 10 lists the 24 large acid plants located in states
where coal consumption by electric utilities is insignificant.
Theoretically, it would be possible to ship acid from a state in which
abatement acid could be produced to another state that has a demand
for acid but no potential for recovering it from utility stacks. In
practice, the high transportation cost of acid would limit such ship-
men ts .
8.
Possible Off takers of Abatement Acid
The outlet for abatement acid will depend on the ability and
willingness of existing acid marketers and captive producers/consumers to
offtake the acid. With this in mind, Table 8 was converted into Table 11.
The latter shows the identity of the companies that, given sufficient
incentive, might be b~th willing and able to provide outlet for abatement
acid.
It is of interest to compare the state totals for acid manufac-
turing capacity at the bottom of Table 11 with the potential for producing
acid from stack gases. This is done in a generalized way in Table 12.
It is realized that there are appreciable deviations from 60% load
factor and 3 wt.% S coal. In spite of this, a high ratio in the final
column of Table 10 indicates a probable excess of abatement potential
over local acid demand. A corollary is that much of the sulfur removal
from stack gas in these states will have to be in the form of a
throwaway product or as elemental sulfur. A low ratio, on the other
hand, is favorable to abatement acid. This situation exists in
Florida, N.J. and Delaware. The situation in Florida is unique in
that demand is associated with P fertilizer manufacture, that almost
all acid manufactured is used captively, and that the Frasch sulfur
producers are firmly established in the market. Nevertheless, the
potential for producing abatement acid in Florida (which is overstated
in Table 12) is small in relation to local demand. Thus, it is reasoned
that utilities in specific areas in Florida that are also P fertilizer
manufacturing locations are well placed to negotiate outlet for abatement
acid. The matter is discussed further in Section (15). Deeper probing
requires direct contacts between utilities and fertilizer manufacturers.
-------
- 10 -
9.
Recent Additions to Capacity
Table 13 indicates the acid plant capacity that has been built
or announced from the end of 1965 through March 1971. The new capacity
exceeds 7.2 million ST/yr., equivalent to 30% of the capacity available at
the end of 1965. This suggests that new capacity is still being added at
an average rate of 4%/yr. Although details are not available except
in a few cases, it is also apparent that the "vintage" plants listed in
Table 2 are being retired rapidly.
The geographical distribution of the new capacity, summarized in
Table 14, is of interest. Unfortunately, the data for Florida are not
available and the capacity for Pennsylvania is partly estimated. Recognizing
that the Freeport plant in La. and the TGS plant in N. C. account, respec-
tively, for 20.5% and 13.1% of the new capacity, it is apparent that acid
manufacture is still shifting away from the Midwest, is being added steadily
on the Gulf Coast, and has been added recently by smelters in the Mountain
States. This is illustrated in Table 15. It will be seen that
45% of the new capacity is in three states (Miss.,La., Tex.) that use
natural gas to generate electricity. When it is considered that two
of these states are the Frasch sulfur producers' home base and that the
third will soon be recovering large quantities of elemental S from sour
natural gas, it will be recognized that this 45% of new acid capacity
(reflecting local demand) has been located where the potential for using
abatement acid is negligible.
Acid manufacturing capacity in the major petroleum refining
states of Texas, Louisiana and California somewhat exaggerates net
demand for acid. This is because a high proportion of spent acid from
petroleum refining is recycled. Some acid manufacturers offer a special-
ized service to petroleum refiners by supplying fresh acid and collecting
and reprocessing spent acid. In some cases, S values recovered in
petroleum refining operations are sold to the chemical companies that
supply fresh acid. In California, the so-called "bonus barrel" incentive
given to petroleum refiners who produce low sulfur fuel oil is probably
adding to local supplies of sulfur thereby reducing prospects for abatement
acid or for smelter acid that might otherwise be supplied by Arizona.
Smelters accounted for 25% of the new capacity. Actual
production would be somewhat lower because such acid plants do not
often operate at full capacity. However, the location of the plants
and one of their prime functions (to avoid air pollution with 802) make
it certain that none of the new smelter acid capacity would be shutdown
in order to make room for stack gas acid. To the contrary, additional
smelter acid will enter the total U.S. supply before most utilities
decide what form of abatement control to select.
Outside Florida, only about 13% of the new acid manufacturing
capacity falls outside the areas of smelting, captive manufacture by
Frasch sulfur producers, etc. This 13% is representative of the type
of demand that might conceivably be filled with abatement acid in the
fut ure .
-------
- 11 -
Recent additions to capacity have averaged about 1.2 million
8T/yr. This quantity of acid could be produced by eight 800 megawatt
power stations operating at 60% load factor on 3 wt.% S coal. However,
if the incremental potential is only 13% of the incremental capacity
this would be equivalent to the acid obtainable by installation of a
recovery system on a single 800 MW power station each year. This
projection excludes the potent ial in Flor ida and a 150 the plant replace-
ment possibilities suggested by Table 11. Weighing these factors as
favorably as possible, it is judged that the total potential for
abatement acid systems until the end of the decade may be equivalent
to the acid recoverable from twenty 800 MW power stations burning
3 wt.'7. 8 coal. The potential number of installations could be much
greater than twenty if applied to smaller power plants or if the coal's
average sulfur content were less.
10.
Applicability of Neutralizer, and Load Factor Problems
It has been suggested that a neutralizer might be installed
along with an acid recovery system to provide a means of controlling the
quantity of acid that would have to be marketed.
The neutralizer might be used on a day-to-day basis as a peak
shaving device. However, it might also be used as a way of limiting
acid production over a prolonged period of market development. In this
case the use of the neutralizer would be reduced as market outlet was
!xp~~ded.
The concept is very likely to be applied to smelting operations.
Copper smelters in particular are likely to neutralize some dilute S02
gas streams in addition to making acid from other, more concentrated,
802 streams. In th is ca se, the extens ion of -neut raliz at ion to peak
shave acid production would be relatively simple and should represent
only a small incremental cost.
When the same concept is applied to electric utilities, a problem
would be encountered. Typically, a steam generating plant achieves its
maximum average load factor after about 5 years. After another 3 years or
so, the load factor begins a sharp decline. Sixteen years from initial
start up the local factor, typically, is only half the average at the five
year point. Acid production would follow the load curve. In consequence,
progressive development of outlet for acid would be frustrated by declining
availability. Under these circumstances, a neutralizer might be used
extensively for several years. Then, assuming some success in developing
acid outlet, its further use might be limited to occasional peak shaving.**
*''Air Pollution Control and Solid Wastes Recycling," Part 2, p. 659.
Hearings before Subcommittee on Public Health and Welfare of the House
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 9lst Congress.
**A hypothetical way of overcoming this difficulty, and also of
sizing the electric utility's acid plant more economically,
would be to start up a new power plant On low sulfur coal and
then progressively switch to higher sulfur coal as acid outlet
was built. In general, this approach would present coal procure-
ment and logistical diffic'ulties. However, there may be certain
locations {e.g. in Illinois) ,where groups of power plants have
access to both high and low sulfur coal, in which the concept could
be utiliz'ed.
-------
- 12 -
Over the 35 year life of the power plant, the quantity of acid sold would
represent only a small fraction of the capacity of the acid plant and
neutralizer. Direct neutralization without provision for any acid
manufacture might be preferable.
The load curve problem is regarded as.a serious deterrent
to manufacturing acid. Production of a throwaway product or of elemental
sulfur would be less disadvantaged because the marketing problems.
associated with variable, but declining, quantities of acid would be
wholly or substantially avoided. Recovered elemental S, for example,
could be stockpiled by the utility until a reasonable shipping parcel
was available. Declining production of elemental S would not affect
its marketability.
The best prospects for abatement acid appear to be in situations
where the entire production of whatever quality can always be off taken.
This can occur when such production is a small fraction of local acid
demand. Balancing of supply and demand can then be achieved by varying
local manufacture of acid from elemental sulfur. The latter could also
be used to produce oleum or to fortify abatement acid.
lbe concept of centralized acid recovery*, fed by magnesium
sulfite from several power plants, provides a theoretical solution to
the load factor problem. In so doing, however, great organizational
complexity is introduced. In addition, the production rate from the
central plant would be high -- a 1000 ST/D acid plant is envisaged.
There is room for very few such facilities in the entire U.S.
Chemico has also suggested the same concept for centralized production
of elemental S**. This has considerable merit if the total costs are
reasonable.
ll.
Acid Manufacture in the Midwest
In 1965, there were 44 sulfuric acid plants located in the
East North Central region of the U.S. This is one of the areas in
which coal is the principal fuel used by electric utilities and, thus,
is of special interest from the standpoint of potential markets for
abatement acid.
The plants are clustered around the principal industrial cities of
the area such as Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati and
E. St. Louis. In addition, there are a few, relatively small, fertilizer
acid plants outside the major cities. It is apparent that ~ demand
for acid is satisfied by ~ manufacture.
*The concept has been advanced by the Chemical Construction Co. (Chemico).
e.g. as described during Hearings beforeSubcommittee on Public Health and
Welfare of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 9lst
Congress: r~ir Pollution Control and Solid Wastes Recycling," Part 2,
pages 655-662.
**"Chemico World," September 1971; "Stack Gas Scrubbing vs. Fuel Oil
Desulfurization,"
-------
- 13 -
The age profile of the E.N.C. plants in 1965 was:
Start-up or Last Expansion
1937 or earlier
W.W. II
1950
1956
1960
1962
Not known
22
11
1
2
1
1
6
By 1969, five contact plants and all the chamber. plants except two in
Illinois had been shut down leaving a total of 32 operating plants.
Both the overall age of the E.N.C. plants and the number
built during the W.W. II era are evident. Shut down of older plants
i8 sure to continue, and this should create the need for new capacity
that might be filled with abatement acid. On the other hand, the
munitions - oriented plants may not be replace~ thereby limiting the
rate at which new capacity will be required in the E.N. Central region.
12.
Statistical Data for Sulfuric Acid
u. S. production statistics for "new" sulfuric acid, for the
years 1964-1969, are given in Table 16. The "new" acid includes that
obtained by burning acid sludge; this is equivalent to about 450,000-
500,000 LT of sulfur per year. For example, in 1968, new acid production
was 27.4 million 5T of acid. Industry sources suggest that about 0.5
million ST of acid may not have been counted in the figures published
by the Department of Commerce, i.e. the true total was 27.9 million ST.
This is equivalent to 8.5 million LT of sulfur. Subtracting 0.5 million
LT of sulfur recovered from acid sludge gives a net production of 8.0
million LT of S-values in the form of acid in 1968.
The data in Table 17 are derived from those in Table 16, but
are expressed on a percentage basis to make regional trends in production
more readily apparent. Expansions of phosphate fertilizer manufacture
are responsible for the increases in acid production in Florida, Louisiana,
and N. Carolina. Thus, the overall increase in production between 1964,
and 1969 is almost entirely attributable to P-ferti1izers.
Sulfuric acid is not stockpiled and, historically, very little
acid has been imported or exported. Hence, the production statistics
are a fair reflection of U.S. acid consumption. In spite of the expect-
ation that industrial demand for acid will pick up after having been
flat for several years, the percentages in Table 17 give a broad picture
of the location of acid demand for some years to come. In fact, the data
for 1969 may be summarized further:
-------
- 14 -
% of U.S. Total Production
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Florida
Louisiana, Texas
S.E. Coast (Del, Md, Va, N.C., S.C., Ga)
N.E. (Pa, N.J., N.Y., Mass, Me, R.I.)
Midwest (Ill, Ohio, Mich. Ind. Wis. Minn,
Iowa, Mo. Kan)
Central (Ala. Miss, Okla. Tenn. Ark. Ky, W.Va)
West Coast and other states
26.2
17.4
11. 2
9.3
14.9
8.7
12.3
(6 )
(7)
In the immediate future, the first 3 groups and probably (6) will continue
to be natural markets for Frasch sulfur. Western Canadian sulfur will
make its major penetration in (5) and may have some success in (4)
and (7). However. both U.S. and Mexican Frasch producers are also
expected to be active in (4). Markets in some states. e,g. Califronia,
are expected to be supplied by sulfur recovered from petroleum refining
and similar operations. As implied elsewhere1 the ~ventual impact of
recovered acid in areas of high acid demand will be to back out supplies
of elemental sulfur from more distant primary supply points. Recovery
of marketable sulfur, whether in acid or elemental form. in areas remote
from industrial on fertilizer demand is not likely to be competitive
with sulfur from principal supply points.
13.
Sulfuric Acid Manufacture - Costs and Implications
Companies which use appreciable volumes of sulfuric acid in
their own operations have the choice of purchasing acid or manufacturing
it from purchased elemental sulfur. In either case tankage is required,
but in the latter case a significant plant investment will also be
needed. On a per ton of S-value basis (3.26 tons of 100% H2S04 contain
1 ton of sulfur) the choices may be represented as follows:
.
Case (1); cost per ton of S-value, (Sl) = 3.26 x delivered
price of purchased acid.
.
Case (2); cost per ton of S-value. (S2) = delivered price of
elemental S + cost of manufacturing acid + prorated "cost"
of investment in acid manufacture.
Using data published by the Sulphur Institute, and converting
to a 1970 cost basis. it may be calculated that the last two termS underlined
in the second equation amount to about $15/LT* of S-value. i.e.
(S2) = delivered price of elemental S + 15
*
Applicable to 600 ST/D plant, 330 dayslyr operation. and 10% after
tax R.O.I. assumed for acid plant and offsites. The Sulphur
Institute, Technical Bulletin No.8.
Comprable estimates of manufacturing costs are given in "Sulfur
and SO Developments, II A. 1. Ch. E. Chemical Engineering Progress
Techni~al Manual, 1971: "Economics of Sulfuric Acid Manufacture",
J. M. Connor, Chemical Construction Company.
.
.
-------
- 15 -
For the purpose of illustration, it is assumed that S2=Sl.
Then, if the delivered price of elemental sulfur is E per long ton
and the delivered price of purchased acid is A per long ton*:
3.26A = E + 15
In practice, the sulfuric acid consumer may decide to purchase, rather
than manufacture, acid if 3.26A is less than E + 15.
At this point, we may consider a sulfur recovery operation in
the general location of the acid consumer. Let us assume that the cost
of recovering sulfur in elemental form is X, and in the form of acid is
Y per LT of S-value. Let us assume, further, that the cost of trans-
porting elemental sulfur from recovery plant to the acid consumer is
T per LT. Then, as a first approximation, the cost of transporting
1 LT of S-value in the form of acid will be about 4T.
Thus, the plant netback for the sulfur recovery (excluding
marketing expenses other than transportation costs) is (E-T) for elemental
sulfur, and (E+1S - 4T) for acid. Hence, in this simplified, generalized
case, it will be advantageous to recover sulfur as acid if (E-1S - 4T - Y)
is greater than~-T-X). This is the same condition as (Y-X) being less
than (15-3T). For very short distances, i.e. "local" deliveries, T
will be about $3/LT and (lS-3T) will be about $6 per long ton of S-value.
The differential of recovering a ton of S-values as acid and
as elemental sulfur, (Y-X), is likely to have a negative value if the
form of sulfur to be recovered is S02 and a positive value if the form
is H2S. If (Y-X) is negative it must be less than (15-3T) for local
deliveries (since the latter will be about $6 per long ton of S-
value). If (Y-X) is positive, or if appreciable delivery distances are
involved, recovery as elemental sulfur may be the better choice.
In a purely hypothetical case in which E=25, T=2, and S02 is
recovered as acid, at a cost of $25/LT acid equivalent, i.e., Y=25,
the gross profit on recovered acid sales (E+15 - 4 T - Y) would be
$3/LT of S-value. However, if S02 were recovered as elemental S at
the same cost, i.e. X=25, there would be a net loss of $3/LT of elemental
sulfur. This bias in favor of recovering acid rather than elemental
sulfur depends on the existence of purchasers of acid near the recovery
plant willing to offtake all the acid produced.
Not considered yet is that purchasers of acid may require a
specific strength, and that some may require oleum and others 100% "2S04
etc. It would be difficult, or expensive, to supply different grades of
acid out of a single recovery plant. Furthermore continuity of supply,
or rate of production, would depend on the operations of the utility
*$ A per LT is equivalent to $0.893 A per ST.
-------
- 16 -
company or other source of abatement sulfur. As discussed earlier, this
suggests that producers of recovered acid may sell their by-product at a
discount either to a regular marketer (and manufacturer) of acid, oleum,
S02 etc., or sell by special contract to a large individual user "of acid.
In the latter case, stand-by or make-up supplies of acid would probably
be arranged with a regular acid marketer/manufacturer.
In the hypothetical case cited above, the gross profit on acid
sales waS calculated to be $3/LT of S-value. Moving this production through
an acid reseller might well eliminate this margin. Nevertheless, for local
sales, the reseller acid route might be better than recovering elemental
sulfur, which would also entail marketing costs.
Next, it is necessary to consider the recovery of sulfur in a
non-marketable form. Let us assume that the cost of such recovery to-
gether with the cost of disposing of the by-product (e.g. calcium sulfate)
is Z per LT of S-value. Let us assume further that the marketing costs*
associated with selling recovered acid or recovered elemental sulfur are
respectively M2 and Ml' and that the cost of disposing of by-product
gypsum is M3' Then we can write down the realizations for three basic
Cases:
.
recovered elemental sulfur case:
(E-T-X-Ml)
(E+15-4T-Y-M2 )
.
recovered acid case:
.
non-marketable by-product case:
-(Z*13)
The best choice will be the most positive (or least negative) of these
three realizations. The third case will always be negative because
a waste by-product is bound to be a charge" against the parent operation.
Even so, the third case may be less costly than the first two if E is
low or if T, X, Y, MI' and M2 are high. E and T will vary considerably
with location in the U.S.. E will depend on transportation costs from
major supply points, e.g. Frasch sulfur from the Gulf Coast and sulfur
recovered from sour gas in Alberta. T will depend on transportation
costs from the point of "abatement sulfur" recovery to points of sulfur
demand. These choices are summarized in Table 18.
It is certain that recovery as acid will be the best (i.e.
lowest net cost) solution in some specific cases. However, it also
seems likely that recovery as elemental sulfur and as a non-marketable
by-product will each be best in other specific cases. Regional supply/
demand considerations, transportation costs, and marketing capabilities
must be considered when analyzing the best recovery approach in specific,
future situations.
*Which may be either direct marketing costs or discounts given to a reseller,
and are expressed in terms of $/LT of S-value.
-------
- 17 -
14.
Discussion of Sulfuric Acid Prices and Implications for Abatement Acid
Approximately one-third of a ton of elemental sulfur is
required to make one ton of 100% sulfuric acid. The cost of sulfur
is one of the two principal elements in the cost of sulfuric acid.
The other is the return on the investment ~n the acid plant)needed
to just ify manufacture of acid. There is no fixed or unique figure
that can be assigned to required return on investment. However, for
an established commodity such as H2S04' it is probably betloleen 10% and
20% before taxes. From the standpoint of a potential new entrant into
the acid manufacturing business, the required R.O.I. should be at least
equal to that obtainable by alternate uses of capital. This suggests
the upper end of the above range of R.O.I., i.e., about 20% before taxes.
One of the circumstances under which new entrants might be
attracted into the business of manufacturing and marketing sulfuric acid
is if the cost of sulfur were to decrease in relation to the market
price for acid. This is examined in a preliminary way in Table 19 for
the period 1952-1966. It will be seen that there was a slight uptrend
in the current dollar price of sulfur (Column A). Column (B) merely
lists the result of multiplying the figures in Column (A) by 0.307 in
order to obta in the cost of e1ementa 1 sulfur needed to manufacture one
8T of 100% acid. Column (C) records the list price of acid, while
Column (D) nets out the cost of sulfur from this price. Thus, (D) is
a measure, in current dollars, of the gross revenue available to cover
the cost of manufacture (exclusive of S cost) and to provide a return
on the nwnufacturing operation.
At this point it is necessary to call attention to two
additional factors. The first is that inflation was occurring, thereby
offsetting the real value of the increase in (D) betlo/een 1952 and 1964.
When normalized via the GNP deflator (Column E), the constant 1958 dollar
va lue of D, in the fina 1 column, hardly changed between 1952 and 1966.
The other factor is that improvements in acid manufacturing technology
occurred, thereby reducing manufacturing costs*. However, this 10lolering
of manufacturing costs was associated with increases in plant capacity.
This is of greater value to an existing manufacturer (who, eventually,
Io/ill replace an older plant with a larger new one) than to a potential
new entrant. The difficulty facing the latter is that during the time
required to establish market position he will not be able to operate
the plant at full capacity, so the potential of lower unit manufacturing
costs will not be realized. Furthermore, in the specific case of
sulfuric acid, adequate market outlet for a large, new plant will be
difficult to establish. This is because high transportation costs
effectively limit the marketing area of a given acid plant.
*This was true for chemicals as a group. The Wholesale Price Index for
Chemicals and Applied Products averaged 95.0 in 1952 and was essentially
unchanged at 96.7 in 1964.
-------
- 18 -
The overall inference is
stable and moderately favorable to
but offered no special attractions
business.
that the period 1952-1966 was quite
existing sulfuric acid manufacturers
to potential new entrants into the
The situation since 1966 is examined in Table 20. From columns
(A) and (C) it will be seen that acid prices moved ~ as sulfur prices
increased, but did not come down when the latter decreased. The apparent
decrease in acid price from $34.7/ST in 1969 to $30.8/sT in 1970 is
probably not real. A different pricing basis was introduced in the latter
year as shown in the lower part of the tab Ie. Based on the changes in
W. Coast acid prices, from $32.30/sT on 8/7/67 to $35.80/sT on 12/28/70,
it seems likely that the E. Coast price of $33.75/ST should have been
used instead of the Gulf Coast price of $30.75 for continuation of the
figures in column (C) beyond 1969. In any case, the more recent figures
are "low" prices, \vhereas the earlier list prices are the average of
"low" and "high" during the year. Thus, it appears that no list price
decrease for acid occurred on a current dollar basis.0 ----
The price movements since 1952 are recapitulated in summary
form in Table 21, making the assumption that acid prices have not decreased
since 1969. On this basis, it appears that (D) has increased significantly
since 1966. The immediate inference is that either existing manufacturers
will reduce acid prices or that new manufacturers will be attracted into
the business. However, when construction costs are normalized against
the GNP deflator, it may be seen that their rate of inflat'ion is higher
than the rate for the economy as a whole. In fact, the differential for
the past few years has run about 3%/yr. ahead of the general rate of
inflation. This is a strong deterrent to capital investment by potential
new entrants into comw.odity chemical manufacturing*.
Theoretically, the Frasch sulfur producers are potential new
entrants into the sulfuric acid business. Indeed, the two largest pro-
ducers operate large acid plants already. However, such operations are
a captive part of diversification into the manufacture of phosphate
fertilizers. To enter the merchant acid business would place the Frasch
producers in competition with their principa 1 customers for elementa 1
sulfur. Also, it would require significant investment capital that is
needed to speed diversification into other minerals.
For the above reasons, there is no immediate pressure on U. S.
acid manufacturers to reduce prices. Nevertheless, this may happen
for the reasons discussed below.
*
This is confirmed by recent upward movement in the Wholesale Price
Index for Chemicals and Allied Products: 1969"=99.9, Hl3rch 1971::.104.5.
o
This is confirmed by Nelson refinery operating cost data for sulfuric
acid.
-------
- 19 -
By-product acid has a localized
as a whole. In Some ways the current acid
mental sulfur before W. Canadian recovered
several u. S. regional markets.
and minor effect on acid markets
picture parallels that for ele-
S became the dominant factor in
Stepped up recovery of acid from U. S. smelters will affect
acid prices in tributary markets within the~ few years. However,
acid prices in general will not necessarily be affected. Of potentially
greater significance are the enormous quantities of acid scheduled to be
recovered in the Sudbury area of Ontario. The quantity could reach several
million tons of S equivalent by 1980. Only a fraction of the acid can be
absorbed in E. Canadian markets. Consequently, very large scale movements
to Europe and the eastern U. S. are being considered. Because U. S.
markets already have adequate supplies of acid, it is clear that certain
areas (with which economic transportation linkages can be established)
could come under intense pressure.
So far, the discussion has been in termS of list prices for
sulfuric acid. In Table 22, however, the latter are compared with
Department of Commerce data. It would appear that the list prices reflect
trends, but may overstate actual prices by an average of more than $7/ST.
The fact that there are approximately 200 sulfuric acid plants
in the continental U.S. is a reflection of the need to be located close to
demand points in order to minimize transportation costs. This is also an
explanation of why the average size of acid plant varies from state to state.
This is examined in Table 23 in termS of the average production of acid
per plant in 1968. The low average of 49 ST/CD in S. Carolina is attribut-
able to the half dozen chamber plants in that state. The 1188 ST/CD for
Florida reflects the state's preeminence in phosphate fertilizer manu-
facture.
The value of acid shipments by state or area, for 1967 and 1968,
is ~iven in Table 24. In general, the price differences among states are
compatible with delivered costs of elemental sulfur to the respective
states. However, plant size is also a factor, particularly in Florida.
Table 25 illustrates an extremely important aspect of the U. S.
acid industry, namely that a high percentage of n~nufacture is for captive
use. The percentage ranges from about 7 in Pennsylvania to more than 90
in Florida. The average outside Florida is about 40%.' This means that a
utility planning to produce abatement acid would have two hypothetical types
of customer: '
(1) An existing acid marketer, who would merchant the
abatement acid in combination with ,his own production
(from elemental sulfur in most cases).
(2) A captive user of acid who wanted to shut down part of
his own production or wanted to obtain incremental acid
without installing new manufacturing capacity.
-------
- 20 -
What might either of these potential
pay? In either case, the abatement acid would
acid deliberately made from elemental sulfur.
the latter are approximately:
off takers be prepared to
have to be competitive \vith
1975 price assumptions for
ex Canada
F.O.R. Alberta
F.O.B. Vancouver
del. Chicago
$10 /LT
$17/LT
$27/LT
ex U.8.
F.O.R./F.O.B. Gulf
de 1. Chicago
$18-23/LT
$23-28LT
Having regard to the capital and operating costs for acid
manufacture, and the need for return on investment:
.
When an existing producer of acid (from elemental 8) must
decide whether to build a new plant or to purchase acid--
he may choose to purchase if the delivered acid price is
significantly less than $8/8T plus the cost of 8--a projected
total of about $16/8T for Chicago in 1975, but lower in many
other locations.
o
For an existing producer to shut down his own plant, acid
would have to be delivered for about $6.50/8T less than in
the above case.
.
Abatement acid may have to be purified, fortified, etc.,
thereby lowering the price an o££taker would be prepared
to pay.
In the first case the net-back to an abatement acid producer
might be as much as $9/8T--or more in exceptional cases where the off-
taker could receive the acid by pipeline* from the producer (e.g., electric
utility). In the second case the net-back might be as much as
$2/8T. In either case the net-back would be reduced if:
.
Elemental 8 were available for less than $23/LT (reduce
acid value by $1/8T for each $3/LT drop in S price).
*"Under the fence" to a neighboring plant.
-------
- 21 -
o
Off taker is distant from the acid producer (reduce acid
value by $1/8T for each 100 miles beyond the first 100
miles) .
o
Purification or fortification costs were significant.
Thus, negative net-backs to a producer of abatement acid are
possible. It is stressed that net-backs as high as $9/8T and $2/8T in
the t\W cases discussed above would probably be obtainable in a fe\v cases
only, and the average net-back \vould be much Im"er. There are strong
indications that the near to mid-term market for abatement acid will be
small. The quantity will depend on the ability and willingness of exist-
ing acid marketers and captive producer/consumers to offtake abatement
acid. Even with such cooperation, the rate at which abatement acid can
be absorbed \dll be slow. For many of the states that have coal-burning
utilities, the amount of abatement acid that could be accommodated by
the market could be recovered from a single, large power plant.
The advantage to the user of acid of being able to purchase it
directly rather than manufacturing it from elemental 8 is taken account of
in the computer calculations of the Sulfur Model by applying an '~cid
equivalency" credit to the minimum delivered price. The credit is rela-
tively small in 1975 and 1980, thereby simulating the need to price
abatement acid low enough to provide the incentive for shutting down
existing capacity. In 1985 and subsequently, the credit is much higher
reflecting the expected evolution of markets for merchant acid in the
U. S.
Special situations, brought about by concentrations of petroleum
refining and/or phosphate fertilizer manufacture, make it impractical to
perform generalized calculations of abatement acid value for California,
the Gulf Coast and Florida. Also to be excluded from generalized calcula-
tions are cases in which an electric utility may be located close to
smelters that already market acid (or will do so by 1975). Once such
marketing arrangements are in effect, it is considered unlikely that any
electric utility could enter. the same market with abatement acid.
15.
Phosphoric Acid, Phosphate Fertilizers and Implications for Abatement
Acid
A general account of the elemental phosphorus and phosphate
fertilizer industries is given on pages 4-43 to 4-54 of Senate Document
No. 92-6*. The account may be used as a starting point for discussing
the over-capacity that has existed in the phosphate fertilizer industry,
how this situation is changing, and the implications for sulfuric acid.
First, it should be noted that the
phates is related to their use in detergents
been implicated in eutrophication in rivers,
duced pressures to eliminate phosphates from
industrial demand for phos-
and that phosphates have
lakes, etc. This has pro-
detergents or markedly
*"The Economics of Clean Air," report of the Administrator of the E.P.A.
to Congress, March 1971.
-------
- 22 -
reduce their percentage in detergent formulations. In turn, this has
reduced the demand for industrial phosphates and has created the possi-
bility that alternative outlet would be sought in P fertilizers, thereby
contributing further to over-capacity in that industry.
The Economic Research Service of the U.S.D.A., in its "Fertilizer
Situation" for Narch 1971, commented:
"Capacity for producing processed fertilizer P 05
totals about 6.4 million tons....about 3.1 milfion
tons of this capacity is in ammonium phosphates, 2
million in TSP, and 1.3 million in NSP. Wet process
phosphoric acid capacity is about 5.5 million tons
of P20S and is not expected to increase during 1971.
...Thus, capacity to produce P20S in 1971 will ex-
ceed 1969/70 use by clos~ to 40%."
Excess capacity was also referred to in the New York Times
of June 14, 1971, commenting on the Brewster Phosphates partnership
between American Cyanamid and Kerr McGee and their tolling arrangement
with Freeport Minerals to use 50% of the capacity of the latter company's
plant at Uncle Sam, Louisiana. In addition, the Times' article stated
"The industry-wide over-capacity problem was corrected
by way of attrition. At least 10 phosphoric acid plants
with an annual capacity of 7S0,000 tons have been shut
down since 1960." (emphasis added)
The word "was", underlined above, is probably not correct, i.e.,
over-capacity still exists in spite of plant shutdowns, Nevertheless,
industry is bringing the situation under control. This is in contrast
with EPA's projection for FY 1976 cited in the lower half of Table 26.
Far from a S4% utilization of P20S production capacity in FY 1976 it is
probable that capacity will be tight, perhaps as early as 1972/3. This
has a bearing on potential outlets for abatement sulfuric acid,as will
be discussed later.
Rising electricity costs and the age of many electric furnaces
used to make elemental S are causing the shutdown of such capacity. This
will limit the potential diversion of furnace acid to P fertilizer pro-
duction (see Table 27).
Production of NSP is declining, partly because it is usually
more economical to fertilize with DAP or TSP and partly because much of
the NSP production has been associated with small, and now obsolete, sul-
furic acid plants in the Eastern U.5. Many such plants have been shut
down already. Additional shutdowns will occur in cases where it will not
be economically feasible to bring the acid plants into compliance with
air pollution control regulations. Thus, the industry trend is away from
NSP (16-22% P20S) and towards TSP (typically 46-47% P20S) and DAP (approx.
-------
- 23 -
46% P205) - particularly the latter because of its higher total nutrient
content. In consequence, with the shut down of some phosphoric acid
capacity (neede& to make DAP), available capacity will soon be tight.
When this occurs, additional phosphoric acid capacity will be constructed.
In turn, this will create a demand for sulfuric acid in large unit
volumes. The capacity situation, as it existed in 1967, is summarized in
Table 28.
Details of 1967 wet process phosphoric acid capacity are given
in Table 29 and summarized in Table 30. Freeport's Uncle Sam plant is in-
cluded in this tabulation even though it did not come on stream until
the following year. Excluding this plant, the total U.S. capacity in
Table 30 is 4.94 million metric tons of P205 or 5.44 million ST. The
latter figure checks the current capacity cited by the U.S.D.A. but is
slightly less than the 5.86 million ST of orthophosphoric acid capacity
reported in Table 28. The small discrepancy may be due to different
assumptions made \vhen converting from daily to annual capacity. As the
difference is slight, it appears that the 47 wet process plants in
Table 29 are a reasonably complete listing. The figure of 47 (or 46
excluding Freeport's plant) should be contrasted with the 179 P205 plants
noted in Tables 26 and 27. Some of the numerical difference may be due to
multiple installations at the same location. In the main, however, the
other 133 plants must represent facilities for manufacturing TSP and NSP.
Almost all of the wet process phosphoric acid capacity has been
built since 1960. This is a reflection of a rapid change in fertilizer
technology from NSP to DAP. However, it also means that, unlike the
average age of sulfuric acid plants in 1967, U.S. phosphoric acid capacity
is modern. With the exception of American Cyanamid's Brewster plant, it
is expected that that most of the 10 plants, totaling 750,000 ST capacity,
referred to in the Times' article will have been the smaller, older plants
listed in Table 29 and will include some plants that made industrial (not
fertilizer) phosphoric acid. This will have had the effect of further
increasing the percentage of P acid made from captively produced sulfuric
acid. Treating the tolling arrangement at Uncle Sam as equivalent to a
captive operation, it is believed that approximately 95% of wet process
P acid is now made from captively produced sulfuric acid. 80% of this
capacity is located in the S.E. (Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi,
North Carolina). In turn, this is equivalent to more than 40% of the
total U.S. demand for sulfuric acid. Undoubtedly, acid demand will in-
crease in this area.
From the standpoint of potential outlet for abatement acid, a
major problem is that few coal-burning electric utilities are located
close to demand for fertilizer acid. In Florida, the latter is concen-
trated in the Tampa/Bartow area. However, Tampa Electric's F.J. Gannon
1270 megawatt plant is well located, while Florida Power Cor20ration's 440
MW plant at Crystal River is only about 70 miles from the phosphate
-------
- 24 -
processing area*. In spite of the general practice of producing
H2S04 captively, the large and expanding demand in the Tampa/Bartow
area should make it feasible for outlet for abatement acid to be
negotiated. Prospects in the other four states (Texas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina) are far less favorable.
16.
Fuel Sulfur Content May Affect Choice of Abatement System
There may be a "fit" of fuel sulfur content with different types
of abatement system. The reasoning is entirely qualitative. Investment and
operating cost data for different abatement systems would be required for
more detailed analysis.
At one end of the scale, fuel sulfur content will be so low
that there will be no need for any system to abate sax emissions.
This will be the case \\'henever natural gas is burned and also in a
(limited) number of cases where oil or coal of sufficiently 1m., S
content is available.
With the next step up the sulfur scale there will be a need
only to "trim" sax emissions to meet air quality standards. This
may occur ,.,ith either coal or oil Hhen fuel S content is low, yet not
quite low enough to meet the standards without some stack gas treat-
n~nt. Lime injection may meet this situation by providing a modest
reduction in SOx emissions, and with a minimum capital investment in an
abatement system.
Acid recovery systems may be best suited either to medium-
sized power plants burning high S coal or to larger power plants burn-
ing medium S coal. The latter case is more favorable since large power
plants are likely to be operated at a higher and more uniform load
factor. Hmvever, if a large power plant ,.,ere to burn high S coal it
might have the capability of producing more acid than could be marketed,
locally. Thus, relatively favorable conditions for acid production
are sanmviched between:
.
Low S fuel or small power plants, that would not generate
enough acid to compensate for the extra effort needed to
market it.
.
High S fuel burned in large power plants, that would
generate more acid than could be marketed locally.
*Other coal-burning electric utilities at Pensacola, Chattahoochee
and Panama City are not well located with respect to the principal
P fertilizer manufacturing area. On the other hand, two of
Florida Power Corporation's power stations, Bartow (494 rM) and
Higgins (138 MW), fire both oil and gas, with the former represen-
ting some potential for producing abatement acid. In addition,
Tampa Electric's Hookers Point (218 ~M) and Knight (64 }M) plants
are both oil-fired. '
-------
- 2S -
Next, there will be the case of high S coal burned in large
power plants. This favors recovery of elemental S. The reasons in-
clude:
.
The advantage of producing elemental S in significant
quantities, ther~by favoring the arrangement of economical
transportation to points of demand.
.
The relative advantage over waste gypsum of having a
smaller quantity of by~product to store and di.spose of.
.
The possible future advantage of being able to negotiate
buy-back of S with the fuel supplier.
Finally, there will be cases in which (1) no control, (2)
simple injection, (3) acid recovery, and (4) elemental S recovery are
not appropriate. The various scrubbing processes may be applicable.
This will usually be the case when neither (1) nor (2) is appropriate
and neither acid nor elemental S can be delivered economically. Land-
locked locations (e.g. with no access to barge transportation) such as
mine-mouth power plants or those fed by slurry pipelines will be par-
ticularly disadvantageous to systems that recover S in useful form.
-------
TABLE 1
U.S. CORPORATIONS INVOLVED IN THE MARKETING OF
SULFUR, SULFURIC ACID, ETC.
Sulfuric Liquid Sulfur
Corporation Acid Oleum S02- Crude Refined Agricultural Colloidal Precipitated Wettable
Agrico (Continental Oil) X
Air Products X
Allied Chemica 1 X X X X
American Cyanamid X X
Arco Chemica 1 X X
Ameri can Zinc X
Ansul Co. X
Baker J. T. X X
Cities Service X X
Chemical Formulators X
Chempar Chemica 1 X
Collier Carbon X X X .:1
Columbia Nitrogen X X
Corco Chemica 1 X X
Diamond Shamrock X X
DuPont X X
DUVA L X
Dow Chemica 1 X
Eagle Pitcher X
Eastman Kodak X
Electronic Space Prods. X X
Essex Chemica 1 X X
Freeport Minerals X X
Georgia Pacific X
Grace X X
Gulf Oil X X
Based on "Chemica 1 Week" Buyers Guide, 1971.
-------
':ALE (CON d »)
Su lfuric Liquid Sulfur
Corporation Acid Oleum .-2£2- Crude Refined Agricultura 1 Co lloida 1 Precipitated Wettable
Huisking Chas. X
Kerr-McGee X
Los Angeles Chemical X X
Mallinckrodt Chemical X X
Marion Manufacturing X X
Marat~on Oil X
Merck X X
Monsanto X X
Mobil Chemica 15 X X
Nationa 1 Zinc X X
N.J. Zinc X
Olin Corp. X X X X X X
Pemwalt Corp X
Parramore & Griffin X X X
Reagent Chemical X X X X
Reichhold Chemical X t.-
Rohm & Haas X
Royce Chemica 1 X
St. Joe Minera ls X
Stauffer Chemical X X X X
Shell Chemica 1 X
Signa 1 Oil & Ga s X X
3M Co. X
Texas Gulf Sulphur X
Uniroya 1 X
U.S. Industria 1 Chem. X X
United Minera 1 X
U. S. Stee 1 X
Virginia Chemical X
Wilson Pharmaceutical X
-------
TA BLE 1 (CONT'D)
Sulfuric Liquid Sulfur
Corpora t ion Acid 0 leum -222- Crude Refined Agricultural Colloidal Precipitated Wettable
-
Distributors
Agvar Chemicals X
Ashland Chemica 1 X
Chemtech Corp. X
ICI America X X
Inland Chemical X
Jones Chemica 1 X X
McKesson Chemical X X X X X X
Prior Chemica 1 X
Shepard Chemical X
Sylvan Chemica 1 X
Textile Chemical X
Thompson-Hayward X X X X X X X
u
::L
-------
TA BLE 2
U. S. SULFURIC ACID PLANTS IN 1965*
Start up Capacity Source of
State Date (1) Company 1000 ST/yr Merchant Captive Sulfur
Maine 1942 (1956) Northern Chern. Ind. 59 .,I S
Mass. (2) Continental Oil Co. 27 ( 3, 8) .,I S
(2) (1942) Monsanto 127 .,1 S
R.I. (2) Heyden Newport Chern. 18 .,1 S
231
N.Y. (2) Continental 011 Co. 45 (3,8) .,1 .,I S
(2) (1941) Allied Chern. 181 .,1 .,1 (4) + S
(2) Eastman Kodak 6 .,1 .,1 S
232
N.J. (2) Continental Oil Co. 45 (3,8) .,I S
1958 Allied Chern. 191 .,1 .,1 (4) + S
1945 Am. Cyanamid 58 .,I S
(2) Am. Cyanamid 179 .,1 S ,.,
(2) 27 (3,8) .,I .~
Armour S
1959 Dixon Chemical 272 .,1 S
(2) Du Pont 67 .,I S
(2) Du Pont 91 .,I S
(2) Du Pont 272 .,I S
1956 Essex Chemical 136 .,1 .,1 S
(2) (1942) Nat. Lead 454 .,I S
1946 Koppe rs 19 .,I S
1811
PA. (2) (1941) Allied Chern. 218 .,1 (4) + S
1945 Areo 40 (7) .,I (6)
1941 Du Pont 68 .,1 S
(2) New Castle Chern. 10 (3,7.8) .,I S
(2) N. J. Zinc 159 .,I (5)
1945 Pittsburgh Coke 40 (7) .,I .,I S
(2) Rohm and Haas 73 I S
(2) St. Joseph Lead 200 (5) + S
(2) U. S. Steel 104 (3 , 8) .,1 .,I S
1959 C. K. Williams 6 .,1 (5)
(2) Witco Chern. 32 .,I (4) + S
.950
-------
TABLE 2 (cant 'd)
U. S. SULFURIC ACID PLANTS IN 1965*
Start up Capaci ty Source of
State Date (1) Company 1000 ST/yr Merchant Capti ve Sulfur
Md. (2) Continental Oil Co. 31 (3) I S
(2) Kerr McGee 95 (3) I S
(2) (1946) Olin 318 (3) I I S
444
Del. 1942 Allied Chern. 295 I I (4)
Bethlehem Steel 91 I (5)
(2) (1945) Grace 272 I I S
(2) Royster Guano 36 (3,8) I S
(2) U. S. Naval Powder --1J! (7) I S
712
Va. (2) Continental Oil Co. ~ (3) I S
1941 Allied Chern. 145 I S
1965 Allied Chern. 136 I I S
(2) Allied Chern. 113 I S
(2) (1942) Am. Cy an ami d 27 I S
1946 Du Pont 82 I S
Grace 20 (3) S
1940 Hercules 23 I S
(2) Robertson Chern. 12 (3,7) I S
(2) Royster Guano 20 (3) I S
(2) Borden Chern. 66 I S
1946 Swift 42 I S
(2) Virginia-Carolina 18 (3) I S
(2) Virginia-Carolina 32 (3) I S
Weaver Chern. 32 I S
808
W. Va. 1946 Allied Chern. 122 I I S
(2) Union Carbide .. 19 I S
. 141
-------
TABLE 2 (cant 'd)
u. S. SULFURIC ACID PLANTS IN 1965*
Start up Capacity Source 0 f
State Date (1) Company 1000 ST/yr Merchant Captive Sulfur
N.C. (2) Acme Fertilizer 18 (3) .; S
Continental Oil Co. 19 (3) .; S
(2) Armour 16 (3) .; S
(2) Armour 32 (3) .; S
(2) Swift 32 (3) .; S
(2) Virginia-Carolina 24 (3) .; S
(2) Virginia-Carolina 7 (3) . .; S
(2) (1942) Virginia-Carolina 25 .; S
1964 Wright Chemical 48 .; S
221
S.C. (2) (1946) Continental Oil Co. ----z=; (3) .; S
(2) Anderson Fertilizer 14 (3) .; S
(2) Grace 36 '; '; S '-'
1946 I.M.C. 18 .; S >-
(2) Planters Fertilizer 23' (3) \1 '; .S
(2) Royster Guano 11 (3) " .; S
(2) Virginia-Carolina 28 (3) .; S
(2) Virginia-Carolina -2. (3) .; S
162
Ga. 1945 Continental Oil Co. ~ (3)' . .; S
Am. Cyanamid 204 '; '; S
(2) Armour 18 (3) .; S
(2) Armour 16 (3) .; S
(2) Cotton States Fert. 10 (3) .; S
(2) Georgia Fert. 18 (3) .; S
Minerals & Chern. Philipp 32 .; S
(2) Pelham Phosphate 23 (3); .; S
(2) Roys te r Guano 23 (3) .; S
(2) Royster Guano 9 (3) .; s
Smi th Guano 16 (3) .; S
(2) Southern Fert. 36 .; S
(2) Southern States 32 (3) .; S
(2) Virginia-Carolina 7 (3) .; S
(2) Virginia-Carolina ~ (3) .; S
480
-------
TABLE 2 (cont'd)
U. S. SULFURIC ACID PLANT S IN 1965*
Start up Capacity Source Of
. State Date (1) Company 1000 ST!yr Merchant Cap ti ve Sulfur
Fla. 1963 Acid Inc. 476 I S
(2) Continental Oil Co. 38 (3) I S
1945 (1965) Continental Oil Co. 381 I S
-- (1961) Am. Cyanamid 499 I S
1942 Armour 136 I S
1962 Armour 363 I S
(2) Armour 18 (3,7) I S
1960 Grace 476 I S
1957 I.M.C. 454 I S
Royster Guano 68 I S
Swift 190 I S
(2) (1945) Cities Service 817 I S
1945 Virginia-Carolina 113 I S . .
1959 Virginia-Carolina 159 I S
Wilson & Toomer Fert. 18 (3) I S
(2) (1946) Wilson & Toomer Fert. ~ (3) I S
4242
Ohio 1960 Continental Oil Co. 40 I :S
(2) (1946) Continental Oil Co. 16 (3,8) I I S
(2) Continental Oil Co. 32 (3,8) I I S
(2) (1941) Allied Chern. 113 I . I S
Am. Cyanamid 63 I I S
(2) Armour 18 (3,8) I S
1950 Diamond Fertilizer 11 I I S
1956 Du Pont 159 I I .S
(2) Du Pont 181 I I S
(2) Farmers Fe rt. 24 (3,8) I I (5) + S
1946 I.M.C. 41 I S
1940 (1942) 3-M 64 I I S
(2) Royster Guano 18 I I S
(2) Borden Chern. 18 I S
(2) (1942) Virginia Carolina 14 I S
812
-------
TABLE 2 (cant 'd)
U. S. SULFURIC ACID PLANTS IN 1965*
Start up Capaci ty Source of
State Date (1) Company 1000 ST/yr Me reboot Captive Sulfur
Ind. (2) (1942) Du Pont 295 I S
1946 Marion Manufact. 54 I S
(2) (1956) Stauffer 109 I S
(2) (1941) Stauffer 250 I S
708 .
Ill. Continental Oil Co. --v; (3) I S
1945 Continental Oi1 Co. 23 (3) I S
(2) (1941) Allied Chern. 118 .' I I (4) + S
(2) (1956) Allied Chern. 163 " I I (4) + S
(2) Am. Zinc 14 (3,7) (5)
1945 Arn. Zinc 105 I (5) + S --
(2) Am. Cyanamid 54 . I I S '--'
(2) Armour 32 (3) I S
1945 Kanakee Ordnance 66 'I I S
(2) Matthiesen & Hege1er 35 (3) I S
(2) (1942) Monsanto 254 ,'I I S
1956 Nat. Distillers 127 I S
1962 Occidental Petroleum 191 ,II I S
1942 Olin 318 I S
Borden Chern. 32 I S
1942 Swif t 36, I S
C.K. Williams -2.;, f t) I (5) + S
1587 I . t)
Mich. (2) Continental 011 Co. ---z3 (3.8) I (6) + S
Continental 011 Co. 32 I S
Am. Cyanamid 23 !. I ! I I I S
1941(1955) Allied Chern. 181 ; I I (4) + S
(2) Detroit Chern. 10 (7) I S
(2) Du Pont 154 I I S
Grace 33 S
456
-------
TABLE 2 (cont' d)
U. S. SULFURIC ACID PlANTS IN 1965*
Start up Capacity' Source of
State Date (1) Comp any 1000 ST/yr Merchan.t Cap ti ve Sulfur
Wis. 1941 Badge r Ordnance 54 I S
(2) Du Pont 18 I S
1946 Royster Guano 33 I S
. 105
Ky. (2) . Du Pont 159 I S
1946 Pennsa1t . 41 I S
200
Tenn. (2) Armour ---rs (3) I S
(2) Virginia Carolina 16 (3) I S
(2) (1941) Cities Service 762 I I (5)
1941 Volunteer Ordnance 132 I S
928 ~,
~-
Ala. 1947 Continental Oil Co. 25 I S
(2) Continental Oil. Co. 32 (3) I S
(2) Du Pon t 11 I S
(2) Home Guano 11 (3) I S
Reichho1d Chern. 64 I S
(2) (1942) Standard Chern. 16 (3) I S
1957 Stauffer 190 I (6) + S
1940 (1950) Ci ties Se rvi ce 136 I S
(2) Virginia - Carolina 18 I S
(2) Virginia - Carolina 16 (3) I S
(2) Virginia - Carolina ~ (3) I S
535
Miss. 1958 (1962) Coastal Chemi ca1 227 I S
1945 I.M.C. ~ (3) I S
243
Minn. 1959 North Star Chern. 127 I S
Iowa Continental Oil Co. 23 (3) I S
1954 LM.C. 27 I S
1946 Nat. Distillers 66 I S
116
-------
TABLE 2 (cont 'd)
U. S. SULFURIC ACID PLANTS IN 1965*
Start up Capacity Source of
State Date (1) Company 1000 wr/yr Merchant Captive Sulfur
Mo. (2) Grace 64 X S
(2) (1942) Nat. Lead 476 X (5) + S
540
Kan. 1954 Eagle Pitcher 136 X (5)
1940 Nat. Distillers 80 X X (4) + S
216
Okla. (2) Nat. Zinc 64 X (5)
(2) (1941) Ozark Mahoning 106 X X S
170
Ark. 1946 Monsanto 100 X S -
J
1946 Olin 95 X S
195
La. Am. Cyanamid X S
1953 Allied Chern. 82 X X (4) + S
(2) Armour 16 (3,8) X S
1945 Cities Service 136 . X X (6) + S
1945 (1965) Occidental Petroleum 444 X S
(2) (1946) Olin 77 X S
(2) (1952) Stauffer 363 X (5) + S
., 1118
Tex. 1945 (1946) Asarco 60 X (5)
(2) Armour 16 (3,8) X S
1960 Du Pont 318 X (4) + S
(2) Gulf 127 X (4) + S
(2) (1946) Olin 82 X S
(2) (1941) DUn 229 X S
1946 Olin 236 X S
1953 Shamrock 27 X (4) + S
1958 Borden Chern. 159 X (4) + S
-------
TABLE 2 (cont'd)
U. S. SULFURIC ACID PLANTS IN 1965*
Start up Capacity Source of
State Date (1) Company 1000 MT/yr Merchant Captive Sulfur
Tex. (can 't) (2) (1942) Stauffer 109 X X S
(2) (1955) Stauffer 726 X X (4) + S
1953 (1955) Stauffer 250 X (4) + S
2339
Mont. (2) (1946) Anaconda 109 X (5)
Idaho 1954 Bunker Hill 109 X (5) + S
1959 (1965) J. R. Simp10t 349 X S
458
Wyo. -- (1960) Susquehanna 68 S ,~
Western Nuclear 33 X S "
1959 (1960) Fremont Minerals 40 X X S
141
Col. (2) ( 1941) Allied Chern. 45 X (4) + S
1955 Rico Argentine 64 X X (5)
1956 Union Carbide 36 X S
145
N.M. 1962 Climax Chern. 48 X X (6) + S
1958 Kerr McGee 136 X X S
1955 Anaconda 32 X X S
216
Adz. (2) Apache Powder 32 X S
Bagdad Copper 64 X S
1943 Inspiration Conso1. Cop. 77 X X S
1957 Kennecott 32 X X (5)
1957 Southwest Agrochem. 27 X X S
ill
-------
State
Start up
Date (1)
Utah
(2)
1957
1957
Nev.
1953
Wash.
1958
1948 (1950)
Calif.
(2)
(2) (1941)
1941 (1945)
(2)
1960
1954
1957 (1965)
(2) (1957)
1945
1960
TABLE 2 (cont' d)
U. S. SULFURIC ACID PLANTS IN 1965*
Company
Capacity
1000 m/yr
363
23
6
392
Source of
Merchant Captive Sulfur
X (5)
X S
X (6)
X X S
X X (4), (6) + S
Garfield Chern.
Texas Zinc Min.
U. S. Steel
Anaconda
136
Allied Chern.
Asarco
36
45
8T
Allied
Allied
Allied
Asarco
Union Oil
Monsanto
Occidental Petroleum
Stauffer
Stauffer
Valley Nitrogen
109
159
73
14
79
113
127
295
159
127
1255
'-" ~
X (4) + S J
X X (4), (6) + S I
X X (4) , (6) + S
X (5)
X X (4), (6) + S
X X (4) , (6) + S
X S
X X (4), (6) + S
X X S
X S
Chern.
Chern.
Chern.
III i:
NOTES FOR TABLE 2
(1) Plants may have been expanded subsequently (date in parentheses).
(2) 1937 or earlier.
(3) Chamber process.
(4) Spent acid.
(5) Smelter gases + pyrites.
(6) H2S, including refinery gas.
(7) Estimate (for inclusion in total capacity).
(8) Shut down by 1969.
* Based on data in "The Study of the Evolution of the World Sulfur Industry 1965-1975",
Battelle Memorial Institute, April 1967.
-------
TA BLE 3
U. S. SULFURIC ACID CA PACITY IN 1965
1000 ST / YR 1000 ST IYR 1000 ST IYR
New England 231 Ohio 812 Minn. 127
Ind. 708 Iowa 116
N.Y. 232 Ill. 1587 Mo. 540
N.J. 1811 Mich. 456 Kan. 216
Pa. 950 Wis. 105 W.N. Central 999
Middle Atlantic 2993 E.N. Central 3668
Md. 444 Ky. 200 Mont. 109
Del. 712 Tenn. 928 Idaho 458 "
Va. 808 Ala. 535 Wyo. 141
W. Va. 141 Miss. 243 Col. 145
N.C. 221 E. S. Central 1906 N.M. 216
S.C. 162 Ariz. 232
Ga. 480 Okla. 170 Utah 392
2968 Ark. 195 Nev. . 136
La. 1118 Mountain 1829
Fla.. 4242 Tex. 2339 -
W. S. Central 3822 Wash. 81
Calif. 1255
1336
Continental U. S. (1965) 23,944
-------
TA BLE 4
AGE DISTRIBUTION AND CAPACITY OF U. S. SULFURIC ACID PLANTS AT END OF 1965
Start Up No. of Plants Capac ity % of Total Av. Capacity of
Date (1) Total Chamber 1000 ST /Yr Ctm1u1ative Year Cumulative Contact Plant (3)
(2) 108 62 5176 5176 21.6 21.6 81
1940 2 103 5279 0.4 22.0 52
1941 14 2580 7859 10.7 32.7 184
1942 15 1 2646 10505 11.0 48.7 188
1943 1 77 10582 0.3 44.0 77
1945 14 1 1936 12518 8.1 52.1 146
1946 21 3 1674 14192 7.0 59.1 89
1947 1 25 14217 0.1 59.2 25
1950 3 192 14409 0.8 60.0 64
1952 1 363 14772 1.5 61.5 363 '-
.-
1953 3 245 15017 1.0 62.5 82
1954 4 385 15402 1.6 64.1 96
1955 5 1253 16655 5.2 69.3 251
1956 7 789 17444 3.3 72.6 113 .
1957 7 1027 18471 4.3 76.9 147
1958 4 522 18993 2.2 79.1 131
1959 4 564 19557 2.4 81.5 141
1960 7 1148 20705 4.8 86.3 164
1961 1 499 21204 2.1 88.4 499
1962 4 829 22033 3.4 91.8 207
1963 1 476 22509 2.0 93.8 476
1964 1 48 22557 0.2 94.0 48
1965 5 1437 23994 6.0 100. 287
233 67 23994 100. 135
(1) Start up date or date of last expansion.
(2) 1937 or earlier (including plants for which no start up date is available).
(3) Counting multi-train units as a single plant.
-------
TA BLE 5
TRENDS IN NUMBER OF U.S. SULFURIC ACID PLANTS
1965 1968 1969
Contact Chamber Contac t Chamber Contact Chambe r
New England 3 1 3 3
N.Y. 2 1 2 2
N.J. 10 2 9 9
Pa. 9 2 10 10
Del. 4 1 1 1
Md. 1 3 3 3 3 3
Va. 9 6 8 3 8 2
W. Va. 2 2 1
N.C. 2 7 4 4 4 2
S.c. 2 6' 1 6 1 5
Ga. 3 12 5 9 5 8
Fla. 12 4 14 3 13 3
Ohio 10 5 10 9
Ind. 4 3 3
Ill. 12 5 13 2 12 2
Mich. 6 1 5 4
Wis. 3 3 2
Ky. 2 2 2
Tenn. 2 2 2 2 2 2
Ala. 6 5 6 2 6 1
Mis s. 1 1 1 1 1 1
. Minn. 1 1 1
Iowa 2 1 3 1 3 1
Mo. 2 3 4
Kan. 2 2 2
Ark. 2 3 3
La. 6 1 9 9
Okla. 2 2 2
Tex. 11 1 14 14
Mont 1 1 1
Ida. 2 2 2
Wyo. 3 2 2
Co I. 3 2 2
N.M. 3 2 2
Ariz. 5 4 4
Utah 3 2 1
Nev. 1 1 1
Wash. 2 3 3
Cal. 10 12 12
Cont. U.S. 166 67 175 36 169 30
-------
- ..... -
TA BLE 6
AGE DISTRIBUTION OF U.S. SULFURIC ACID PLANTS, OPERATING IN
1965, HAVING AN ANNUAL CAPACITY OF 100,000 ST
. Capacities are shown in 1000 ST/yr.
8 Two plants with unknown start up dates are included with those
starting up in 1937 or earlier.
Start up or 1937 or
Latest Expansion Earlier 1941 1942 1945 1946 1950 1952 1953
109 106 109 105 100 136 363 136
113 113 127 113 109 (1) (1) (1)
127 118 136 136 122
154 132 254 159 236
159 145 295 272 318
159 159 295 817 (5)
179 181 318 (6)
181 218 454
190 229 476
200 250 (9)
204 762
272 (11)
363
(13)
1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1965
109 181 109 190 136 127 127 499 191 476 127
113 250 127 295 159 159 318 (1) 227 (1) 136
136 726 136 454 191 272 476 363 349
(3) (3) 159 (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) 381
163 444
(5) (5)
. Total number of plants (counting multi-train plants as one): 80
-------
- ~.. -
TA BLE 7
CAPACITY DISTRIBUTION OF PLANTS IN TABLE 6
Start Up Date or Capacity % of Cumulative %
Latest Expansion 1000 ST/Yr Capacity of Capacity
1937 or Earlier 2410 12.9 12.9
1941 2413 12.9 25.8
1942 2464 13.2 39.0
1945 1602 8.6 47.6
1946 885 4.7 52.3
1950 136 0.7 53.0
1952 263 1.9 54.9
1953 136 0.7 55.6
1954 358 1.9 57.5
1955 1157 6.2 63.7
1956 694 3.7 67.4
1957 939 5.0 72.4
1958 486 2.6 75.0
1959 558 3.0 78.0
1960 921 4.9 82.9
.1961 499 2.7 85.6
1962 781 4.2 89.8
1963 476 2.5 92.3
1965 1437 7.7 100.0
-
18715 100.0
-
-------
TABLE 8
LISTING OF U.S. SULFURIC ACID PLANTS, OPERATING IN 1965,
HAVING ANNUAL CAPACITY OF 100,000 ST, LOCATED IN STATES WHERE
" I CONSUMPTION OF COAL BY ELECTRIC UTILITIES IS SIGNIFICANT
I'
Start Up Date or Capacity Source of Sulfur
Latest Expansion 1000 ST/Yr State S Only SM* SM+-S SA* SA+S H2S H2S+S
-
1937 or Earlier 113 Va. X
154 Mich. X(1)
159 Ky. X
159 Pa. X
179 N.J. X
181 Ohio X ~
190 Fla. X ...
200 Pa. X
204 Ga. X
272 N.J. X
363 Utah X
'1941 113 Ohio X
118 Ill. X
132 Tenn. X
145 Va. X
181 N.Y. X
218 Pa. X
250 Ind. X
762 Tenn. X
'1942 127 Mass. X
136 Fla. X
253 Ill. X
295 Del. X
295 Ind. X
318 Ill. X
454 N.J. X
476 Mo. X
, , .,1.
. I:" '
-------
TA BLE 8 (cont'd)
Start Up Date or Capacity Source of Sulfur
Latest Expansion 1000 ST/Yr State S Only SM* SM+S SA* SA+S H2S H?S+S
-
1945 105 Ill. X
1 113 Fla. X
272 Del. X
817 Fla. X
1946 109 Man t. X
~ 122 W. Va. X
318 Md. X
1950 136 Ala. X
1953 136 Nev. X? ?
1955 181 Mich. X
1956 109 Ind. X ~.
&-
1 127 Ill. X
136 N.J. X
159 Ohio X
163 Ill. X
1957 190 Ala. X
..~ 454 Fla. X
1958 136 N.M. X
-V 191 N.J. X
1959 127 Minn. X
~ 159 Fla. X
272 N.J. X
1960 476 Fla. X
1961 499 Fla. X
1962 191 Ill. X(l)
4- 363 Fla. X
1963 476 Fla. X
1965 136 Va. X
~ 381 Fla. X(l)
-----
(1) Elemental sulfur may be available from acid plant owner's captive production.
* S - Elemental Sulfur; SM - Smelter Gaes; SA D Spent Acid.
-------
TA BLE 9
CAPACITY SUMMARY FOR SULFURIC ACID PLANTS LISTED IN TABLE 8
Start Up Date or Number of Capacity in 1000 ST/Yr
Latest Expansion Plants Total S Only SM SM+S SA SA+S H2S H2S+S
1937 or Earlier 11 2174 1452 522 200
1941 8 1919 640 762 517
1942 8 2355 1584 476 295
1945 4 1307 1202 105
1946 3 549 440 109
1950 1 136 136
1953 1 136 136 --
1955 1 181 181
,
1956 5 694 531 163 _:1
1957 2 644 454 190
1958 2 327 136 191
1959 3 558 558
1960 1 476 476
1961 1 499 lj99
1962 2 554 554
1963 1 476 476
1965 2 517 517 -- --
-
TOTAL 56 13502 9791 1393 781 295 .1052 190
- .-
% of Capacity 100 72.5 10.3 5.8 2.2 7.8 1.4
-------
TABLE 10
LISTING OF U.S. SULFURIC ACID PLANTS, OPERATING IN 1965,
HAVING ANNUAL CAPACITY OF 100,000 ST, LOCATED IN STATES WHERE
CONSUMPTION OF COAL BY ELECTRIC UTILITIES IS INSIGNIFICANT
Start Up Date or Capaci ty Source of Sulfur
Latest Expansion 1000 ST/Yr State S Only SM* SM+S SA* SA+S H2S H2S+S
-
1937 or Earlier 109 Cal. X
" 127 Tex. X
1941 106 Okla. X
" 159 Cal. X X
" 229 Tex. X
1942 109 Tex. X
1945 136 La. X -
" 159 Cal. X
1946 100 Ark. X
" 236 Tex. X
1952 363 La. X
1954 109 Ida X
" 113 Cal. X X
" 136 Kan. X
1955 250 Tex. X
" 726 Tex. X
1957 295 Cal. X :X
1958 159 Tex. X
1960 127 Cal. X
" 318 Tex. X
1962 227 Miss. X
1965 127 Cal. X
" 349 Ida. X
" 444 La. X
5213
* S. Elemental Su . :ur; S
m Smelter Gases; SA. S)ent Ac .d.
-------
Add
Manufacturer
A 1Ued Chemical
Du Pont
Am. Cyanamid
Swift
Grace (2'
Monsanto (3)
OUn (4)
Stauffer
u.S.S. Agrichem
I.M.C.
Nat. Distillers
Nat. Lead
TA BLE 11
-
CANDIDATE LIST OF ACID MANUFACTURERS THAT MIGHT CONSIDER
OFFTAKING ABATEMENT ACID '
"
Start Up State and Acid Plant Capacity (1000 ST/YR)
Date Minn. Ill. Ind. Ohio Mass. N.J. Del. Md. W.Va. Va. Ga. ~ !SI.:.. Ala.
- -
(1) 113
1941 113 145
1946 122
1965 136
(1) 181 272 159
1942 245
1956 159 , ., :
1970 224
1961 499
: " '" 204
~.
i. \, -J
190
1945 I . I 113
1959 159
1945 I. 272
1960 . 476
1942 254 I't. ! j
1969 100..
1942 318
1946 318
224
1941 250
1956 109
1942 136
1962 363
1957 454
1956 127
1942 454
-------
TABLE 11 (cont'd)
Acid Start Up State and Acid Plant Capacity (1000 ST/YR)
Manufacturer Date ~ Ill. ~ Qhi2 ~ li:.:G. Del. Md. ~ Va. ~ !!!:.. !I.:. Ala.
Cities Service 1945 817
1950 136
1968 120
Acid Inc. 1963 476
Essex Chemical (5) 1956 136
Dixon Chemical 1959 272
North Star Chemical 1959 127
State Totals 127 699 654 453 100 1582 272 318 122 394 324 3683 159 136
.
:1'
Note:
(1)
(2)
1937 or earlier
Grace was the acid plant operator for the group of companies that tested Wellman-Lord's K Alkali
System at Baltimore Gas and Electric
Monsanto offers The "Cat-Ox" System of acid manufacture from stack gases. System has been piloted
by Metropolitan Edison at Portland, Pa. and will be tested by Illinois Power at Wood River
Olin is using Wellman-Lord's Na Alkali System on its acid plant at Paulsboro, N. J.
(3)
(4)
(5)
Essex Chemical is believed to be intending to roast magnesium sulfite to produce S02 feed to its.
Rhode Island acid plant. The sulfite will come from Boston Edison's application of Chemico's
stack gas treatment process
Other than the interest evident from (2) - (5), there is no positive indication that the above
acid manufacturers would be interested in off taking abatement acid. However, these companies'
probably include the best prospects available
-------
- ~') -
TABLE 12
MEGAWATT EQUIVALENT OF ACID
PLANT CAPACITY LISTED IN TABLE 11
Acid Plant Capacity Megawatt Actual Ratio of
State 1000 ST/Yr Equiv. (1) MW (2) (2) to (1)
.
Minn. 127 720 3,300 4.6
Ill. 699 4,000 15,500 3.9
Ind. 654 3,700 10,400 2.8
Ohio 453 2,600 16,200 6.2
. Mas s . 100 570 5,400 7.5
N.J. 1,582 9,000 7,200 0.8
Del. 272 1,550 890 0.6
Md. 318 1,800 3,900 2.2
W.Va. 122 700 6,400 9.1
Va. 394 2,250 5,100 2.3
Ga. 324 1. 850 5,200 2.8
Fla. 3,683 21,000 12,300 0.6
Ky. 159 900 8,400 9.3
Ala. 136 780 7,100 9.1
-----
(1)
(2)
Based on 60% load factor and 3 wt. % S coal.
Actual steam electric generating capacity in December
1970 (including nuclear plants).
-------
Date
1967
1967
1967
1967
1967
1967
1967
TABLE 13
ANNOUNCED CHANGES TO U.S. SULFURIC ACID CAPACITY SINCE 1967
Company
N.J. Zinc
Missouri Lead Smelting
Texas Gulf Sulphur
Kennecott
Tennessee Copper (Cities
Stauffer Chemical
Pfizer
Service)
1968 Olin
1968 DuPont
1968 Kent Feeds
1968 Stauffer Chemical
1968 Monsanto
1968 St. Joseph Lead
1968 St. Joseph Lead
1968 National Zinc
1968 Freeport
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
1969
Am. Cyanamid
Amoco (Indiana Standard)
U.S. I. Chemical (Not Distillers)
Kennecott
National Lead
Tennessee Corp. (Cities Service)
Bunker Hill
1970 Asarco
1970 Am. Cyanamid
1970 Olin
1970 Olin
1970 Farmland Industries
1971
1971
1971
Cities Service
Coastal Chemical
Kennecott
State
-
Pa.
Mo.
N.C.
Ariz.
Ga.
Texas
Pa.
N.J.
Mich.
Iowa
Cal.
Mass.
Pa.
Mo.
Okla.
La.
N.J.
Texas
Kan.
Utah
Mo.
Tenn.
Idaho
Ariz.
N.J.
La.
Texas
Fla.
N.J.
Miss.
Utah
Location
Palmerton
Salem
Lee Creek
Hayden
Augusta
Houston
Easton
Pau1sboro
Ecorse
Muscatine
San Francisco
Everett
Josephtown
Hercu1aneum
Bartlesville
Uncle Sam
Linden
Texas City
De Soto
Magna
St. Louis
Copperhill
Kellogg
Hayden
Linden
Shreveport
Pasadena
Bartow
Monmouth Jct.
Pascagoula
Magna
'* Unable to meet state air po . .uton con :ro . regulations.
TID
1200
20
3050
750
375
2000
N.A.
(900)
(480)
Small
500-1000
300
250
300
275
4800
700
495
300
375-625
900
600
300
750
-450
400
1250
?
100
1500
500
Remarks
Nearing
Smelter
Started
Smelter
completion.
cases.
up in 1966.
gases.
Elemental S.
S02 ex roaster.
May operate at 2700 T/D.
Purchased from Paulsboro Chem. Ind.
Sold to National Steel.
Experimental process.
Designed to run on Shasta Co. pyrites.
Startup mid-1969. To replace old unit.
Planning.
Lead smelter gases.
I..
Elemental S.
Startup in 1970. Elemental S.
Acid used for alkylation.
Expansion to 300 T/D.
Copper smelter gases.
Replacing old plants. Acid use: Pb pig-
ments.
25% expansion. Fe, Cu, Zn smelting.
Lead sinter operation.
Smelter cases.
Old plants shut down*
Will close old 200 T/D plant.
Mid-1971 startup.
"Two large units." 1971 startup.
Mid-1971 startup. Iron oxide plant.
Late 1971 startup.
Boosts smelter's total acid production to
1300 T/D.
-------
- 51 -
TABLE 14
SUMMARY OF CAPACITY ADDITIONS BY STATE
Addition Addition
~ Year 1000 ST/Yr State Year 1000 ST/Yr
Pa. 1967 384 Kan. 1969 96
1967 ?
1968 ~ Okla. 1968 88
464+ Miss. 1971 480
Mass. 1968 96 (1) La. 1968 1536
224(2) 1970 128
N.J. 1970 1664
1971 ..ll
256 Tex. 1967 860
1971 400
N.C. 1966 976 1260
Ga. 1967 120
Ida. 1969 96
Fla. 1971 ?
Utah 1969 200
Mo. 1967 6 1971 200
1969 288(3) 400
? -2£
390 Ariz. 1967 240
1970 240
Tenn. 1969 190 4t!0
[
I . Ca lif. 1968 320
(1) Replacing 127,000 ST/Yr. plants.
(2) Replacing 144,000 ST/Yr. plants.
(3) Replacing 476,000 ST/Yr. plants.
-------
TABLE 15
GEOGRAPHICAL PATTERN OF RECENTLY ADDED SULFURIC ACID CAPACITY
% of New % of New
State Capacity QL (2) State Capacity (1) (2)
Mass. 1.3 0.6 0.8 Kan. 1.3 0.9 1.1
N.J. 3.4 7.5 9.2
Pa. 7.5 4.0 4.8 Miss. .6.4 1.0 1.2
La. 22.3 4.7 5.7
N.C. 13.1 0.9 1.1 Texas 16.9 9.7 11.8
Ga. 1.6 2.0 2.4
Fla. R.A. 17.7 Idaho 1.3 1.9 2.3 \J'I
~,J
Utah 5.3 1.6 2.0
Mo. 5.2 2.3 2.7 Ariz. 6.4 1.0 1.2
Tenn. 2.5 3.9 4.7
Cal. 4.3 5.2 6.4
(1) State's percentage of U.S. capacity at end of 1965.
(2) State's percentage of U.S. capacity excluding Florida. (to make
more comparable with recent capacity additions that a180 exclude
Florida) .
-------
- 53 -
TABLE 16
NEW SULFURIC ACID PRODUCTION IN THE U. S.
1000 ST of Sulfuric Acid
1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969
Pennsy 1vania 941 972 966 876 916 909
New Jersey 1826 1736 1755 1627 1522 1341
Me, Mass, RI, NY 193* 207* 202* 190* 327 302
Ohio 675 704 689 653 629 578
Illinois 1697 1704 1765 1834 1725 1553
Michigan 347 323 342 306 247 193
Ind, Wis, Minn, Ia, Mo, Ka n 1598 1623 1681 1612 1546 1756
De 1, Md 1043 1035 1049 938 979 852
Virginia 518 526 630 604 654 654
N. Carolina 156 159 217 721 872 859
S. Carolina 168 164 159 152 125 115
Georgia 443 512 559 555 589 592
Florida 4405 5558 7490 8126 7372 7182
Alabama 437 456 415 399 408 J89
Louisiana 763 807 1303 1172 1855 2297
Texas 2274 2502 2943 2718 2539 2479
W Va, Ky, Miss, Tenn, 1909 1955 1892 1932 1837 1998
Ark, Ok1a,
Arizona 197 177 227 168 207 308
Ca lifornia 1163 1398 1423 1547 1485 1393
Mont, Ida, Utah, Ca1, Wyo 1206 1292 1706 1607 1583 1688
Nev, NM, Wash, Haw
TOTAL 21959 238 13 27414 27736 27417 27439
* NY included with NJ until 1968.
-------
- )..... -
TABLE 17
TRENDS IN U. S. SULFURIC ACID PRODUCTION
% of Total U.S. Production
1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969
------
l1 %
1969/1964
(1) Florida 20.0 23.2 27.5 29.3 26.7 26.2 +6.2
(2) Louisiana 3.5 3.4 4.8 4.2 6.8 8.4 +4.9
(3) Texas 10.4 10.5 10.7 9.8 9.2 9.0 -1.4
(4) Ala, Miss, Ok1a, Tenn, Ark,
Ky, W. Va. 10.6 10.1 8.4 8.4 8.2 8. 7 -1.9
(5) Ariz, N.M, Nev, Utah, Co1,
Wyo, Mont, Ida, Wash,
Hawaii 6.4 6.1 7.0 6.4 6.6 7.2 +0.8
(6) California 5.3 5.9 5.2 5.6 5.4 5.1 -0.2
(7) Ind, Wis, Minn, Iowa, Mo,
Kan 7.3 6.8 6.1 5.8 5.6 6.4 -0.9
(8) Illinois 7.7 7.2 6.4 6.6 6.3 5.7 -2.0
(9) Ohio, Michigan 4.7 4.4 3.7 3.5 3.2 2.8 -1.9
(10) Pa, NJ, NY, Mass, Me, RI 13.5 12.3 10.7 9.8 10.0 9.3 -4.2
(ll) Del, Md, Va, N.C., S.C., Ga 10.6 10.1 9.5 10.7 11.8 11. 2 +0.6
TOTAL 100 100 100 100 100 100
-------
TABLE 18
RELATIVE ECONOMICS OF RECOVERING
ABATEMENT SULFUR IN DIFFERENT FORMS
.
Assumptions
E = delivered cost of elemental S, in $ per LT, to prospective purchasers of abatement S from an
existing sulfur supplier.
T = delivery cost for elemental S, in $ per LT, from the abatement plant to prospective purchasers.
(Hence, 4T would be the approximate delivery cost for 100% sulfuric acid, in $ ~ LT of ~
equivalent, from the abatement plant to prospective purchasers.)
X = cost of recovering S in elemental form, in $ per LT.
Y = cost of recovering S as sulfuric acid, in $ per LT of S equivalent.
Z = cost of recovering S as throwaway product, in $ per LT of S equivalent.
Ml = marketing cost for recovered elemental S, in $ per LT.
M2 = marketing cost for recovered acid, in $ per LT of S equivalent.
M3 = disposal cost for throwaway product, in $ per LT of S equivalent.
\J'
\J'
.
Best Choice
(1 )
Elemental Sulfur:
if (E-T-X-M,) is greater than (E+15-4T-Y-M2), and also greater than -(Z+M3)'
Sulfuric Acid:
if (E+15-4T-Y-M2) is greater than (E-T-X-Ml), and also greater than -(Z+M3)'
(2 )
(3 )
Throwaway Product:
if -(Z+M3) is less negative than (E-T-X-Ml), and also less negative than (E+15-4T-Y-M2)'
Notes:
The above relationships are approximate only
special factors that may apply to individual
the situation may change with time should be
advised to heed these qualifications.
and do not take account of marketing and other
situations. Furthermore, the possibility that
considered. Users of the relationships are
-------
TABLE 19
HISTORICAL MOVEMENTS IN THE U. S. PRICES OF ELEMENTAL
StIT.FUR AND StIT.FURIC ACID
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (D) x (E)
Approx. Delivered Cost of List Price Acid Price Different ia 1
Price of E1. S 0.307 LT Per ST of -8 Cost GNP In Constant
Year Gulf Coast, $ILT Of S>'< 100% H2S04 $/ST Deflator Do11ars/ST
1952 25.0 7.67 21.3 13.6 1.144 15.6
3 27.3 8.38 23.8 15.4 1.132 17.4
4 30.5 9.36 23.8 14.4 1.116 16.1
5 30.5 9.36 23.8 14.4 1.101 15.9
6 30.5 9.36 23.8 14.4 1.064 15.3
7 29.0 8.90 23.8 14.9 1.026 15.3 ..
.'
8 27.50 8.44 23.8 15.4 1 15.4
9 27.50 8.44 23.8 15.4 0.9839 15.2
1960 27.50 8.44 23.8 15.4 0.9862 15.2
1 27.50 8.44 23.8 15.4 0.9560 14.7
2 27 .50 8.44 23.8 15.4 0.9456 14.6
3 27.50 8.44 23.8 15.4 0.9331 14.4
4 28.50 8.75 23.8 15.0 0.9189 13.8
5 30.50 9.36 25.3 15.9 0.9020 14.3
6 30.75 9.44 26.9 17 .5 0 .877 6 15.4
*Required to produce 1 ST of 100% Hz804
Notes: 1. Acid price is "ex works"
2. Prices quoted are "list" not actual transfer prices
-------
TABLE 20
RECENT MOVEMENTS IN U. S. PRICES OF ELEMENTAL
SULFUR AND SULFURIC ACID
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (D) x (E)
Approx. Del. $ Cost of $/ST List Acid Price Differentia 1
Price of S 0.307 LT Price of -S Cost GNP in Constant
Date Gulf Coast, $/LT Of S 100% H2S04 $/ST Deflator $/ST
1967 28.25 11.74 30.5 18.8 0.8502 16.0
1968 46.00 14.12 34.6 20.5 0.8174 16.8
1969 39.50 12.13 34.7 22.6 0.7807 17.6
1970 25.50 7.83 30.8 23.0 0.7414 17.1
May 1971 23.00''< 7.06 30.8 23.7 0.7325">" 17.4
',.
of, Estimated
8 Further detail of sulfuric acid prices, ($/ST of 100% acid):
ex Ca lif.
Date ex Works">" Works Gulf Coast E. Coast W. Coast Other*
1/2/67 27.65 29.55
4/24/67 29.15 31. 05
8/7/67 30.40 32.30
*i, ,,;':* ** i,,',
12/28/70 30.75 33.75 35.80 33.90
5/3/71 30.75 33.75 35.80 33.90
"it:
Location not specified.
Reported as "1m..." prices.
"High" quotes are $2/ST higher.
**
-------
TABLE 21
RECAPITULATION OF MOVEMENTS IN U. S. PRICES OF
ELEMENTAL SULFUR AND SULFURIC ACID
(D)
Approx Del. Price List Price Different ia 1 Construction Cost
of Sulfur in of 100% Ac id (Acid-S) Index Normalized
Date Current $/LT Current $/ST Constant $/ST By GNP Deflator
1952 25.0 21.3 15.6 87.7
1955 30.5 23.8 15.9 95.6
1960 27.5 23.8 15.2 106.9
1965 30.5 25.3 14.3 115.2
1967 38.3 30.5 16.0 119.7 V'
1968 46.0 34.6 16.8 124.2 r~.
1969 39.5 34.7 17.6 130.5
1970 25.5 34.7"< 19.9 134.6
Hay 1971 23.0 34.7"< 20.2 142.0 (Mar 71)
*
See text of report for assumption that acid prices have not decreased since 1969.
-------
- )':1 -
TABLE 22
COMPARISON OF VALUE PER ST OF 100% H2S04 REPORTED
BY DEPT. OF COMMERCE WITH EX WORKS LIST PRICE
(REPORTED BY OIL, PA INT, AND DRUG REPORTER)
Tota 1 U. S .
of Commerce
100% Acid
Commercia t
Shipments
Only
(A)
16.6
16.6
17.3
18.6
21.3 .
U.S. Dept.
$/ST of
Tota 1 Shipments
Including
Interp1ant Transfers
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
16.7
16.8
17.4
18.7
21.3
N.Y., N.J.
1967
1968
(C)
23.6
27.3
O.P.D.R.
List
Price
$/ST
(B)
23.8
25.3
26.9
30.5
34.6
Differentia 1
(B)-(A)
$/ST
7.2
8.7
9.6
11.9
13 .3
(B)- (C)
6.9
7.3
Above data in conjunction with Table 21 suggest that the
O.P.D.R. list price for 100% H2S04 is a reasonable reflector
of price trends but overstates actual average sales price of
acid by at least $7/ST.
Note:
. Comparison of O.P.D.R. list price with Nelson's Petroleum Refining
OperatingCost Index for sulfuric acid (1965=100)*
O.P.D.R.
$/ST
O.P.D.R. as
Ra t io of 1965
1965
1967
1968
1969
1970
25.3
30.5
34.6
34.7
34.7
100
120.6
136.8
137.2
137.2
*As reported periodically in the Oil and Gas Journal.
Nelson
Index
100
125.7
143.2
144.5
144.5
-------
- ~I) -
TABLE 23
AVERAGE PRODUCTION OF SULFURIC
ACID PER PLANT IN 1968
Ne\v Jersey
Pennsylvania
Delaware & Maryland
Virginia
South Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Ohio
Illinois
Hichigan
Arizona
California
U.S.
Average Production
ST/CD
Based on Department of Commerce data.
463
251
384
163
49
115
1188
172
315
135
142
339
356
-------
- hI -
TABLE 24
U. S. SULFURIC ACID SHIPMENTS* AND VALUES OF
SHIPMENTS IN 1967 AND 1968
1967 1968
106 ST $/ST* 106 ST $/ST-::*
New England 0.11 27.7 0.11 33.2
Hidd Ie Atlant ic
N.Y., N.J. 0.85 23.6 0.86 27.3
Pa. 0.81 20.1 0.85 23.0
South
Del., Hd. 0.61 22.2 0.68 24.9
Va. 0.40 21.2 0.47 24.7
S.C. 0.05 20.2 0.04 19.4
Ga. 0.13 21.7 0.26 21.7
Fla. 1.26 14.3 0.60 15.9
La. 0.61 17.9 0.79 21.0
Tex., Okla. 2.61 15.0 2.15 18.0
Other 1.63 19.4 1.67 20.8
N. Centra 1
Ill. 0.79 19.3 0.81 20.6
Hich. 0.28 23.7 0.22 28.2
Ohio 0.52 24.8 0.52 28.0
Other 1.02 21.4 0.87 24.0
West
Ariz. 0.09 15.3 0.09 16.2
Ca lif. 1.01 18.3 1.00 19.8
Other 0.74 15.1 0.84 15.5
Tota 1 U. S. 13.50 18.7 12.83 21.3
* Excludes capt i ve consumption in plants producing acid.
"'k* As reported to U. S. Dept. of Commerce, inclusive of
interp1ant transfers.
-------
- t;-
TABLE 25
ESTIMATES OF CAPTIVE CONSUMPTION OF SULFURIC
ACID IN REPRESENTATIVE STATES (1968)
Thousand ST of 100% Acid
(A) (B) (A- B) (A-B) as
Production Shipmcnts + A ppa rent % of (A)
of Nc\ol Interp1ant Captive % Captive
Acid Transfers Consumption Consumption
Pennsylvania 916 851 65 7
N.Y., N.J. (1967) 1628 862 766 47
De 1 ., Hd. 979 675 304 31
Virginia 654 470 184 28
s. Carolina 125 39 86 69
Georgia 589 263 326 55
Florida 7372 597 6775 92
Louisiana 1855 790 1065 57
Illinois 1725 813 912 53
Hichigan 247 219 28 11
Ohio 629 520 109 17
Arizona 207 94 113 55
Ca lifornia 1485 1002 483 33
Tota 1 u. s. 27417 12832 14585 53
U.S. ex Florida 20045 12235 7810 39
Source: u. S. Dept. of Commerce
-------
- 63 -
TABLE 26
U. S. CAPACITY FOR PRODUCING P20S IN
1967 AND PROJECTIONS FOR FY 1976
Number of Plants (1967)
Capacity» 106 ST of P20S
Production» 106 ST of P20S
Capacity Utilization» %
Value of Shipments» $ ~lli
.
Projections for FY 1976
Capacity» 106 ST of P20S
Production» 106 ST of PZOS
Capacity Utilization» %
Value of Shipments» $ MMH
Total 298 Metropolitan
U.S. Areas
-
179 147
12.2 10.3
7.0 5.7
57 55
1.6 1.2
Source:
Tables 4-4 and 4-7 of Senate Document No. 92-6.
15.6
8.5
54
1.8
-------
- 64 -
TABLE 27
U. S. CAPACITY FOR PRODUCING
ELEMENTAL PHOSPHORUS IN 1967
v
Total
U.S.
298 Metropolitan
Areas
-
Number of Plants
Capacity Utilization, %
13
658
587
89
8
290
Capacity, 1000 ST
Production, 1000 ST
279
96
Value of Shipments, $ MM
200*
140*
-----
* These figures in relation to the quantities produced
suggest that much of the production was used
captively, i.e., was not "shipped" as elemental P.
Source:" Table 4-8 of Senate Document No. 92-6.
, "
-------
- oj -
TABLE 28
U. S. CAPACITY FOR PRODUCING
PHOSPHATE FERTILIZERS IN 1967
Total 298 Metropolitan
U.S. Areas
Number of Plants 179 147
Capacity
0 Or tho Acid, 1000 ST of P205 5860 4830
o Super Acid, 1000 ST of P205 316 149
6176 4979
. NSP, Gross Wt., 1000 ST 4690 3840
. AP, Gross Wt., 1000 ST 7430 6430
o TSP, Gross Wt., 1000 ST 3640 3460
Production
0 Fertilizer, 1000 ST 4700 4100
. P Acid, 1000 ST 5190 4200
Source:
Table 4-9 of Senate Document No. 92-6.
-------
- hI:: -
TABLE 29
WET PROCESS PHOSPHORIC
ACID CAPACITY IN 1967
Annual Capacity Captive
State Loca rion (1) Company (2) (3) (4) Start-Up H2 SOiL
-
Fla. Bartow Farmland Ind. (5) 181 580 1965 Yes
Bartow Grace 254 810 1954. 1961 Yes
Bartow Swift 82 260 1949. 1961 Yes
Bartow Armour (6) 60 190 1964 Yes
Ft. Meade Armour 150 480 1960 Yes
Pierce Agrico (7) 195 620 1965 Yes
Brewster Am. Cyanamid 196 630 1957. 1962 Yes
Bonnie IMC 420 1340 1962. 1965 Yes
Nichols Mobil (8) 145 460 Yes
Mulberry Royster Guano 27(9) 90 1953 Yes
Plant City Central Phosphates 150 480 1966 No
Piney Pt. Borden Chern. (10) 127 400 Yes
E. Tampa Tennessee Corp. (ll) 400 1280 1965 Yes
White Springs Occidental 204 650 1966 ?
Pensacola Escambia Chern. 26 80 No
La. Uncle Sam Freeport 544 1740 1968 Yes
Geismar Allied Chern. 150 .480 1967 Yes
Taft Hooker (Occidental) 191 610 1965 Yes
Tex. Texas City Borden (10) 36 110 Yes
Pasadena Olin 180 580 1964. 1965 Yes
Pasadena Phillips/Stauffer 45 140 1965 Yes
Adams Terminal Phillips 90 290 ?
N.C. Lee Creek TGS 314 1000 1966 Yes
Miss. Pascagou1a Coastal Chern. 165 530 1959. 1965 Yes
Pa.
Marcus Hook
Allied Chern.
30
100
Yes
Del.
C1aymont
Allied Chern.
30
100
1930
Yes
Minn.
Pine Bend
N.W. Co-Op. Mills
33
110
1962
No
-------
- t:> 7 -
TABLE 29 ( c on ' t)
Annual Capacity Captive
~rate Location(l) Company(2) (3) (4) Start-Up H2S04
Ill. E. St. Louis Allied Chern. 20 60 1961 Yes
Streator Borden Chern. (10) 30 100 1953 Yes
Morris Des Plaines Chern. 45 140 1963 No
Marseilles Hooker (Occidental) 91 290 1962 Yes
Tuscola Nat. Distillers 27 90 1957 Yes
Joliet Olin 113 360 1961 Yes
Depue N.J. Zinc 117 370 1966 Yes
Mo. Joplin Farmers Chern. (5) 45 140 1954 t .1962 No
Joplin Grace 30 100 1955 Yes
Ark. Helena Arkla Chern. 45 140 1965 No
Okla. Tulsa Nipak 27 90 1957 Yes
. Ida. Kellogg Bunker Hill 33 110 1961 Yes
Pocate110 Simplot 197 600 1961t 1966 Yes
Soda Springs El Paso N.G. 91 290 1965 Yes
Utah Garfield Stauffer 45 140 1954 Yes
Cal. Edison A.F.C. Inc. 10 30 Yes
Trona Amp 0 t (12) 3 10 No
Lathrop Best (Occidental) 30 100 1954 Yes
Helm Valley Nitrogen 49 160 1965 Yes
Nichols Western States Chern. 17 50 1959 No
-----
(1) .
.
.
.
.
Bartowt Ft. Headet Piercet Brewstert Bonniet Nichols and Mulberry are in
essentially the same location.
E. Tampa and Piney Pt. are in essentially the same location.
Plant City is close tOt and in betweent the above groups of Florida cities.
Uncle Samt Geismar and Taft are in essentially the same location in
Louisiana.
Texas CitYt Pasadena and Adams Terminal are in essentially the same
location in Texas.
-------
(10)
(11)
(12)
Note:
Sources:
- 68 -
TABLE 29 (cont'd)
(2)
In some cases the companies listed are affiliates of other companies or
have changed ownership since 1967, as detailed in separate footnotes
below.
(3)
1000 Metric tons/year of phosphoric acid expressed as P20S'
1000 ST/year of sulfuric acid capacity equivalent to (3), basis:
3.2 ST 100% Sulfuric acid equivalent to 1 MT of PZOS'
(4)
(S) Affiliates of Consumers Co-Op.
(6) Now a part of U.S.S. Agrichem.
(7) Conoco.
(8)
Fertilizer operations believed to have been sold to Swift.
(9)
Later expanded to 174,000 MT/year.
Represents acquisition of Smith-Douglas fertilizer operations.
Cities Service.
Kerr McGee.
Freeport's Uncle Sam, La., plant is included in tabulation even though
it did not begin operations until 1968.
British Sulphur Corporation
Battelle Memorial Institute
-------
- 69 -
TABLE 30
PHOSPHORIC ACID CAPACITY BY STATE
Imputed H2S04
1000 MT/Yr. % of U.S. Capacity Expressed Capacity as % of
State of P205 Capaci ty as 1000 ST/Yr. H2S04* Total U.S. Capaci ty
Florida 2617 47.9 8370 21.6
Louisiana 885 16.1 2830** 7.3
Texas 351 6.4 1120 2.9
Mississippi 165 3.0 530 1.4
N. Carolina 314 5.7 1000 2.6
Pennsylvania 30 0.5 100 0.3
Delaware 30 0.5 100 0.3
Minnesota 33 0.6 110 0.3
Illinois 443 8.1 1420 3.7
Missouri 75 1.4 240 0.6
Arkansas 45 0.8 140 0.4
Oklahoma 27 0.5 90 0.2
Idaho 311 5.7 1000 2.6
Utah 45 0.8 140 0.4
California 109 2.0 350 0.9
5480 100.0 17540 45.5
-----
* Based on 3.2 ST of sulfuric acid per HT or P20S'
~* Including Freeport's Uncle Sam plant that started up in 1968.
Notes: (1) 88% of the above capacity uses captively produced sulfuric
acid. 6.6% of the above capacity uses purchased sulfuric acid.
In the case of 2 plants, 5.4% of above capacity, it is not known
whether the sulfuric acid is purchased or captive.
(2) Almost all of the above P acid capacity is used for fertilizers.
(3) Additional sulfuric acid capacity, not included above, is used to
make ammonium sulfate and NSP fertilizers, i.e., total H2S04 capacity
for fertilizers exceeds 45.5% of total acid capacity.
Sources: Table 29, and also Table 4-4 of Senate Document No. 92-6, 3/16/71.
-------
APPENDIX 1
BASIS OF LONG RANGE FORECASTS
A.I.l
Selection of Economic Forecasts
Historical economic data and projections of economic growth
are available for all industrialized countries. The latter, of course,
account for almost all of the world's industrial production. In turn,
the latter is responsible for almost all of the industrial demand for
sulfur. In consequence, projections of economic growth can be con-
verted into forecasts of industrial demand for sulfur via suitable
correlations. There are two principal problems associated with
such projections:
.
how to select among different forecasts that, almost always,
are based on optimistic long range assumptions.
.
how to take account of technological changes that will affect
consumption patterns.
There is virtually no consumer demand for sulfur, sulfuric
acid, etc. Almost all of the sulfur consumed industrially is used
for processing, usually in the form of "acid value" rather than for
the purpose of incorporating sulfur into the product. Thus, the
demand for sulfur is induced by the demand for the products that
use it in their manufacture. Because these products are so diverse,
the industrial demand for sulfur may be expected to correlate with
general indicators of economic activity. In the U.S., a wide variety
of economic indicators in maintained on a time series basis, and
recorded in "Survey of Current Business" and other Department of
Commerce publications.
An article in the April 1970 edition of "Monthly Labor
Review" previewed economic projections made by personnel of the
Bureau of Labor Statistics. The BLS forecast was chosen over a
comparable study by the National Planning Association because of
the inter-agency approach used and because its assumptions better
reflect the significance of the economic downturn. Even the BLS
forecast is considered too optimistic on a near term basis. This
has been allowed for when extrapolating to the year 2020.
-------
Al-2
An O.E.C.D study, "The Outlook
as the starting point for projections of
Although this study contains projections
source was selected as discussed below.
for Economic Growth,"* was used
foreign economic growth.
for Japan, an actual Japanese
An econometric forecast prepared by the Japan Economic
Research Center of Tokyo was chosen as the published basis for pro-
jecting long range economic growth in Japan. This study, too, is
considered to be too optimistic in its assumptions of rate of export
expansion. The latter, of course, has an impact on the level of
industrial activity in Japan. Declining rates of Japanese economic
expansion are considered probable. Nevertheless, the absolute pace
at which the Japanese economy expands is expected to be rapid.
While such economic growth will increase the industrial consumption
of sulfur, an even more important consequence will follow from the
combined effects of five other factors:
.
rapidly increasing demand for industrial energy.
.
substantial reliance on imported petroleum for industrial
energy.
.
high sulfur content of average crude oil imported.
.
availability of technology for hydrodesulfurization of
petroleum.
.
air pollution regulations that will ensure that hydrodesulfurization
is used.**
Thus, the net effect is expected to be a rapidly increasing
export capability, with most of the incremental supplies being recovered
from petroleum. However, recovery of sulfur from smelter gas will
also contribute increasingly to net export capability.
* Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, May 1970.
** MITI makes this a condition for approval of additions to
petroleum refining capacity.
-------
Al-3
A.I. 2
Problems with Economic Forecasts
Economic forecasts vary from almost apocalyptic gloom to
unbridled optimism. Most official forecasts make optimistic assumptions
with respect to growth in GNP, full employment, and (until recently)
no serious consequences of adverse B.O.P.
Several projections for U.S. GNP are reviewed in Table 1
(converted where necessary to a cornmon 1958 constant dollar basis).
RFF's "Medium" projection, that was published in 1963, is noteworthy
because its forecast for 1970 was within 1.5% of actual performance.
The same forecasts are repeated in Table 2 as a percentage of RFF's
"Medium" projections. Naturally, the effect of different growth
rate assumptions is mos t evident in later years. For example, if
RFF's "High" projection were to be followed (which is extremely
unlikely), it could be predicted that a sulfur surplus would continue
almost iridefinitely.
Table 3 reveals the problem posed by
next decade Japan will become a major exporter
economic growth rates shown in Table 3 were to
export capability would be enormous.
Japan. Within the
of sulfur. If the
be sustained, Japan's
The implications of continuation of the Japanese GNP
growth rates are indicated in Table 4. The results are totally
unbelievable. Simple intuition, or cornmon sense, argues that the
Japanese economy will not expand by a factor of 345 in the next 50
years - while the U.S. economy is growing six or seven fold. However,
the JERC forecast from which these unbelievable numbers were extrapolated
looks ahead only to 1975 - nothing is said about the year 2020. In fact
it is a very useful forecast, but requires projection on a declining
rate basis.
A.I. 3
Economic Projections Used in Sulfur Model
Historical data for worldwide GNP, converted to 1958 constant
dollars, are given in Table 5. The figures for 1970 are partially
estimated. Comparable data for population are given in Table 6. These
statistics, in conjunction with the forecasts discussed in Section
A.l.l, formed the base from which projections were made to the year 2020.
Population projections are given in Table 7, with the growth
rate implications in the right half of the table. The population
distribution corresponding to these projections is shown in Table 8.
-------
'I
Al-4
The next steps were to project constant dollar GNP and to
calculate GNP/capita. The results are given in Table 9. The percentage
distribution of GNP corresponding to these projections is shown
in Table 10. For the purposes of the Sulfur Model, these economic
projections are considered to be "most probable," i.e. to represent
the economic base case. However, an alternative "low economic growth"
case was also calculated. The results are given in Tables 11 and 12.
The underlying growth rate implications, in terms of GNP/capita for
each of the cases are shown in Table 13. The data are also presented
in ratio form in Table 14. The greatest differences between the "most
probable" and the "low economic growth" cases are for Japan, Asia
(excl. Japan), and the Middle East countries. The ratios in Table 14
may be applied, separately, to the regional projections of sulfur
supply and demand in Appendices 4 and 5 in order to derive approximations
of the regional supply/demand balances that would be expected to exist
under the "low economic growth" assumptions. This procedure is feasible
for a single region, such as Japan, for groups of regions, or for the
entire world.
-------
A 1-5
APPENDIX I
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF VARIOUS PROJECTIONS OF U.S. GNP
BILLIONS OF CONSTANT 1958 DOLLARS
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
RFF "Low" Projection 702 952 1243 1654 2244* 3045*
Compound 3.0%/yr Growth 725 974 1309 1759 2364 3177
RFF "Medium" Projection V1 736 1049 1494 2169 3164* 4616*
Slowly Declining Growth Rate 725 1073 1573 2284 3284 4677
Bureau of Mines Long
Range Energy Model 748 1122 1661 2460 3641 * 5385*
Compound 4.2%/yr Growth 725 1094 1651 2491 3758 5671
1970 National Planning
Association Study 1144
1970 BLS Study** 1157
RFF "High" Projection 787 1234 1953 3242 5181* 8280*
* Extrapolated
~ 1970/80 4.0%/yr, 1980/90 3.9%/yr, 1990/2000 3.8%/yr etc.
** "Services economy" with 4% unemployment
-------
AI-6
APPENDIX I
TABLE 2
COMPARISON OF U.S. GNP PROJECTIONS AS RATIOS
OF RFF "MEDIUM" PROJECTION
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
RFF "Low" Projection 91 83 76 71 66
Compound 3.0%/yr Growth 93 88 81 75 69
RFF "Medium" Projection 100 100 100 100 100
Slowly Declining Growth Rate 102 105 105 104 101
B.O.M. Energy Model 107 111 113 115 117
Compound 4.2%/yr Growth 104 111 115 119 123
1970 NPA Study 109
1970 BLS Study 110
RFF "High" Projection 118 131 149 164 179
-------
A 1-7
APPENDIX I
TABLE 3
COMPARISON OF VARIOUS JAPANESE ECONOMIC FORECASTS
Forecast Forecast Compound Annual % Growth
made by Date Period Projected for Rea1* GNP
Sanwa Bank 1969 1970-75 9.3
Nomura Research Inst. 1968 1967-73 10.3
Mitsubishi Economic
Research Inst. 1969 1967-77 10.4
Japan Lif e
Insurance Co. 1969 1968-75 10.5
Industrial Bank
of Japan 1969 1969-75 11.2
Long-term Credit
Bank of Japan 1969 1968-75 11.3
National Economic
Research Assoc. 1969 1969-73 11.8
Japan Economic
Research Center 1969 1970-75 12.4
*Equiva1ent to constant dollars.
-------
Al-8
APPENDIX I
TABLE 4
IMPLICATIONS OF CONTINUATION OF GROWTH AT SAME
RATE AS THAT USED IN CURRENT FORECAST
Ratio of Japanese Real GNP
in 2020 to GNP in 1970
Sanwa Bank
Nomura Research
Mitsubishi
Japan Life
Industrial Bank
Long-term Credit Bank
NERA
JERC
85
135
141
147
202
211
264
345*
* This implies a Japanese GNP 345 times greater than the GNP
today. This is equivalent to 71 times the size of the U.S.
GNP today, or 11 times the size of the U.S. GNP in the year
2020 based on extrapolation of RFF's "Medium" projection.
-------
I-
I
A 1-9
APPENDIX I
TABLE 5
CONSTANT DOLLAR GNP -- HISTORICAL DATA
Billions of 1958 Constant Dollars
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970E
U.S. 355.3 438.0 487.7 617.8 723.5
Canada 27.5 33.0 35.2 43.4 58.7
Japan 15.8 26.2 43.5 76.4 146.1
European OECD 214.0 267.0 340.0 462.0 548.0
OECD 612.6 764.2 906.4 1199.6 1476.3
Latin America 52.8 60.3 69.0 87.0 105.6
Africa 21.4 25.7 34.0 43.7 57.0
Middle East 3.7 5.3 7.5 10.6 17.0
Far E (ex. Japan) 52.0 69.5 93.0 127.0 160.0
NON-OECD 129.9 160.8 203.5 268.3 339.6
Free World 742.5 925.0 1109.9 1467.9 1815.9
F.W. ex. U.S. 387.2 487.0 622.2 850.1 1092.4
Communist Bloc 116.0 206.0 313.0 429.0 551. 5
World 8 58 . 5 1131.0 1422.9 1896.9 2367.4
Sources:
U.N. Statistical Yearbook
U.S. Dept. of Commerce
-------
APPENDIX 1
TABLE 6
HISTORICAL POPULATION DATA (MILLIONS)
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970E
U. S. 152.3 165.9 180.7 194.6 205.4
Canada 13.7 15.7 17.9 19.6 21.5
Japan 82.9 89.0 93.2 98.0 103.4
European OECD 306.4 319.8 334.9 3 54 . 0 370.1
OECD 555.3 590.4 626.7 666.2 700.4
Latin America 161.7 184.8 212.7 245.0 282.6
Africa 219.0 247.0 278.7 313.3 355.5 :I>-
Middle East 41.2 45.8 52.7 59.9 66.5 t-'
I
Far E. (ex. Japan) 660.6 714.7 820.1 930.8 1053.7 t-'
o
NON-OECD 1082.5 1192.3 1364.2 1549.0 1758.3
Free World 1637.8 1782.7 1990.9 2215.2 2458.7
F. W. ex. U. S. 1485.5 1616.8 1810.2 2020.6 2253.3
Communist Bloc 871.8 941.4 1008.8 1084.3 1156 . 1
World 2509.6 2724.1 2999.7 3299.5 3614.8
Sources:
U. N. Demographic Yearbook
U. S. Dept. Of Commerce
-------
APPENDIX 1
TABLE 7
POPULATION PROJECTIONS TO THE YEAR 2020
Millions Compound Growth % Per Year
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 70/80 80/90 90/00 00/10 10/20
U.S. 205.4 229.1 255.6 282.3 308.8 334.4 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8
Canada 21.5 26.0 31.1 36.8 42.7 49.1 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.4
Japan 103.4 114.2 126.1 137.9 149.3 160.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7
European OECD 370.1 400.8 434.0 465.3 494.0 519.2 0.8 Q..:L hL !hL 0.5
OECD 700.4 770.1 846.8 922.3 994.8 1062.8 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.75 .-iLl..
Latin America 282.6 376.1 495.7 634.5 781.0 924 .4 2.9 2.8 2.5 2.1 1.7 :I>
......
Africa 455.0 871.1 2.5 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.5 I
355.5 703.0 857.0 994.5 ......
Middle East 66.5 85.1 107.9 135.4 165.0 195.3 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.0 1.7 ......
Far E. (ex. Japan) 1053.7 1348 . 7 1693.0 2084.0 2515.0 2918.7 2.5 2.3 2.1 l.:..L 1.:2....
NON-OECD 1758.3 2264.9 2867.7 3556.9 4318.0 5032.9 2.6 2.4 2.15 1.95 1.55
Free World 2458.7 3035.0 3714.5 4479.2 5312.8 6095.7 2.1 2.05 1.9 1. 75 1.4
F . W . ex. U. S. 2253.3 280 5 . 9 3458.9 4196.9 5004.0 5761.3 2.2 2.1 1.95 1.8 1.4
U.S.S.R. 243.1 271.2 299.6 330.9 361. 9 391.9 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8
E. Europe 126.3 136.8 146.7 157.3 167.0 175.5 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5
Com. Asia 786.7 913.0 1049.1 1193.8 1345.0 1500 . 5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1
Com. Bloc 1156.1 1321.0 1495.4 1682.0 1873.9 2067.9 1.35 1.25 1.2 1.1 1.0
World 3614.8 4356.0 5209.9 6161.2 7186.7 8163.6 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.3
-------
APPENDIX 1
TABLE 8
WORLD POPULATION DISTRIBUTION (% BASIS)
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
U.S. 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.9 5.7 5.3 4.9 4.6 4.3 4.1
Canada 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
Japan 3.3 3.3 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.0
European OECD 12.2 11.7 11.2 10.7 10.2 ...2..d ..bl. ...]A ~ ~
OECD 22.1 21.7 20.9 20.2 19.4 17.7 16.3 15.0 13.8 13.0
Latin America 6.4 6.8 7.1 7.4 7.8 8.6 9.5 10.3 10.9 11.3
Africa 8.7 9.1 9.3 9.5 9.8 10.4 11.0 11.4 11.9 12.2
Middle East 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 :I>-
......
Far E. (ex. Japan) 26.3 26.2 27.3 28.2 29.1 31.0 32.5 33.8 35.0 35.8 I
......
NON-OECD 43.1 43.8 45.4 46.9 48.6 52.0 55.0 57.7 60.1 61.7 N
Free World 65.3 56.4 66.4 67.1 68.0 69.7 71.3 72.7 73.9 74.7
F.W. ex. U. S. 59.2 59.3 50.4 61.2 62.3 64.4 66.4 67.1 69.6 70.6
U.S.S.R. 7.8 7.2 7.1 7.0 6.7 6.2 5.8 5.4 5.0 4.8
E. Europe 4.2 4.1 3.9 3.7 3.5 3.1 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.1
Com. Asia 22.7 23.2 22.6 22.2 21.8 21.0 20.1 19.4 18.7 18.4
Com. Bloc 34.7 34.6 33.6 32.9 32.0 30.3 28.7 27.3 26.1 25.3
World 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
-------
1- -
APPENDIX I
TABLE 9
PROJECTIONS OF CONSTANT DOLLAR GNP AND GNP PER CAPITA
GNP In Billions Of 1958 Constant $ GNP Per Capita
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 1970 1980 1990 2000 2910 2020
U.S. 723.5 1074 1579 2275 3218 4460 3522 4687 6177 8062 10420 13338
Canada 58.7 94 149 232 355 538 2730 3633 4788 6311 8318 10963
Japan . 14G.1 333 627 1015 1477 2027 1413 2912 4974 7362 9894 12664
European OECD 548.0 829 1267 1861 2707 3899 1481 2069 2919 4000 5480 7509
OECD 1476.3 2330 3622 5383 7757 10924 2108 3025 4277 5836 7797 10278
Latin America 105.6 182 309 522 854 1359 374 483 624 822 1094 1470
Africa 57.0 93 150 236 368 546 160 205 262 335 429 549
Middle East 17.0 35 70 130 223 355 256 417 648 959 1353 1818
Far E. (ex. Japan) 160.0 275 464 767 1280 2096 152 204 274 368 509 718 >
t-'
NON-OECD 339.6 585 993 1655 2725 4356 193 258 346 465 631 866 I
t-'
l.V
Free World 1815.9 2915 4615 7038 10482 15280 739 960 1242 1571 1973 2506
F . W. ex. U. S. 1092.4 1841 3036 4763 7264 10820 485 656 878 1135 1452 1878
U.S.S.R. 364.2 573 893 1391 2125 3153 1498 2113 2980 4203 5872 8046
E. Europe 111. 7 171 258 390 585 866 844 1247 1759 2481 3500 4937
Com. Asia 75.6 130 220 371 619 1022 --2.2. 142 210 -ID. 460 681
Com. Bloc 551.5 874 1371 2152 3329 5041 477 662 --.ill. 1279 1777 2438
World 2367 3789 5986 9190 13811 20321 655 870 1149 1492 1922 2489
World ex. U.S. 1644 2715 4407 6915 10593 15861
-------
APPENDIX 1
TABLE 10
WORLD GNP DISTRIBUTION (% BASIS)
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
U.S. 41.4 38.7 34.3 32.6 30.6 28.3 26.4 24.8 23.3 21.9
Canada 3.2 2.9 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6
Japan 1.8 2.3 3.1 4.0 6.2 8.8 10.5 1l.0 10.7 10.0
European OECD 24.9 23.6 23.9 24.4 23.1 21.9 21.2 20.3 19.6 19.2
OECD 71.4 67.6 63.7 63.2 62.4 61.5 60.5 58.6 56.2 53.8
Latin America 6.2 5.3 4.8 4.6 4.5 4.8 5.2 5.7 6.2 6.7
Africa 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.7
Middle East 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.7 :I>
........
Far E. (ex. Japan) ~ ~ -2..:2. ~ ~ -1.d ...2:.&. ~ ..:hl 10.3 I
........
NON -OECD 15.1 14.2 14.3 14.1 14.3 15.4 16.6 18.0 19.7 21.4 .f:'-
Free World 86.5 81.8 78.0 77.4 76.7 76.9 77.1 76.6 75.9 75.2
F.W. ex. U.S. 45.1 43.1 43.7 44.8 46.1 48.6 50.7 51.8 52.6 53.3
U.S.S.R. 15.4 15.1 14.9 15.1 15.4 15.5
E. Europe 4.7 4.5 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.3
Com. Asia .2d ~ -'U- ~ ~ .2.:.Q
Com. Bloc 13.5 18.2 22.0 22.6 23.3 23.1 22.9 23.4 24.1 24.8
World 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
-------
APPENDIX 1
TABLE
11
PROJECTIONS OF CONSTANT DOLLAR GNP AND GNP PER CAPITA
LOW ECONOMIC GROWTH CASE
GNP In Billions Of 1958 Constant $ GNP Per Cap ita
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
U.S. 723.5 1043 1446 1947 2571 3328 3522 4552 5658 6897 8325 9951
Canada 58.7 92 136 197 278 390 2730 3529 4387 5348 6519 7947
Japan 146.1 303 519 727 588 1291 1413 2652 4118 5271 6615 8064
European OECD 548.0 813 1184 1624 2164 2773 1481 2029 2727 3491 4381 5340
OECD 1476.3 2251 3285 4495 6001 7782 2108 2923 3879 4874 6032 7322
Latin America 105.6 180 295 460 690 996 374 479 595 725 884 1077
Africa 57.0 92 i44 216 321 453 160 203 252 307 374 456 :l:-
I-'
Middle East 17.0 29 47 76 117 168 256 344 440 563 707 862 I
I-'
Far E. (ex. Japan) 160.0 263 410 615 --2Q2 1281 152 195 242 295 360 439 Ion
NON-OECD 339.6 564 896 1367 2033 2898 193 249 ..21l 384 471 576
Free World 1815.9 2815 4181 5862 8034 10680 739 928 1126 1309 1512 1752
F.W. ex. U.S. 1092.4 1772 2735 3915 5463 7352 485 632 791 933 1092 1276
U.S.S.R. 364.2 568 843 1192 1635 2159 1498 2093 2813 3601 4519 5509
E. Europe 111. 7 169 244 351 477 623 844 1235 1660 2231 2856 3550
Com. Asia 75.6 123 190 290 418 ~ ~ 135 --.ill. 243 211 387
Com. Bloc 551. 5 860 1277 1833 2530 3363 477 651 854 1090 1350 1626
World 2367.4 3675 5458 7695 10564 14043 655 844 1048 1249 1470 1720
World ex. U. S . 1644 2632 4012 5748 7993 10715
-------
APPENDIX 1
TABLE
12
WORLD GNP DISTRIBUTION (% BASIS) -- LOW ECONOMIC GROWTH CASE
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
U.S. 3b.6 28.4 26.5 25.3 24.3 23.7
Canada 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.8
Japan 6.2 8.2 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.2
European OECD 23.1 22.1 21.7 21.1 20.5 19.7
OECD 62.4 61.2 60.2 58.4 56.8 55.4
Latin America 4.5 4.9 5.4 6.0 6.5 7.1 :I>
,.....
Africa 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 I
,.....
Middle East 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 0'\
Far E. (ex. Japan) ~ ...ld:. ..2:2 ~ ~ ~
NON-OECD 14.3 15.4 16.4 17.8 19.2 20.6
Free World 76.7 76.6 76.6 76.2 76.0 76.0
F.W. ex. U.S. 46.1 48.2 50.1 50.9 51. 7 52.3
U.S.S.R. 15.4 15.4 15.4 15.5 15.5 15.4
E. Europe 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.5
Com. Asia ...l.:1. -2d .-1.:2 ....hI ~ ~
Com. Bloc 23.3 23.4 23.4 23.8 24.0 24.0
World 100 100 100 100 100 100
-------
APPENDIX 1
TABLE 13
ECONOMIC GROWTH RATE PROJECTIONS FOR PROBABLE AND ALTERNATE LOW CASES
Probable -- GNP/Cap., % Per Year Low -- GNP/Cap., 70 Per Year
70/80 80/90 90/00 00/10 10/20 70/80 80/90 90/00 00/10 10/20
U.S. 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8
Canada 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0
Japan 7.5 5.5 4.0 3.0 2.5 6.5 4.5 2.5 2.3 2.0
European OECD --2.d .2.:l ..1..:.L ..1..:.L 2d 2d 2.& ~ ~ --L.Q
OECD -1..:l. ~ .2.:.l2 -h22. -1..& .-hl ~ ~ -.b.l --L.Q
:J>
Latin America 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.9 3.0 2.5 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 """
I
Africa 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 """
'-I
Middle East 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.0
Far E. (ex. Japan) ~ 2.& 2d .-hl ~ ~ 2.2 --L.Q ~ --L.Q
NON-OECD 2.95 2.& 2.& -hl --1d ..1d ~ -.b.l ~ --L.Q
Free World 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.3 1.95 . 1.5 1.5 1.5
F.W. ex. U.S. 3.1 2.95 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.3 1.7 1.6 1.6
U.S.S.R. 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.4 3.0 2.5 2.3 2.0
E. Europe 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.2
Com. Asia ~ ~ ~ .-hQ ~ ~ 2.& 2.& ~ --b1.
Com. Bloc .2.:l .2.:l --2.d .2.:l 2d 2d ~ ~ 2.2 -L.2.
World 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.2 1.8 1.65 1.6
-------
APPENDIX 1
TABLE
14
RATIOS OF LOW TO MOST PROBABLE GNP PROJECTIONS
('70 BASIS)
1975 1980 1985 1990 2000 2010 2020
U.8. 98.6 97.1 94.3 91.6 85.6 79.9 74.6
Canada 98.9 97.9 94.6 91.3 84.9 78.3 72.5
Japan 95.5 91.0 86.9 82.8 71.6 66.9 63.7
European OECD 99.0 98.1 95.8 93.5 87.3 79.9 J1.1
OECD 98.3 96.6 93.7 90.7 83.5 77 .4 71.2
Latin America 99.4 98.9 97.2 95.5 88.1 80.8 73.3 :1:-
I-'
Africa 99.5 98.9 96.0 I
97.5 91.5 87.2 83.0 I-'
Middle East 91.4 82.6 75.0 67.1 58.5 52.5 47.3 00
Far E. (ex. Japan) 97.8 95.6 92.0 88:4 80.2 70.7 61.1
NON-OECD ~4 96.4 93.3 90.2 82.6 74.6 66.5
Free World 98.3 96.6 93.6 90.6 83.3 76.7 69.9
F.W. ex. U.S. 98.1 96.3 93.2 90.1 82.2 75.2 68.0
U.S.S.R. 99.6 99.1 96.8 94.4 85.7 76.9 68.5
E. Europe 99.4 98.8 96.7 94.6 90.0 81.5 71.9
Com. Asia 97.3 94.6 90.5 86.4 78.2 67.5 56.9
Com. Bloc 99.2 98.4 95.8 93.1 85.2 76.0 66.7
World 98.5 97.0 94.1 91.2 83.7 76.5 69.1
World ex. U. S. 98.5 96.9 94.0 91.0 83.1 75.5 67.6
-------
APPENDIX 2
ENERGY PROJECTIONS
A.2.1
Sources of Historical Data
The United Nations publishes "World Energy Supplies" on a
periodic basis. The Statistical Papers Series J, Nos. 1-12, provide
historical data on the worldwide production and consumption of energy by
fuel type and in terms of "coal equivalent." The statistics are based on
the heat energy that the various fuel sources would produce under ideal
conditions (even though actual usage may be much less efficient). The
underlying assumption is that a metric ton of "coal equivalent" has a heat
content of 27.3 x 106 BTU.
It must be pointed out that there are discrepancies between the
U.N. statistics and other sources of data. For example, the U.N. reported
the following U.S. consumption of energy in 1964:
Coal and Liquid Natural Hydro + Total
Lignite Fuels Gas Nuclear Consumption
6 402.8 692.3 594.3 28.1 1712.5
10 MT of C.E.
1015 BTU 11.00 18.90 16.22 0.63 46.75
However, the U.S. Bureau of Mines reported the following in Information
Circular 8384 (July 1968):
1015 BTU
11. 66
22.38
15.65
1.91
51. 60
Part of the discrepancy is because the U.N. deals with Hydro and Nuclear
power on an energy output basis while the Bureau of Mines uses an input
basis that takes account of the efficiency of converting other forms. of
energy to electricity. However, this source of difference may be elimi-
nated by comparing only the fossil fuel portion of total energy input:
U.N.
U.S .B.M.
15
Total F.F. Input, 10 BTU
46.12
49.69
The main reason for this difference is that the U.N. statistics exclude
"bitumens, paraffin wax, road oils, petrochemical feedstocks, and petroleum
coke" while the U.S.B.M. figures include these non-energy uses of fossil
fuels. The latter account for about 11% of total U.S. fossil fuel demand,
a figure that is consistent with the percentage differences between U.N.
and U.S.B .M. data as shown in Table 1.
I'
-------
A2-2
The U.S.B.M. data are preferred for the U.S. but it is necessary
to utilize the U.N. statistics for foreign energy demand. Provided that a
similar or consistent differential exists, it is possible to convert the
U.N. data to a U.S.B.M. basis, thereby permitting comparisons, correlations,
and projections to be made in a consistent way.
Table 2 provides data for the "World ex-U.S." for petroleum con-
sumption including (I.P. basis) and excluding (U. N. basis) non-fuel prod-
ucts. When these data are weighted back onto a total fossil fuel basis, the
differences for 1960 and 1965 approximate 6.0% and 9.5%, respectively. The
latter figure is similar to the differential found for the U.S., and the
rising percentage from 1960 to 1965 is consistent with the increasing import-
ance of petroleum relative to total fossil fuels and also the expanding pro-
duction of petrochemicals in the "World ex-U.S." Thus, it is believed con-
version of the U.N. statistics to a U.S.B.M. basis is reasonable, and that
in subsequent years similar trends will apply inside and outside the U.S.
A.2.2
Energy Demand/GNP Correlations
Historical data for total energy demand are given in Table 3 and
presented on a percentage basis in Table 4. The same data may be combined
with constant dollar GNP statistics to derive conversion factors for metric
tons of coal equivalent per $1,000 of constant dollar GNP, as shown in
Table 5. Extrapolation of the trends in these factors projects the future
relationship between total energy demand and GNP. A constant ratio is indi-
cated for the U.S. because gains in efficiency in some directions are being
offset by lower efficiency elsewhere. A principal factor in lowering effi-
ciency is due to the conversion losses associated with electricity generation
combined with an increasing demand for energy in the form of electricity.
These factors are counterbalanced by gains in the efficiency of energy use
(except for electricity generation). Eventual gains in generating efficiency
are expected from the application of MHD and commercial use of breeder re-
actors. However, neither factor is expected to have a significant impact on
the overall efficiency of energy use in the U.S. before the end of the century.'k
All foreign areas are expected to improve their overall efficiency
of energy usage relative to GNP. The Communist countries are expected to
reach parity with the U.S. in this respect sometime after the year 2000. The
relatively poor current ratio (3.35 MT of C.E. per $1,000 of GNP) is partly
due to (inefficient) combustion of solid fuels (still 53% of total energy
input versus 22% in the U.S.). This factor will improve as oil and gas
rapidly diminish the percentage contribution of solid fuels to total energy
supplies in Communist countries. However, another factor is the great dis-
tances over which energy must be transported in the Soviet Union. A similar
situation exists in the U.S. Consequently, it is very unlikely that the
statistical efficiency of total energy use in either the U.S.S.R. or the U.S.
will ever be as high as that in W. Europe and Japan. The latter areas have
short lines of land communications and, hence, lower electricity transmission
*
Combined gas turbine/steam turbine cycles may begin to improve the
conversion efficiency in new installations much sooner, and may
forestall the commercial development of MHO.
-------
A2-3
losses, etc. But this is not the only reason that the current ratio of
2.22 MT of C.E. per $1,000 of GNP is lower than the 3.06 ratio for the
U.S. (even after making allowance for the fact that the latter is above
its 2.95 trend line due to the recession-induced decline in industrial
production). In the "Free World ex-U.S.", both energy demand and GNP
generation are concentrated in W. Europe and Japan. Both areas must ex-
port higher percentages of manufactured goods than the U.S. in order to
pay for necessary imports including energy supplies. Thus, energy usage
is more concentrated on industrial production (and less on private trans-
portation) than in the U.S., thereby achieving a lower energy/GNP ratio.
Nevertheless, significant further improvements in the ratio are not ex-
pected.
In summary, the energy/GNP ratio outside the U.S. is expected
to improve mainly because of a slowly improving overall ratio in the Com-
munist Bloc. This, together with the fact that GNP is increasing faster
outside the U.S. than domestically, may be expected to improve the world
ratio slightly (from 2.74 to 2.53 over the next 50 years).
The consequences of the above trends are
culations given in Table 6 and summarized in Table
are based on GNP projections considered to be most
alternate "low economic growth case" has also been
demand associated with the latter is summarized in
illustrated by the cal-
7. These calculations
probable. However, an
considered. Energy
Table 8.
A.2.3
U.S. Fossil Fuel Demand
Historical data for U.S. consumption of fossil fuels are given
in Table 9. The breakdown is by heat content and the percentage contributed
by coal, oil, and gas. The percentage of total demand supplied by each fuel
type is projected in Table 10.
Total U.S. energy supply is projected in Table 11, making use of
the data and projections in Tables 6, 9 and 10. This makes it possible to
convert the projected supplies of fossil fuels from a heat content to a
metric ton basis, as shown in Table 12.
A.2.4
Foreign Fossil Fuel Demand
Procedures exactly similar to those used in the preceding sections
lead to the historical and projected consumption of fossil fuels recorded in
Table 13. The data are for the "Free World ex-U.S." and for the Communist
Bloc countries as aggregates, and are expressed on a percentage basis.
-------
A2-4
The percentage data are converted to a metric ton basis in the
top half of Table 14, using assumptions paralleling those listed in Table 12.
The bottom half of Table 14 summarizes the worldwide projections of fossil
fuel consumption by fuel type.
A.2.5
World Energy Demand
The projections made in the two previous sections are summarized
in Tables 15 and 16. The former records the projected percentage contribu-
tion of each energy source, while the latter presents the same data in terms
of quadrillions of BTU's of input energy rather than on the metric tonnage
basis used in Table 14.
-------
APPENDIX 2
TABLE 1
COMPARISON BETWEEN U.N. AND U.S.B .M. ENERGY CONSUMPTION STATISTICS FOR THE U.S.
Total Fossil Fuel Input
U.N.* U.S.B.M.** U.S.B.M. - U.N.
Year 106 MT of C.E. 101:> BTU 1015 BTU 1015 BTU % Diff.
1955 1270.0 34.67 38.46 3.79 10.9
1956 1318.0 35.98 40.41 4.43 12.3
»
1957 1316.8 35.93 40.35 4.42 12.3 N
I
\J1
1958 1313.5 35.86 40.30 4.44 12.4
1959 1368.9 37.37 41.81 4.44 11.9
1960 1434.6 39.16 43.18 4.02 10.3
1961 1458.5 39.82 43.93 4.11 10.3
1962 1524.5 41. 62 45.93 4.31 10.4
1963 1589.4 43.39 47.88 4.47 10.3
1964 1689.4 46.12 49.69 3.57 7.7
1965 1765.7 48.20 51. 70 3.50 7.3
* Statistical Papers, Series J, Nos. 1-12.
** Information Circular 8384, July 1968.
-------
A2-6
APPENDIX 2
TABLE 2
RECONCILIATION OF U.N. AND PETROLEUM INFORMATION
BUREAU STATISTICS FOR PETROLEUM CONSUMPTION
. Consumption of Petroleum Products
106 MT 1015 BTU
1960 1965 1960 1965
World 1045.9 1543.0 42.83 63.19
U.S. 460.4 553.0 18.85 22.65
World ex-U.S. 585.5 990.0 23.98 40.54
Source:
Institute of Petroleum Review, October 1970.
. Consumption of Liquid Fuels
106 MT of C.E. 1015 BTU
1960 1965 1960 1965
World 1322.9 1920.3 36.12 52.42
U.8. 593.3 723.7 16.20 19.75
World ex-U.S. 729.6 1196.6 19.92 32.67
Source:
U.N. Statistical Papers, Series J.
. Differential between I.P. and U.N. Statistics
(Due to exclusion of non-fuel products from
U .N. data)
1960
4.06
1965
7.87
% Difference
20.4
24.1
-------
A2-7
APPENDIX 2
TABLE 3
WORLD ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY SOURCE IN
MILLION METRIC TONS OF COAL EQUIVALENT
Hydro +
Area Year Coal Oil Gas Nuclear Total
Wor 1d 1950 1,569 636 273 41 2,519
1955 1,816 948 397 59 3,220
1960 2,204 1,323 620 87 4,234
1965 2,251 1,920 933 118 5,222
1970 E 2,160 2,822 1,335 168 6,485
U.S. 1950 444 337 249 14 1,044
1955 404 515 351 15 1,285
1960 359 593 482 19 1,453
1965 425 724 617 25 1,791
1970 E 480 905 785 45 2,215
Communist Bloc 1950 317 54 14 2 387
1955 656 106 21 4 787
1960 1,087 192 75 10 1,364
1965 1,054 295 196 17 1,562
1970 E 980 497 350 23 1,850
Free World 1950 1,252 582 259 39 2,132
1955 1,160 842 376 55 2,433
1960 1,117 1,131 545 77 2,870
1965 1,197 1,625 737 101 3,660
1970 E 1,180 2,325 985 145 4,635
F.W. ex-U.S. 1950 808 245 10 25 1,088
1955 757 328 25 39 1,148
1960 758 538 62 57 1, 415
1965 772 902 120 75 1,870
1970 E 700 1,420 200 100 2,420
World ex-U.S. 1950 1,125 299 24 27 1,475
1955 1,412 433 46 44 1,935
1960 1,845 730 138 68 2,781
1965 1,826 1,196 316 93 3,431
1970 E 1,680 1,917 550 123 4,270
Source:
U.S. Statistical Papers, with extrapolation to 1970.
-------
A2-8
APPENDIX 2
TABLE 4
WORLD ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY SOURCE (% BAS IS )
Area Year Coal Oil Gas H + N Total
World 1950 62.4 25.2 10.8 1.6 100
1955 56.5 29.4 12.3 1.8 100
1960 52.2 31.2 14.6 2.0 100
1965 43.1 36.7 17.9 2.3 100
1970 E 33.3 43.5 20.6 2.6 100
U.S. 1950 42.5 32.3 23.9 1.3 100
1955 31.4 40.1 27.3 1.2 100
1960 24.7 40.8 33.2 1.3 100
1965 23.8 40.4 34.4 1.4 100
1970 E 21.7 40.9 35.4 2.0 100
Communist Bloc 1950 81.9 14.0 3.6 0.5 100
1955 83.2 13.5 2.7 0.6 100
1960 79.7 14.0 5.5 0.8 100
1965 67.5 18.8 12.6 1.1 100
1970 E 53.0 26.9 18.9 1.2 100
Free Wor 1d 1950 58.8 27.3 12.1 1.8 100
1955 47.7 34.6 15.4 2.3 100
1960 38.9 39.4 19.0 2.7 100
1965 32.7 44.4 20.1 2.8 100
1970 E 25.5 50.1 21.3 2.1 100
F . W. ex - U . S . 1950 74.3 22.5 0.9 2.3 100
1955 65.8 28.6 2.2 3.4 100
1960 53.6 38.0 4.4 4.0 100
1965 41.3 48.3 6.4 4.0 100
1970 E 29.0 58.6 8.3 4.1 100
World ex-U.S. 1950 76.3 20.3 1.6 1.8 100
1955 72.9 22.4 2.4 2.3 100
1960 66.4 26.2 5.0 2.4 100
1965 53.2 34.9 9.2 2.7 100
1970 E 39.3 44.9 12.9 2.9 100
Based on statistics in Table 3.
-------
A2-9
APPENDIX 2
TABLE 5
CORRELATION OF TOTAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION WITH
GNP IN 1958 CONSTANT DOLLARS
Area 6 GNP 109 $ MT of C.E. per $1,000
Year 10 MT of C.E.
World 1950 2,519 858.5 2.93
1955 3,220 1,131 2.85
1960 4,234 1,423 2.98
1965 5,222 1,897 2.75
1970 6,485 2,367 2.74
U.S. 1950 1,044 355.3 2.94
1955 1,285 438.0 2.93
1960 1,454 487.7 2.98
1965 1,791 617.8 2.90
1970 2,215 723.5 3.06
Communist Bloc 1950 387 116 3.34
1955 787 206 3.82
1960 1 , 3 64 313 4.36
1965 1,562 429 3.64
1970 1,850 551.5 3.35
Free World 1950 2,132 742.5 2.87
1955 2,433 925.0 2.63
1960 2,870 1,110 2.59
1965 3,660 1,468 2.49
1970 4,635 1,816 2.55
F.W. ex-U.S. 1950 1,088 387.2 2.81
1955 1,148 487.0 2.36
1960 1,415 622.2 2.27
1965 1,870 850.1 2.20
1970 2,420 1,092.4 2.22
World ex-U.S. 1950 1,431 503.2 2.84
1955 2,072 693 2.99
1960 2,819 935 3.01
1965 3,352 1,279 2.62
1970 4,065 1,643 2.47
-------
A2-10
APPENDIX 2
TABLE 6
TOTAL ENERGY DEMAND BASED ON GNP PROJECTIONS
1970 1970 1980 Conversion 1980 Energy Inc.
Energy GNP GNP Factor Energy % Per Yr.
. 1980 U.S. 2,215 724 1,074 2.95 3,168 3.65
F .W. ex-U.S. 2,420 1,092 1,841 2.18 4,013 5.15
F.W. 4,635 1,816 2,915 2.46 7,181 4.5
Com. Bloc 1,850 551 874 3.20 2,797 4.3
World 6,485 2,367 3,789 2.63 9,978 4.4
1980 1980 1990 Factor 1990
. 1990 U.S. 3,168 1,074 1,579 2.95 4,658 3.9
F .W. ex-U.S. 4,013 1,841 3,036 2.17 6,588 5.1
F.W. 7,181 2,915 4,615 2.44 11,246 4.6
Com. Bloc 2,797 874 1,371 3.10 4,250 4.3
World 9,978 3,789 5,986 2.59 15,496 4.5
1990 1990 2000 Factor 2000
. 2000 U.S. 4,658 1,579 2,275 2.95 6,711 3.7
F .W. ex-U.S. 6,588 3,036 4,763 2.17 10,336 4.6
F.W. 11, 246 4,615 7,038 2.42 17,047 4.25
Com. Bloc 4,250 1,371 2,152 3.03 6,520 4.4
World 15,496 5,986 9,190 2.56 23,567 4.3
2000 2000 2010 Factor 2010
. 2010 U.S. 6,711 2,275 3, 218 2.95 9,493 3.5
F.W. ex-U.S. 10,336 4,763 7,264 2.17 15,763 4.3
F.W. 17 ,047 7,038 10,482 2.41 25,256 4.0
Com. Bloc 6,520 2,152 3,329 2.97 9,887 4.25
World 23,567 9,190 13,811 2.54 35,143 4.1
2010 2010 2020 Factor 2020
. 2020 U.S. 9,493 3,218 4,460 2.95 13,157 3.3
F.W. ex-U.S. 15,763 7,264 10,820 2.17 23,479 4.1
F.W. 25,256 10,482 15,280 2.40 36,636 3.8
Com. Bloc 9,887 3,329 5,041 2.92 14,720 4.1
World . 35,143 13,811 20,321 2.53 51,356 3.9
Notes: Energy demand expressed in 106 MT of Coal Equivalent.
Conversion factor transforms GNP projection to energy demand.
-------
APPENDIX 2
TABLE 7
PROJECTIONS OF TOTAL ENERGY DEMAND
Billion Metric Tons of Coal Equivalent
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000 2010 2020
U.S. 2.22 2.66 3.17 3.82 4.66 6.71 9.49 13 .16
Free World ex-U.S. 2.42 3.12 4.01 5.14 6.59 10.34 15.76 23.48
Free World 4.64 5.78 7.18 8.96 11.25 17.05 25.26 36.64
Communist Bloc 1.85 2.28 2.80 3.45 4.25 6.52 9.89 14.72
World 6.49 8.06 9.98 12.41 15.50 23.57 35.14 51.36
World ex-U.S. 4.27 5.40 6.81 8.59 10.84 16.86 25.65 38.20
. 1970-2000 Growth Rate Summary
Ratio % per Yr.
U.S. 3.03 3.8
F.W. ex-U.S. 4.27 5.0
Free World 3.68 4.4
Com. Bloc 3.52 4.3
World 3.63 4.4
World ex-U.S. 3.95 4.7
>
N
I
......
......
Source:
Based on Table 6.
-------
APPENDIX 2
TABLE 8
PROJECTIONS OF TOTAL ENERGY DEMAND - LOW ECONOMIC GROWTH CASE
Trillion Metric Tons of Coal Equivalent
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000 2010 2020
U.S. 2.22 2.62 3.08 3.60 4.26 5.74 7.58 9.82
Free World ex-U.S. 2.42 3.06 3.86 4.79 5.93 8.50 11.85 15.97
Free World 4.64 5.68 6.94 8.39 10.19 14.24 19.43 25.79
Communist Bloc 1.85 2.26 2.75 3.30 3.96 5.55 7.52 9.82
World 6.49 7.94 9.69 11.69 14.15 19.79 26.95 35.61
World ex-U.S. 4.27 5.32 6.61 8.09 9.89 14.05 19.37 25.79
. 1970-2000 Growth Rate Summary
>
N
I
........
N
Ratio
% Per Yr.
V.S.
F.W. ex-V.S.
Free World
Com. Bloc
World
World ex-U.S.
2.59
3.51
3.07
3.00
3.05
3.29
3.2
4.3
3.8
3.7
3.8
4.05
-------
APPENDIX 2
TABLE 9
u.s. FOSSIL FUEL CONSUMPTION BY FUEL TYPE
Coal Oil Gas Total
8 Heat Content Bas is 1950 12.91 13 .49 6.15 32.55
1015 BTU 1955 11. 70 17.52 9.23 38.45
1960 10.41 20.07 12.70 43.18
1965 12.36 23.21 16.14 51.71
1970 13 .55 29.66 22.70 65.91 :I>
N
I
.......
W
8 Percentage Basis 1950 39.7 41.4 18.9 100
1955 30.4 45.6 24.0 100
1960 24.1 46.5 29.4 100
1965 23.9 44.9 31.2 100
1970 20.6 45.0 34.4 100
Sources:
U.S. Bureau of Mines.
Oil and Gas Journal, 3/22/71, p. 61.
-------
APPENDIX 2
TABLE 10
PROJECTION OF U.S. FOSSIL FUEL CONSUMPTION BY FUEL TYPE
. Percentage Basis
Coal and
Shale* Oil Gas Total
1970 20.6 45.0 34.4 100
1975 20.0 45.6 34.4 100 >
N
1980 20.0 45.6 34.4 100 I
t-'
~
1985 20.3 45.8 33.9 100
1990 20.7 46.0 33.3 100
2000 22.0 45.2 32.8 100
2010 23.2 44.5 32.3 100
2020 25.0 43.5 31.5 100
*
Includes all solid fuels converted to liquids and gas.
Based on extrapolation of data in Table 9 in the light
of U.S.B.M. and. other data.
-------
APPENDIX 2
TABLE 11
PROJECTIONS OF U.S. ENERGY SUPPLY BY ENERGY SOURCE
Total
Demand Hydro(l) Nuc1ear(2) Hydro + Fossil Coal and Oil (4) Gas ( 4)
~ 1015 BTU* Nuclear Fue1s(3) Sha1e(4)
1970 68.81 2.70 0.20 2.90 65.91 13.55 29.66 22.70 »-
N
1975 82.50 2.92 1.35 4.27 78.23 15.65 35.67 26.91 I
t-'
\J1
1980 98.41 3.15 9.47 12.62 85.79 17.16 39.12 29.51
1985 119.08 3.55 20.40 23.95 95.13 19.31 43.57 32.25
1990 144.66 3.96 30.66 34.62 110.04 22.78 50.62 36.64
2000 208.3 4.7 53.2 57.9 150.4 33.1 68.0 49.3
2010 294.6 5.4 86.8 92.2 202.4 47.0 90.0 65.4
2020 408.0 6.0 141.3 147.3 260.7 65.2 113.4 82.1
* Based on Tables 6, 9 and 10.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
By extrapolation; excluding pumped storage.
Projections based on trends established by National Power Survey for 1980 and 1990.
By subtraction of Hydro + Nuclear from Total Demand.
By multiplying Fossil Fuel total by percentages from Table 10.
-------
APPENDIX 2
TABLE 12
PROJECTIONS OF U.S. FOSSIL FUEL CONSUMPTION IN METRIC TONS
Million Metric Tons
Coal +
Year Shale (1) Oil (2) Gas(3)
1970 475 729 498
1975 549 876 591 :I>
N
1980 602 961 648 I
~
1985 678 1,070 708 0\
1990 799 1,244 805
2000 1,161 1,670 1,083
2010 1,649 2,211 1,436
2020 2, 288 2,786 1,803
Based on Table 11.
(1)
Considering shale on a coal equivalent basis, and also correcting
back to a current average heat content of 28.5 x 106 BTU per MT.
6
Converted on an average basis of 40.7 x 10 BTU per MT for U.S.
petroleum + NGL.
(2)
(3)
6
Converted on the basis of 22.66 MT per 10 CF and 1032 BTU/CF,
1015 BTU are equivalent to 21.96 x 106 MT of gas.
i.e. ,
-------
APPE ~ ):x 2
TABLE 13
FOSS IL FUEL CONSUMPI'ION BY FUEL TYPE OUTS IDE THE U. S .
(PERCENTAGE BAS IS)
. Historical Data
(U.N. Basis, Excluding Non-Energy Uses of Fossil Fuels)
Free World ex-U.S. Connnunist Bloc
Year Coal Oil Gas Coal Oil Gas
1950 76.0 23.0 1.0 82.4 14.0 3.6
1955 68.2 29.5 2.3 83.8 13.5 2.7
1960 55.8 39.6 4.6 80.3 14.2 5.5
1965 43.0 50.3 6.7 68.2 19.1 12.7
. Projections
(Total F.F. Demand Basis, Including All Uses of Fossil Fuels)
:I>
N
I
t-'
-..J
Free World ex-U.S. Connnunist Bloc
Year Coal Oil Gas Coal Oil Gas
1970 27.2 65.1 7.7 53.0 28.7 18.3
1975 20.0 69.0 11.0 41.0 34.0 25.0
1980 15.0 70.5 14.5 34.0 37.0 29.0
1985 11.5 70.5 18.0 28.0 39.5 32.5
1990 9.5 69.0 21.5 23.4 40.6 36.0
2000 7.0 64.5 28.5 17.0 42.0 41.0
2010 5.0 60.0 35.0 12.1 42.9 45.0
2020 3.4 54..0 42.6 9.0 43.0 48.0
-------
A2-18
APPENDIX 2
TABLE 14
PROJECTIONS OF FOREIGN FOSSIL FUEL CONSUMPTION
IN MILLION METRIC TONS
Free World ex-U.S. Communist Bloc World ex-U.S.
Year Coal Oil Gas Coal Oil Gas Coal Oil Gas
1970 711 1,144 121 991 359 205 1,702 1,503 326
1975 674 1,563 222 941 523 345 1,615 2,086 567
1980 637 2,015 369 952 698 488 1,589 2,713 857
1985 608 2,494 569 952 902 663 1, 560 3,396 1,232
1990 608 2,973 828 952 1,106 878 1,560 4,079 1,706
2000 634 3,916 1,548 952 1,580 1,377 1,586 5,496 2,925
2010 648 5,226 2, 725 952 2,265 2,126 1,600 7,491 4,851
2020 667 6,911 4,203 952 3,042 3,035 1,619 9,953 7,238
Based on Table 13 and assumptions paralleling those in Table 12.
. Projections of World Consumption of Fossil Fuels
Year Coal Oil Gas Total
1970 2,177 2,232 824 5,233
1975 2,164 2,962 1,158 6,284
1980 2,191 3,674 1,505 7,370
1985 2,238 4,466 1,940 8,644
1990 2,359 5,323 2,511 10,193
2000 2,747 7,166 4,008 13,921
2010 3,249 9,702 6,287 19,238
2020 3,907 12,739 9,041 25,687
Bas ed on Table 12 and projections in top half of this tab 1e .
-------
A2-19
APPENDIX 2
TABLE 15
TOTAL ENERGY INPUT BY SOURCE (PERCENTAGE BAS IS )
Hydro +
Coal Oil Gas Nuclear
. U.S.
1970 19.6 43.2 33.0 4.2
1980 17.5 39.7 30.0 12.8
1990 15.8 35.0 25.3 23.9
2000 15.9 32.6 23.7 27.8
2010 16.0 30.5 22.2 31.3
2020 16.0 27.8 20.1 36.1
. Free World ex-U.S.
1970 25.6 61.5 7.3 5.6
1980 13.9 65.3 13.4 7.4
1990 8.0 58.7 18.3 15.0
2000 5.3 49.3 21.8 23.6
2010 3.6 43.1 25.2 28.1
2020 2.5 38.3 26.0 33.2
. Connnunist Bloc
1970 51.7 28.0 18.0 2.3
1980 32.9 35.9 28.1 3.0
1990 21.7 37.5 33.3 7.5
2000 14.1 35.0 34.1 16.8
2010 9.3 33.0 34.8 22.9
2020 6.3 29.8 33.3 30.6
. World
1970 30.4 46.2 19.1 4.3
1980 20.0 49.4 22.6 8.0
1990 14.0 46.0 24.2 15.8
2000 10.7 40.7 25.5 23.1
2010 8.5 37.0 26.8 27.6
2020 7.0 33.3 26.4 33.3
-------
A2-20
APPENDIX 2
TABLE 16
PROJECTION OF TOTAL ENERGY INPUT
(1015 BTU)
Total Hydro +
Coal Oil Gas Fossil F. Nuclear Total
. U.8.
1970 13.5 29.7 22.7 65.9 2.9 68.8
1975 15.6 35.7 26.9 78.2 4.3 82.5
1980 17.2 39.1 29.5 85.8 12.6 98.4
1985 19.3 43.6 32.2 95.1 24.0 119.1
1990 22.8 50.6 36.6 110.0 34.6 144.6
2000 33.1 68.0 49.3 150.4 57.9 208.3
2010 47.0 90.0 65.4 202.4 92.2 294.6
2020 65.2 113.4 82.1 260.7 147.3 408.0
. Free World ex-U.8.
1970 19.4 46.6 5.5 71.5 4.3 75.8
1975 18.4 63.6 10.1 92.1 5.6 97.7
1980 17.4 82.0 16.8 116.2 9.3 125.5
1985 16.6 101.5 25.9 144.0 16.9 160.9
1990 16.6 121.0 37.7 175.3 31.0 206.3
2000 17.3 159.4 70.5 247.2 76.3 323.5
2010 17.7 212.7 124.1 354.5 138.5 493.0
2020 18.2 281. 3 191.4 491.0 244.0 735.0
. Communist Bloc
1970 27.0 14.6 9.4 51.0 1.2 52.2
1975 25.7 21.3 15.7 62.7 1.7 64.4
1980 26.0 28.4 23.2 76.6 2.4 79.0
1985 26.0 36.7 30.2 92.9 4.5 97.4
1990 26.0 45.0 40.0 111.0 9.0 120.0
2000 26.0 64.3 62.7 153.0 31.0 184.0
2010 26.0 92.2 96.8 215.0 64.0 279.0
2020 26.0 123.8 138.2 288.0 127.0 415.0
. World
1970 59.9 90.9 37.6 188.4 8.4 196.8
1980 60.6 149.5 68.5 278.6 24.3 302.9
1990 66.1 216.6 114.3 396.3 74.6 470.9
2000 76.4 291.7 182.5 550.6 165.2 715.8
2010 90.7 394.9 286.3 771.9 294.7 1066.6
2020 109.4 518.5 411. 7 1039.7 518.3 1558.0
-------
APPENDIX 3
SULFUR CONTENT OF FOSSIL FUELS
A.3.J,
Sulfur Content of Petroleum
wt.%
this
All
although
range.
crude oils contain sulfur, mostly in the range of 0.1 to 2.5
there are certain crudes that have sulfur contents outside
The average S content for the continental U.S. is approximately
0.6 wt.%. However, the prolific reserves discovered on the North Slope of
Alaska approximate 1 wt.% S. In consequence, the weighted average of all
domestic crude oils is about 0.75 wt.%.
The average S content of reserves may differ from that of current
production. The difference for the Continental U.S. is slight because of the
large number of producing fields and the fact that almost all significant
discoveries are brought into production as quickly as possible (for eoonomic
reasons). However, the North Slope fields are not yet in production. Once
production begins, it is evident that the average S content of domestic crude
will rise. Thus, the average S content of crude oil reserves can serve as an
indicator of the average S in future production. This is the case domestically
and abroad.
A.3.1.l
Sulfur Content of U.S. Crude Oils
The average sulfur content of crude oils from more than a hundred
of the most important U.S. fields is recorded in Table 1 together with an
estimate of the reserves for each field. The latter enable the weighted (by
volume) average S content of the reserves to be calculated on a state-by-state
basis. The state averages may then be used to calculate the average for the
U.S. as shown in Table 2.
Different estimates of "proved reserves" are available from different
sources. One such estimate, published by the Oil and Gas Journal, is shown in
the second part of Table 2 for comparison with the estimates obtained from the
1971 International Petroleum Encyclopedia. The different sources indicate a
somewhat different geographical distribution of reserves, but almost exactly
the same average sulfur content:
OGJ
IPE
0.59wt.%S
o . 56wt. %S
It is a reasonable assumption that the average S content of the
principal U.S. oil fields ~s r~spresentative of all domestic fields. On this
basis, the Bureau of Mines' data for total crude oil reserves may be used to
calculate the average S content of the total domestic reserves as shown in
Table 3. The weighted average is 0.58 wt.% for the Continental U.S. and 0.74
wt.% when Alaska reserves are included.
-------
A3~2
When calculated on a "1970 production" basis rather than on a "reserves" basis.
The average 8 content was 0.56 wt.%, as shown in Table 4.
The top part of Table 3 also lists the reserves of natural gas liquids
(NGL). 8uch reserves are part of the total reserves of petroleum liquids, but
their 8 content is negligible. This has the effect of reducing the average
8 content of the total domestic reserves of petroleum liquids below the 0.58
wt.% and 0.74 wt.% figures cited above. However, the average BTU content of
a barrel of NGL is less than that of a barrel of crude oil. This has to be
taken into account when the sulfur content of fossil fuels consumed is cal-
culated from the energy demand for such fuels (expressed on a BTU or on a
metric ton basis) .
The S content of domestic reserves of petroleum liquids must be
distinquished from that of the total u.s. supply of petroleum liquids. The
latter includes imported petroleum products and products derived from imported
crude oils. Because of vapor pressure or volatility considerations, imported
crude oils do not contain NGL*. In consequence, calculation of the 8 con-
tent of the total U.8. petroleum supply requires knowledge or estimates of
the components of this supply.
A.3.l.2
Sulfur Content of Foreign Crude Oils
The sulfur content of Canadian crude oils is dealt with on exactly
the same basis in the first part of Table 5 as that used for U.8. crude oils.
The remainder of the Table presents similar data for other countries. The
principal source of this information is the 1971 edition of the Inter-
national Petroleum Encyclopedia. However, a number of other sources were
used as noted. Estimates of sulfur content were made in cases where published
information was lacking.
Table 6 draws on the information in Table 5 and presents it on a
summarized basis by geographical area. Table 7 is a further summarization
that indicates that the average 8 content of worldwide crude oil reserves
is approximately 1.5 wt.%. However, the crude oil actually produced in 1970
had an average 8 content of about 1.2 wt.%. The principal reasons for the
difference between these figures are that the U.8. is producing its reserves
much faster than the world average and that the average 8 content of Continen-
tal U.8. crude is only a third of the average of the "World ex U.8.".
Because the world's reserves have a higher average 8 content (1.49
wt.%) than that of 1970 production (1.21 wt.%), it must be expected that the
average 8 content of crude oil production will increase. The alternative
would be to discover new, and enormous, reserves of low sulfur crude oil.
While new reserves are likely to be found, it is unlikely that they will be
almost exclusively of low 8 content. Nevertheless, the environmental pressures
to reduce the sulfur content of fossil fuels are likely to stimulate both the
search for, and production of, low 8 crudes. Thus, the near term prospects
are for maintenance of the world average 8 content at about the 1970 level.
Additional references to the S content of petroleum are given in
Table 8.
*However, arrangements are being made to import W. Canadian NGL into the U.S.
by pipeline.
-------
A3-3
A. 3.2 . Sulf':l.~ Cqntent of Natural Gas
Worldwide reserves of natural gas are listed on a country-by-country
basis in Table 9, and are summarized in Table 10. The reserves were converted
from cubic feet to metric tons because the latter measure, taken in conjunc-
tion with S concentration in the gas, gives the quantity of sulfur that will
be recovered when the gas is produced.
Natural gas reserves include components in addition to H2S that
are removed before the gas is fed into a commercial pipeline. Nitrogen,
carbon dioxide, and condensible hydrocarbons are always removed if present
in the reservoir gas. Part of the ethane may be removed (for petrochemical
feedstock use) before the gas is pipelined.
Gas of "pipeline quality" has a BTU content of slightly more than 1000
BTU/SCF (1025-1030 BTU/CF is typical for the U.S.). Hence, one metric ton
of pipeline gas has a heat content of about 45 million BTU. It is convenient
to express the S content of natural gas as the quantity of sulfur that would
be recovered for each metric ton of gas marketed. It will be appreciated
that this is not a true sulfur content, rather it is the quantity of by pro-
duct S corresponding to the gas actually marketed. This approach makes it
easy to calculate the quantity of sulfur that will be recovered when a given
amount of energy demand is filled with natural gas.
Published data on natural gas sulfur content are sparse except for
W. Canadian gas fields. Thus, the figures presented in Table 11 are based to
a large extent on estimates. Fortunately, however, published data do exist
for the commercial gas fields that contain the largest quantities of sulfur.
These data are recorded in Table 12. The Western Canadian reserves of 146.5
million MT of S recoverable from natural gas are official statistics that
are revised annually.
A.3.3
Sulfur Content of Coal
The sulfur content of U.S. coals, on a state-by-state basis, is
listed in Table 13. Account has been taken of the different caloric con-
tents of the anthracite, bituminous, sub-bituminous and lignite coals that
are treated on an aggregated basis in the state totals.
Correction for heat content to a "standard" of 28.9 million BTU/
metric ton (typical of U.S. bituminous coals) raises the average S content
of U.S. coal reserves from 1.56 wt.% (on an "as found" basis) to 1.71 wt.%.
The calculation does not change the S content per se, rather it reduces the
the number of tons of "standard" heat content coal. Consequently, on either
basis, the sulfur contained in total U.S. coal reserves is estimated to be
about 18.7 billion metric tons.
There are differences of opinion as to the fraction of U.S. coal
reserves that will prove to be economically recoverable. However, the 18
billion ton figure should be set against a current U.S. sulfur demand of
about 10 million tons annually. Thus, U.S. coal reserves have the potential
for satisfying U.S. sulfur demand for many years beyond the year 2020 (the
terminal year of the sulfur Model) .
-------
A3-4
Sulfur content data for foreign coals are presented in Table 14.
When used in conjunction with more recent Bureau of Mines data for coal re-
serves, a worldwide summary of average S content of coal may be obtained.
Table 15 indicates that Communist countries, particularly the U.S.S.R., also
have very large potential reserves of sulfur in their coal reserves.
A.3.4
Sulfur Content Aggregates
It is of interest to note that the average S content of coal, corrected
to standard heat content, is about 1.46 wt.%. This figure is essentially the
same as the average S content of crude oil, 1.49 wt.%, listed in Table 7.
Whether this is pure coincidence or has geological significance is not known.
The world average S content of natural gas, as shown in Table 10, is about
0.7 wt.%. This lower average value is due to the fact that many of world's
major gas fields are sweet. On the other hand, certain gas fields have H2S
contents as high as 70 mol.%. There is no parallel to such high sulfur levels
in either crude oil or coal, unless the Frasch deposits of almost pure sulfur
associated with traces of petroleum are considered to be "crude oils with
99% sulfur content".
It is also of possible macrogeological interest that high S content
of one type of fossil fuel in a particular area is often accompanied by low S
content of another type of fossil fuel. For example, Alberta has high S gas
and low S crude oil. The same phenomenon is found in France and Germany.
Brazil has very high S coal and very low S petroleum. On the average, the
U.S. has high S coal and low S crude. However, Wyoming has low S coal but
high S crude oil and natural gas. There are exceptions to these "compensa-
tion" generalizations. For example, Indonesia appears to have low S content
in oil, gas, and coal. Nevertheless, if large geographical aggregates are
used, the average S content of all fossil fuel r~serves appears to be about
1.4 wt.%.
Recognizing that oil, gas, and coal have heat contents per metric
ton that are significantly different for most purposes (about 40, 45, and
29 million BTU/MT respectively), it is still possible to make an order-of-
magnitude generalization that, worldwide, each 2.5 billion BTU of fossil
fuel energy "contain" about 1 long ton of sulfur. If future demands for
primary energy can be projected, and the quantity expected to be supplied
by hydro and nuclear power is deducted, then the remainder is the quantity
to be supplied by fossil fuels. This latter quantity may be converted into
and order-of-magnitude sulfur recovery potential using the rough equivalency
cited above.
-------
A3-5
APPENDIX 3
TABLE 1
SULFUR CONTENT OF U.S. CRUDE OILS
State or Reserves S Contribution S ta te
Region Field 109 bb1s -L- Wt '0 S x 100 Average
Alaska McArthur River 0.25 1.2 (0.50) 0.60
Swanson River 0.11 0.5 0.50 0.25
Prudhoe Bay 20.00 --2lL.l 1.00 98.30
20.36 100 0.99 99.15 0.99
Appalachian Bradford-Allegheny 0.01 2 0.11 0.22
Lima-Peru 0.50 ....21i (0.11) 10.78
0.51 100 0.11 11.00 D.ll
Arkansas Smackover 0.03 100 2.1 2.1
Colorado Range1ey 0.16 100 0.65 0.65
Illinois Clay City 0.03 34.0 0.19 6.46
Loudon 0.02 27.9 0.20 5.58
Old 111. 0.02 22.0 0.17 3.74
Salem 0.01 16.1 0.16 2.58
0.08 100 0.18 18.36 0.18
Kansas .Bemis.,-Shutts 0 . 143 75.3 0.57 42.92
Chase Silica 0.016 8.4 0.35 2.94
E1 Dorado 0.007 3.7 0.26 0.96
Trapp 0.024 -12.& 0.41 2:.!l
0.190 100 0.52 51.99 0.52
Mississippi Baxtervi11e 0.073 66 2.71 178.86
Tins ley 0.037 34 1.02 34.68
0.110 100 2.13 218 . 54 2.13
Montana Bell Creek 0.175 69.2 (0.90) 62.28
Cut Bank 0.078 30.8 0.91 28.03
0.253 100 0.90 90.31 (). 90
-------
A3-6
APPENDIX 3
TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)
SULFUR CONTENT OF U.S. CRUDE OILS
State or Reserves S Contribution State
Region Field 109 bb1s ....L- Wt % S x 100 Average
Ca 1ifornia Be1ridge 0.07 1.04 0.23 0.239
Brea-01inda 0.04 0.60 0.75 0.450
Buena Vista 0.06 0.89 0.59 0.525
Coa 1 inga 0.07 1.04 0.75 0.780
Coalinga Nose 0.07 1.04 0.25 0.260
Coyote W. 0.02 0.30 0.82 0.246
cuyama S. 0.03 0.44 0.42 0.185
Dominguez 0.02 0.30 0.96 0.288
Elk Hills 1.02 15 . 18 0.68 10.302
Huntington Beach 0.14 2.08 1.57 3.266
Ing 1ewood 0.04 0.60 2.50 1.500
Kern River 0.20 2.97 1.19 3.534
Kett1eman 3.15 46.88 0.50 28.440
Long Beach 0.03 0.44 1.29 0.568
Midway-Sunset 0.27 4.02 0.94 3 .779
San Ando 0.10 1.49 (2.25) 3.353
Santa Fe Springs 0.02 0.30 2.25 0.675
Torrance 0.02 0.30 (0.90) 0.270
Ventura 0.07 1.04 0.33 0.343
Wilmington 1. 28 19.05 1.00 19.050
6.72 100 0.73 73 .053 0.73
Louisiana Bayou Sale 0.060 1.80 0.16 0.288
(onshore) Caddo-Pine I. 0.093 2.80 0.27 0.756
Caillou I. 2.475 74.42 0.23 17.117
Delhi 0.072 2.16 0.08 0.173
Golden Meadow 0 .095 2.86 0.18 0.515
Grand Bay 0.093 2.80 0.31 0.868
Lafitte 0.053 1.59 0.30 0.477
Lake Barre 0.108 3.25 0.49 1.593
Lake Washington o. 138 4.15 0.37 1. 536
Weeks I. 0.064 1.92 0.18 0.346
West Bay 0.075 2.25 0.27 0.608
3.326 100 0.24 24.277 0.24
(offshore) Bay Marchand (BL. 2) 0 .230 16.5 0.46 7.59
Main Pass (BL. 69) 0.162 11.6 0.16 1.86
South Pass (BL. 24) 0.428 30.9 0.26 8.03
South Pass (BL. 27) 0.134 9.6 0.37 3.55
T imba lier Bay 0.230 16.5 0.26 4.29
West Delta (BL. 30) 0.207 14.9 0.33 4.92
1.391 100 0.30 30 . 24 0.30
-------
A3-7
APPENDIX 3
TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)
SULFUR CONTENT OF U.S. CRUDE OILS
State or Reserves S Contribution S ta te
Region Field 109 bb 1s -L- Wt % S x 100 Average
New Mexico Nobbs 0.026 15.3 1.41 21. 57
Monumen t 0.050 29.4 1.39 40.87
Vacuum 0.094 ~ 0.10 .2:2l
0.170 100 0.68 67.97 0.68
Oklahoma Burbank 0.019 1.60 0.24 0.38
Cushing 0.012 1.01 0.25 0.25
Glenn Pool 0.022 1.85 0.27 0.50
Golden Trend 0.148 12.46 0.14 1. 74
Hea1dton 0.015 1.26 0.93 1.17
Hewitt 0.016 1.35 0.84 1.13
Okla. City 0.034 2.86 0.16 0.46
Seminole 0.727 61. 20 (0.25) 15.30
St. Louis 0.005 0.42 0.11 0.05
Sho-Ve1-Tum 0.060 5.05 (0.11) 0.56
Sooner Trend 0.130 10.94 (0.11) ---L1Q
1.188 100 0.23 22.74 0.23
Utah Aneth 0.231 100 0.20 0.20
Wyoming Elk Basin 0.034 13.1 0.10 1.31
Hamilton Dome 0.059 22.7 3.07 69.69
Hilight 0.099 38.1 0.10 3.81
Oregon Basin 0.041 15.8 3.25 51.35
Salt Creek 0.027 10.3 2.36 24 .3 1
0.260 100 1. 50 150.47 1. 50
Texas Anahuac 0.065 0.99 0.15 0.15
Aqua Dulce 0.045 0.68 0.08 0.05
Cogdell 0.066 1.00 (1. 80) 1.80
Conroe o. 146 2.22 0.33 0.73
Cowden N. 0.034 0.52 1.90 0.99
Cowden S. 0.063 0.96 1.77 1. 70
Diamond M 0.331 5.03 0.20 1.01
E. Texas 2.129 32.35 0.31 10.03
Fullerton 0.064 0.97 2.08 2.03
Fairway 0.149 2.26 (0.15) 0.34
Goldsmith 0.041 0.62 0.16 0.10
Hastings 0.225 3.42 0.19 0.65
Hawkins 0.155 2.36 2.19 5.17
Hendrick 0.022 0.33 1. 73 0.57
Howard Glasscock 0.042 0.64 1.18 0.76
Hull-Merchant 0.058 0.88 0.35 0.31
Kelly-Snyder 0 . 718 1.09 0.24 0.26
-------
A3-8
APPENDIX 3
TABLE 1 (CONTINUED)
SULFUR CONTENT OF U.S. CRUDE OILS
State or Reserves S Contribution State
Region Field 109 bb 1s -'L- Wt % S x 100 Aver <,,..'"
Texas Keystone 0.061 0.93 0.65 0.60
(Continued) l..evelland 0.068 1.03 2.12 2.18
McElroy 0.083 1.26 2.37 2.99
Midland Farms 0.061 0.93 0.03 0.03
Old Ocean 0.065 0.99 0.21 0.21
Panhandle 0.430 6.54 0.13 0.85
See1igson 0.1l0 1.67 0.05 0.08
Seminole 0.044 0.67 1.86 1.25
Slaughter 0.129 1.96 1.90 3.72
Spraberry 0.158 2.40 0.16 0.38
Talco 0.032 0.49 3.00 1.47
Thompson 0.042 0.64 0.20 0.13
Tom O'Connor 0.101 1.54 0.16 0.25
TXL 0.065 0.99 0.16 0.16
Van 0.056 0.85 0.86 0.73
Ward-Estes N. 0.041 0.62 1.23 0.76
Wasson 0.1l6 1. 76 1.01 1. 78
Webster 0.128 1.95 0.21 0.41
West Ranch 0.048 0.73 0.90 0.66
Yates 0.775 11.78 1.50 17.67
6.579 100 0.63 62.96 0.63
Notes (1) Figures in parentheses are estimates.
(2) The above data are for the principal U.S. oil fields which contain
about 70% of the proved reserves of the Continental U.S.
(3) Estimated reserves are for 1/1/70.
Source: 1971 International Petroleum Encyclopedia.
-------
A3-9
APPENDIX 3
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF U.S. CRUDE OIL SULFUR CONTENT
- PRINCIPAL OIL FIELDS
State or Reserves, 1/1/70 Average S Contribution
Region 109 bbls -X- Wt % S x 100
Appa 1a ch ian 0.51 2.41 0.11 0.27
Arkansas 0.03 0.14 2.10 0.29
Ca li forn ia 6.72 31.69 0.73 23.13
Colorado 0.16 0.75 0.65 0.49
Illinois 0.08 0.38 0.18 0.07
Kansas 0.19 0.90 0.52 0.47
La. onshore 3.33 15.71 0.24 3.77
La. offshore 1.39 6.56 0.30 1.97
Mississippi 0.11 0.52 2.13 1.11
Montana 0.25 1.18 0.90 1.06
New Mexico 0.17 0.80 0.68 0.54
Oklahoma 1.19 5.61 0.23 1.29
Texas 6.58 31. 04 0.63 19.56
Utah 0.23 1.08 0.20 0.22
Wyoming 0.26 ~ 1.50 ~
Continental U.S. 21. 20 ~ 0.56 56.09
Alaska 20.36 0.99
. Alternate Basis
Reserves* at end of 1970 Average S Contribution
S ta te 109 bbls ---X- Wt % S x 100
Texas 9.48 45.0 0.63 28.35
Louis iana 4.30 20.3 0.27 5.48
Ca lifornia 4.60 21.9 0.73 15.99
Oklahoma 0.54 2.5 0.23 0.58
Wyoming 0.53 2.5 1.50 3.75
New Mexico 0.36 1.7 0.68 1.16
Kansas 0.24 1.1 0.52 0.57
Others 1.07 -2.:Q 0.54 2.70
1.!..:1l J:.Q.L 0.59 58.58
* In "giant" fields (ultimate reserves estimated to be more than
100 million barrels): Oil and Gas Journal, 1/22/71.
-------
A3-10
APPENDIX 3
TABLE 3
SUMMARY OF U.S. CRUDE OIL SULFUR CONTENT - ALL OIL FIELDS
Crude Oil Reserves NGL Reserves
S ta te 109 bbls -Z- 109 bbls -Z-
Texas 13.81 45.0 4.01 46.6
Louisiana 5.61 18.3 2.67 31.1
California 4.34 14.1 0.20 2.3
Oklahoma 1.39 4.5 0.45 5.2
Wyoming 1.10 3.6 0.08 1.0
New Mexico 0.96 2.8 0.60 7.0
Kansas 0.60 1.9 0.27 3.1
Others 3.00 ~ 0.32 -2.:2
Con t in en ta 1 U. S . 30.71 ~ 8.60 ~
Source: U.S. Bureau of Mines.
. Ca lculation of average S content:
S Contribution
S ta te % of Reserves Av. Wt % S x 100
Texas 45.0 0.63 28.35
La. onshore 9.1 0.24 2.18
La. offshore 9.2 0.30 2.76
Ca 1i forn ia 14.1 0.73 10.29
Oklahoma 4.5 0.23 1.04
Wyoming 3.6 1.50 5.40
New Mexico 2.8 0.68 1.90
Kansas 1.9 0.52 0.99
Others -2..& 0.54 ~
Continental U.S. llliL 0.58 58.20
. Total domestic reserves including Alaska:
'70 of Reserves Av. Wt '70 S S Contribution
Lower 48 60 0.58 0.348
Alaska 40 0.99 0.396
100 0.74 0.744
-------
A3-11
APPEND IX 3
TABLE 4
AVERAGE SULFUR CONTENT OF U.S. CRUDE OILS
PRODUCED IN 1970
% of 1970 Average S Contribution
State Production Wt % S x 100
Texas 41.8 0.63 26.33
La. onshore 11.2 0.24 2.69
La. offshore 14.5 0.30 4.35
Ca 1ifornia 15.8 0.73 11.53
Oklahoma 5.0 0.23 1.15
Wyoming 3.7 1.50 5.55
New Mexico 2.4 0.68 1.63
Kansas 0.7 0.53 0.36
Others ~ 0.54 ..1..:&2
Continental U.S. 100 0.56 56.24
Sources:
U.S. Bureau of Mines and data from Table 3.
-------
A3- 12
APPENDIX 3
TABLE 5
SULFUR CONTENT OF FOREIGN CRUDE OILS
. CANADA
% of 1969 S Contr ibution '70 of 1/1/70 S Contribution
Field Wt % S Production x 100 Reserves x 100
Bonnie Glen 0.25 4.6 1.15 5.2 1.30
Fenn-Big Valley 0.71 2.8 1.99 2.5 1. 78
Golden Spike 0.23 7.5 1. 73 3.4 0.78
Judy Creek 0.25 6.8 1. 70 7.0 1. 75
Kaybob 0.04 1.7 0.07 5.9 0.24
Leduc-Woo dbend 0.30 3.5 1.05 5.0 1.50
Mitsue 0.30 2.8 0.84 5.3 1.59
Pembina 0.42 18.8 7.90 19.5 8.19
Rainbow Lake 0.10 8.2 0.82 4.0 0.40
Redwater 0.42 7.6 3.19 6.6 2.77
Swan Hills 0.80 12.1 9.68 19.0 15.20
S. Swan Hills 0.80 4.8 3.84 5.4 4.32
Turner Va lley 0.13 0.5 0.07 0.9 0.12
Wizard Lake 0.24 2.6 0.62 2.9 0.70
Zama Lake 0.25 2.9 0.73 3.3 0.83
Steelman 1.89 5.2 9.83 1.3 2.46
Weyburn 2.12 ---7..:J!. 16.11 ~ 5.94
100 61. 32 100 49.87
Hence, avo S content of Canadian crude, based on:
- 1969 production 0.61 wt %
- reserves at 1/1/70 0.50 wt %
The S content of current production is higher than that of the estimated reserves because of
the relatively higher production/reserves ratios for Saskatchewan crudes (Steelman and Weyburn).
-------
A3- 13
APPENDIX 3
TABLE 5 (CONTINUED)
SULFUR CONTENT OF FOREIGN CRUDE OILS
. MEXICO
Field
Reserves
109 bb1s
-Z-
Wt 70 S
S Contribution
x 100
Arenque
Ebano-Panuco
Naranjos-Cerro Azul
Poza Rica
1.000
0.385
0.022
1.028
2.435
41.0
15.8
0.9
42.3
100
3.80
5.38
3.80
1. 70
3.16
155.8
85.0
3.4
~
316.1
. COLOMBIA
La Cira 0.065 0.49
Tibu 0.065 0.96
Putamayo 0.49 (OGJ, 2/8/71)
. PERU
Concessiones Lima 0.29 0.12
La Brea-parinas 0.50 0.12
. VENEZUELA
Bachaquero 2.74 2.41 2.62 63.14
Boscan 0.61 5.3 5.41 28.61
Cabimas 0.45 4.0 1.71 6.84
Lagunillas 3.12 27.6 2.54 70.10
Mene Grande 0.60 5.3 2.45 12.99
Oficina 0.57 5.0 0.61 3.05
Tia Juana 2.07 18.2 1. 52 27.66
Quirequire 0.79 7.0 1.33 9.31
Mara 0.40 ~ 2.00 7.00
11.35 100 2.29 228.76
. IRAN
Agha Jar i . 5.53 22.8 1.36 31.0
Ahwaz 8.56 35.4 1.66 58.8
Gach Saran 9.10 37.6 1.66 62.4
Haft Ke1 ...1.:.Q! ~ 1.12 --.!0-
24.20 100 1.57 156.9
I .
-------
A3-14
APPENDIX 3
TABLE 5 (CONTINUED)
SULFUR CONTENT OF FOREIGN CRUDE OILS
. IRAQ
Reserves S Contribution
Field 1O~ bb1s ....'L. Wt 70 S x 100
Kirkuk 10.57 1.97
. KUWAIT 68.00 2.53
. SAUDI ARABIA
Abqaiq 8.91 7.4 1.30 9.6
Dammam 5.00 4.2 1.54 6.5
Ghawar 69.60 58.0 1.66 96.3
Khursaniya 2.21 1.8 2.38 4.3
Qatif 8.74 7.3 2.57 18.8
Sa faniya 25.57 21.3 3.03 64.5
120.04 100 2.00 200.0
. NEAR EAST
Abu Dhabi 18.00 5.4 1.3 7.02
Bahrein 0.34 0.1 1.2 0.12
Duba i 1.00 0.3 1.3 0.39
Iran 55.0 16.4 1.57 25.75
Iraq 27.50 8.2 1.97 16.15
Israel neg1.
Kuwait 68.00 20.3 2.53 51.36
Muscat, Oman 5.00 1.5 1.5 2.25
Neutra 1 Zone 15.00 4.5 2.85 12.83
Qatar 5.50 1.6 1.35 2.16
Saudi Arabia 138.00 41.1 2.00 82.20
Syria 1.50 0.4 2.00 0.80
Turkey 0.65 0.2 2.00 0.40
335.50 100 2.01 201.43
Near East on 1970 production basis: 1. 9 5 wt 70 S.
-------
~
A3-15
APPENDIX 3
TABLE 5 (CONTINUED)
SULFUR CONTENT OF FOREIGN CRUDE OILS
. U.S.S.R.
Fie 1d
Reserves
109 bb1s
--.Z.-
Wt '/0 S
S Contribution
x 100
Romashkimo
Samot1or
Uzen
Tuizmazy
14.31
15.11
4.86
2.24
36.52
39.2
41.4
13.3
~
100
1.70*
0.60
0.20
1.50
1.03**
66.64
24.84
2.66
9.15
103 . 29
>'<
OGJ, 11/11/68.
Other data suggest that the average may be approx. 1.25 wt % S.
**
.
NORWAY
Ekofisk (North Sea)
0.16
. LIBYA
0.32
.
NIGERIA
0.18
(OGJ, 2/8/71)
. MISCELLANEOUS ("Sulfur in Crude Oils Around the World", OGJ, 11/11/68)
Country Field Wt % S
Iraq Qaiyarah 7.31
Indonesia Tarakan 0.13
Kalimantan 0.07
Seria 0.05
Neutral Zone Wa fra 3.12
Khafji 2.85
Gabon Manji 1.10
Libya Ze1ten 0.21
Brazil Bahia 0.04
Algeria Zarzaitine 0.05
Hassi Messaoud 0.16
Bolivia Camiri 0.02
Saudi Arabia Berri 1.18 (OGJ, 3/22/71)
-------
A3- 16
APPENDIX 3
TABLE 6
SULFUR CONTENT OF FOREIGN CRUDE OILS BY
GEOGRAPHICAL AREA
Reserves S Contribution
10~ bb1s ---X- Wt % S x 100
. ASIA/PACIFIC
Afghanistan 0.10 0.4 (0.50) 0.20
Australia 2.50 11.3 (0.20) 2.26
Brunei 0.65 2.9 0.05 0.15
Burma 0.20 0.9 0.20 0.18
India 0.72 3.2 (1. 00) 3.20
Indonesia 18.00 80.8 0.10 8.08
Japan 0.03 0.1 (0.10) 0.01
New Zealand 0.03 0.1 (0.10) 0.01
Pakistan 0.05 0.2 (0.50) 0.10
Pakistan 0.05 0.2 (0.50) 0.10
Taiwan 0.02 0.1 (0.20) 0.02
22.30 100 Q.JA .ML:2l
. EUROPE
Austria 0.18 1.8 (0.2) 0.36
France 0.15 1.5 (0.2) 0.30
Ita 1y 0.25 2.5 (1.5) 3.75
Netherlands 0.28 2.8 (0.2) 0.56
Norway 8.50 85.4 0.16 13 .66
Spa in 0.01 0.1 (0.5) 0.05
U.K. 0.01>'< 0.1 (0.2) 0.02
W. Germany 0.58 -H (0.3) ~
9.96 100 0.20 20.44
. NEAR EAST See Table 5
. CANADA See Table 5
. U.S. See Table 3
Note: Figures in parentheses are estimates.
* Does not include North Sea discoveries which, however, are expected
to be similar in S content to Norwegian reserves in same area.
-------
A3- 17
APPENDIX 3
TABLE 6 (CONTINUED)
SULFUR CONTENT OF FOREIGN CRUDE OILS BY
GEOGRAPHICAL AREA
Reserves S Contribution
109 bb1s -L Wt % S x 100
. AFRICA
Algeria 30.00 42.3 0.16 6.77
Angola 0.65 0.9 (0.2) 0.18
Egypt 5.00 7.1 (1. 0) 7.10
Gabon 0.50 0.7 (0.2) 0.14
Dahomey 0.02
Libya 29.20 41.2 0.3 12.36
Nigeria 5.00 7.1 0.18 1.28
Tunisia 0.50 ~ 0.2 0.14
70.87 100 0.28 27.98
. LATIN AMERICA
Argentina 4.00 13.1 (0.2) 2.62
Bolivia 0.25 0.8 0.02 0.02
Brazil 1.00 3.3 0.04 0.13
Ch ile 0.13 0.4 0.2 0.01
Colombia 1. 75 5.7 0.75 4.28
Ecuador 0.50 1.6 0.5 0.80
Mexico 8.00 2.62 3.16 82.79
Peru 0.27 0.9 0.1 0.09
Trinidad 0.60 2.0 2.0 4.0
Venezuela 14.00 46.0 2.0 92.00
30.50 100 1.87 186.7
. COMMUNIST BLOC
Albania 0.02 neg1.
Bulgaria 0.02 neg1.
Ch ina 19.60 25.9 (1.6) 41. 44
Czechoslovakia 0.01 neg1.
E. Germany 0.01 negl.
Hungary 0.05 0.1 (0.2) 0.02
Poland 0.02 neg1.
Romania 0.75 1.0 (0.2) 0.20
-- U.S.S.R. 55.00 72.7 (1.25)* 90.88
Yugoslavia 0.24 ~ ~ 0.06
75.72 100 1.33 132.6
* Export crude averages about 1. 5 wt 'Yo S.
-------
A3- 18
APP ENDIX 3
TABLE 7
WORLD SUMMARIES OF CRUDE OIL SULFUR CONTENT
. WORLD
Reserves Basis 1970 Production Basis
Reserves Average % of 1970 Average
109 bb1s
Area % Wt% S Production Wt% S
Near East 335.50 55.6 2.01 30.7 1.95
Asia/Pacific 22.30 3.7 0.14 3.0 0.14
Europe 9.96 1.7 0.20 0.8 0.20
Africa 70.87 11. 7 0.28 13.3 0.28
Canada 8.62 1.4 0.50 2.9 0.61
Latin America 30.50 5.1 1.87 11.3 1.87
U.S. 50.00 8.3 0.74 21.2 0.56
Com. Bloc 75.72 12.5 1.33 16.8 1.33
603.47 100 1.49 100 1.21
. FREE WORLD EX U.S.
477.75 79.2 1.59 62.0 1.40
. FREE WORLD
527.75 87.5 1.56 83.2 1.19
-------
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
A3- 19
APPENDIX 3
TABLE 8
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES TO SULFUR CONTENT OF PETROLEUM
Oil and Gas Journal, 9/6/71, page 108, "Literature on Sulfur Content of
World Crudes". The following references, all by W. L. Nelson, relate to
"Questions on Technology" that involve S content:
1.
"Sulfur Content of Oils Throughout the World," Feb. 3, 1967, p. 122.
2.
"Sulfur in Straight-run Residues (boiling above 700°F.)," Sept. 22,
1967, p. 108.
3.
"How much Sulfur in Straight-run Residuals," Oct. 23, 1967, p. 98.
4.
"Can Sulfur be Reduced by Visbreaking," Nov. 6, 1967, p. 96.
5.
"Sulfur Distribution in Extreme or Freak Crude Oils," Dec. 4, 1967, p. 92.
6.
"What is Composition of High-sulfur Resid," Hay 20, 1968, p. 89.
7.
"Sulfur in Crude Oils Around the World," Nov. 11, 1968, p. 96.*
8.
"Here's more on Effects of Composition and Sulfur on the Shape of Crude-
oil (distillation) Curves," Feb. 10, 1969, p. 79.
9.
"Stability, Sourness of Crude related to Mercaptans and Hydrogen Sulfide
(weight percentages for over 147 crude analyses)," May 19, 1969, p. 100.
10.
"Revised Sulfur and Sourness Penalties (for crude oil evaluations) June
2, 1969, p. 96.
11.
"How Different are (new) Sulfur Penalties," Nov. 24, 1969, p. 113.
12.
"Sulfur Content of (over 180) U.S. Crude Oils," Aug. 17, 1970, p. 78.
13.
"More on Sulfur Content of Crude Oils of the U.S.," Aug. 24, 1970, p. 65.
Petroleum Refiner, May 1957, pp. 257-260, "Domestic Crudes Contain Less
Sulfur; E.. M. Shelton, C. M. McKinney and O. C. Blade.
API preprint, 5/29/59, "Keys to the Mystery of Crude Oil"; H. M. Smith,
H. N. Dunning, H. T. RaIl and J. S. Ball.
*This reference is particularly useful.
-------
A3-20
APPENDIX 3
TABLE 9
WORLDWIDE RESERVES OF NATURAL GAS
. NEAR EAST Reserves in Million
Metric Tons*
Iran 4849
Saudi Arabia 1133
Kuwait 657
Iraq 431
Abu Dhabi 227
Qatar 227
Other 158
7682
. ASIA/PACIFIC
Afghanistan 116
Australia 286**
Brunei 113
Burma 2
India 45
Indonesia 52
Japan 14
New Zealand 11
Pakistan 454
Taiwan 20
1113
. CANADA 1305
. U.S. 6234
* Converted from cubic feet on the
SCF per metric ton.
** OGJ, 8/16/71, page 48, suggests a
MT).
Principal Source:
basis of 22.66 million
higher figure (313 million
1971 International Petroleum Encyclopedia.
-------
APPENDIX 3
TABLE 9 Continued
A3-2l
. EUROPE
Netherlands 1865
U.K. 793
w. Germany 270
France 163
Italy 143
Others 77
3311
. Africa
Algeria 2267
Libya 680
Nigeria 113
Egypt 113
Gabon 113
Others 59
3345
. LATIN AMERICA
Venezuela 613
Mexico 272
Argentina 199
Bolivia 113
Brazil 113
Trinidad 113
Peru 68
Colombia 68
Others 61
1620
. COMMUNIST BLOC
Yugoslavia 79
Albania 7
Bulgaria 23
China 82
Czechoslovakia 11
E. Germany 11
Hungary 156
Poland 7
Romania 136
U.S.S.R. 11985
12497
-------
A3- 22
APPENDIX 3
TABLE 10
WORLD SUMMARY OF NATURAL GAS RESERVES
Near East
Asia/Pacific
Europe
Africa
Canada
Latin America
V.S.
Com. Bloc.
Reserves in Billion
Metric Tons %
7.68 20.7
1.11 3.0
3.31 8.9
3.35 9.0
1. 31 3.5
1.62 4.4
6.23 16.8
12.50 33.7
37.11 100
30.88 83.2
24.61 66.3
18.38 49.5
. WORLD
. WORLD ex U.S.
. FREE WORLD
. FREE WORLD ex U. S .
-------
A3-23
APPENDIX 3
TABLE 11
SULFUR CONTENT OF WORLD NATURAL GAS RESERVES
Near East
Asia/Pacific
Europe
Africa
Canada
Latin America
U.S.
Com. Bloc.
Million Metric Tons
of Sulfur %
22.5 6.2
0.1 negl.
75.3 20.8
15.9 4.4
146.5 40.4
neg1. neg1.
25.4 7.0
76.8 21. 2
362.5 100
337.1 93.0
285.7 78.8
260.3 71. 8
. WORLD
. WORLD ex U.S.
.
FREE WORLD
.
FREE WORLD ex U.S.
World Average S Content of Natural Gas = 0.70 wt.%
-------
A3-24
APPENDIX 3
TABLE r2
SULFUR CONTENT OF NATURAL GAS
.
The S content of many W. Canadian gas fields is given on page 32 of "The Economics
of one Sulfur Industry"; Jared E. Hazleton, RFF, 1970.
.
Oil and Gas Journal, 3/29/71, page 92 presents information on gas treatment
plants to be constructed in the U.S.S.R., France, Austria, Italy, Kuwait, and
W. Germany. More details concerning Russian projects are given on page 121.
.
Canadian Petroleum, May 1971, page 24 lists recoverable reserves of sulfur
contained in U.S. Canadian natural gas:
Total
1000 Long
1969
123,769
21
2,722
126,512
Tons
1970
141,569
22
2 , 598
144,189
Alberta
Saskatchewan
British Columbia
.
Canadian Petroleum, June 1971, page 39 at seq. record the "9th Census of
Canadian Gas Processing Plants" which provides considerable information on
S recovery capacity.
.
Note that the following estimates give S content on a wt.% basis as discussed
in the text (rather than on a conventional mol % H2S basis).
Average wt.% S
Canadian reserves
Canadian 1970 production
USSR
Iran
U.S.
France
W. Germany
Netherlands
North Sea
Australia
Libya
11.1
10.3
0.64
0.315
0.15 (excluding Mississippi)
22.9 (OGJ, 10/19/70)
10.0
NIL
NIL
0.01
2
-------
A3-25
APPENDIX 3
TABLE 13
SULFUR CONTENT OF U.S. COAL
Average
106 BTD
per MT
Average
Wt% S
Wt% S
Carr. to
28.9 x 106 BTU
Reserves in 9
109 MT Corr. to 10 MT
28.9 x 106 BTU of S
. Eastern States
Illinois 28.9 3.5 3.5 123 4.31
W. Virginia 28.9 1.5 1.5 92 1. 38
Pennsylvania 28.5 2.3 2.3 72 1.66
Kentucky 28.9 2.4 2.4 61 1.46
Ohio 28.9 3.4 3.4 36 1.22
Indiana 28.9 2.8 2.8 28 0.78
Missouri 28.9 3.9 3.9 20 0.78
Kansas 28.9 3.4 3.4 14 0.48
Alabama 28.9 1.5 1.5 10 0.15
Texas 23.6 2.3 2.8 8 0.22
Virginia 28.9 0.9 0.9 8 0.07
Others 27.1 2.9 3.1 27 0.84
2.67 499 13.35
. Western States
N. Dakota
Montana
Wyoming
Colorado
New Mexico
Utah
14.8
18.3
22.0
27.4
21. 7
28.9
0.4
0.7
0.8
0.4
0.7
1.3
. Alaska
22.1
0.7
0.78 163 1. 27
1.10 127 1.40
1.05 81 0.85
0.42 69 0.29
0.93 41 0.38
1.30 27 0.35
0.89 508 4.54
0.92 89 0.82
1.71 1096 18.71
. U.S. Total
Source:
Calculations based on page 43 et seq. of "The Economy, Energy, and
the Environment," GPO, 9/1/70.
-------
A3-26
APPENDIX 3
TABLE 14
SULFUR CONTENT OF FOREIGN COAL
.
U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin No. 512, "Analysis of Foreign Coals", R. E. Morgan
and J. F. Barkley, present S content and other data from which it is possible
to calculate the following average S contents:
wt.% S wt.% S
Australia 0.60 Belgium 0.55
New Zealand 2.33 France 0.83
South Africa 1.40 Germany 0.88
India 0.57 Greece 2.33
Indonesia 0.60 Ireland 1. 53
Indo China 0.50 Italy 0.95
Japan 0.94 Netherlands 1. 33
Malaysia 0.38 Sardinia 8.2
N. Korea 0.73 Spain 1.21
Pakistan 5.5 U.K. 1.14
Philippines 1.00
Canada 0.68 Bulgaria 2.20
Czechos lovahia 1.60
Argentina 0.90 Romania 0.65
Brazil 4.60 U.S.S.R. 1.10
Chile 1. 46 China 0.78
Mexico 0.46
-------
A3-27
APPENDIX 3
TABLE 15
WORLDWIDE SULFUR CONTENT OF COAL
Average S Content
wt.%
Billion MT of S
in Reserves
W. Europe
Canada
Japan
Latin America
Africa
Asia/Pacific (excl. Japan)
Free World ex U.S.
0.98
0.68
0.94
1.96
1.40
0.59
0.93
4.77
0.61
0.15
0.06
2.89
0.70
9.18
E. Europe
U.S.S.R.
Communist Asia
Communist Bloc.
0.91
1.10
0.78
0.95
3.35
13.20
7.94
24.59
U.s.
U.S.
1. 71*
1.56
18.71*
18.71
World
1.12
55.77
*Corrected for heat content to 28.9 x 106 BTU/MT. When the foreign coals
are similarly corrected for heat content. their calculated S content becomes:
wt.% S
(corrected)
1.00
1. 37
1.71
1.46
Free World ex U.S.
Communist Bloc.
U.S. (see above)
World
-------
APPENDIX 4
SULFUR SUPPLY FORECAST
A.4.l.
Frasch Sulfur
The U.S. Frasch sulfur industry has produced about 210 million
LT of sulfur since its beginning in 1891f. About 58 million LT came from
domes that are now shut down and, for the most part, depleted. The balance
of the production came from domes that are still in operation. Details
are given in Tables 1 and 2.
In recent years, U.S. Frasch production has been of the order of
7 million LT/yr. The question arises as to how long this rate of production
could be maintained before remaining reserves would be exhausted. Hmvever,
production has declined sorneIYhat in vie!. of grmving supplies of recovered
sulfur. In consequence, it is reasonable to examine the reserves question
on the basis of (long range average) annual production of 6 million LT/yr.
or less. This is not a production forecast for U.S. ~rasch sulfur, rather
it is a way of calculating what a reasonable upper level of production may
be.
In Table 3 it is estimated that remaining reserves exceed 200
million LT in currently worked deposits. This quantity should be sufficient
for maintenance of significant production until close to the end of the fore-
cast period (2020). Additional, but much smaller, reserves are potentially
available in some of the shut dO\vn domes (e.g. Caminada). However, such domes
would be reactivated only at pric2 levels appreciably higher than are likely
for some time. Nevertheless, the reserves in these "high cost" domes, when
added to the estimated 210 million LT in currently \vorked deposits, make it
reasonable to assume continuing potential availability of Frasch sulfur.
Ac~ual availability will depend on whether the Frasch producers are able to
obtain economic returns for their product.
Much the same picture emerges for Mexican Frasch sulfur when reserves
are compared \vith reasonable production levels.
It is entirely possible that additional deposits of sulfur exist in
offshore sa It domes. However, production from such domes (if they exist)
would surely be more expensive than from the currently worked deposits. Hence,
no offshore exploration for additional U.S. deposits of sulfur is likely with-
out substantia 1 increases in sulfur prices. In addition, the latter may be
a moving target since certain costs (e.g. labor, fuel) of Frasch production
are bound to increase with time. In consequence, the price required to induce
~, offshore production of Frasch sulfur will increase with time.
-------
A4-2
A .4.2.
Petroleum
A state by state listing of petroleum refining capacity is
given in Table 4. Note is taken of crude oil charging capacity as well
as hydrotreating and alkylation plants (that represent sources of sulfur
supply and demand respectively).
More than 60 plants recover elemental S from refinery gas
(i.e., streams containing H2S,) However, not all of the S values from
petroleum refining are recovered in elemental form. There are at least
17 plants that product sulfuric acid from refinery HZS streams. In
addition, there are 34 plants that product fresh acid from acid sludge
or spent acid (most of which is obtained from petroleum refining operations,
particularlyaklylation). Fifteen out of eighteen plants that make acid
from HZS also burn sludge (i.e., these 15 plants are included in the
total of 34). This will be discussed further.
Manufacture of acid from sludge may be considered as a re-
cycle operation that does not contribute to the net supply of sulfur.
On the other hand, recovery of either acid or elemental S from H2S
does contribute to net supply.
A regionalized, state by state, listing of refinery gas sulfur
plants is given in Table? The capacity statistics are summarized in
Table 6. It is worth noting that chemical companies operated 11 of
the recovery plants having a combined capacity amounting to 28% of the
total.
Although capacity totals 1.5 million LT, actual recovery in
1970 was approximately 0.9 million LT. Capacity will increase appreciably
during the next few years lli1d its % utilization may increase also. The
biggest increases are likely to occur in California, Texas, N.J., Delaware
and Illinois.
There are 7 states for which hydrotreating capacity is reported
but without any S recovery capacity being shown in Table 6:
% of Total U.S.
State MB/sD Hydrotreating Capacity
W. Va. 4.0 0.1
Wis.. 9.2 0.2
Ala. 5.5 0.1
N.D. 9.0 0.2
Wash. 100.2 2.3
Utah 14.0 0.3
Okla. 82.5 1.9
224.4 5.1
-------
A4-3
However, H2S from Hashington' s Anacortes refinery is converted
to sulfuric acid rather than being recovered as elemental S. Further-
more, North Dakota's Handan refinery uses hydrogen to saturate olefins
rather than for desulfurization, and the same is true for part of the
hydro capacity shOlYn for. Utah. When these cases are taken into account,
the above list shrinks as follows:
State MB/SD % of Total
W. Va. 4.0 0.1
Wis. 9.2 0.2
Ala. 5.5 0.1
Utah 8.5 0.2
Okla. .82.5 1.9
109.7 2.5
70% of the 109.7 MB/SD is for hydrotreating of cat. reformer feed and
other naphthas. The other 30% of the hydrotreating capacity is entirely
for distillates, including lube oil "polishing" (to improve color).
None of these operations would generate quantities of H2S that, if
recovered as elemental S, would add significantly to U.S. supplies of
sulfur. Considering both the nature of the hydrofining operations and
the capacity involved, it is estimated that a maximum of 7,000 LT/yr*,
of S is not being recovered from the pertinent hydrofiner tail gases.
However, there are also other individual refineries in states \vhich do
have S recovery plants that use distillate hydrotreating but have not
yet arranged for tail gas treatment. In total, it is possible that a
maximum of 15,000 LT/yr. of S is not being recovered fro:n hydrofiner
tail gases in all U.S. refineries.**
Recognizing that lack of S recovery (associated with hydro-
fining capacity) could cause air pollution in individual cases, it is
also clear that complete recovery would result in a negligible increase
in total U.S. sulfur supplies. From the latter standpoint, the major
factor will be the expansion of petroleum desulfurization capacity
that, without future exception. will be tied-in either with (elemental)
S recovery plants or with utilization of H2S or S02 streams to produce
sulfuric acid.
*
In 1970 actual recovery of elemental S from refinery gases was about
900,000 LT. The 7,000 LT esti.mate is obtained by multiplying the
actual recovery first by 2.5% and then by a factor of 0.3 to adjust
for the type of hydrofining involved.
'ide
A much larger -quantity of S in the form of SOx is emitted from petroleum
refineries, and comes from the combustion of the fuel used to generate
process heat. This, howeve r, is not the point at issue.
-------
A4-4
In the future, expansion of petroleum refining capacity is
expected to follrnv trends in population growth while retaining the
basic geographical pattel~ already established. The latter is influenced
by logistics, in particular by the location of domestic crude oil
resources and by the major points of entry of imported petroleum (by
pipeline and tanker). Accordingly, the population distribution pro-
jections in Table 7 were used to normalize the projected distribution
of refining capacity in Table 8. The latter was then used in con-
junction with the projections of sulfur in the U. S. petroleum supply
(Table 9) to obtain regionalized estimates of sulfur recovery from
domestic refineries (Table 10). In further calculations, a simplifying
assumption was made that sulfur recovery from refineries will be entirely in
the form of elemental S. In practice, recovery as acid will continue
but is very unlikely to ShOH the growth expected for elemental S. When
H2S is available in large amounts (from hydrodesulfurization) it will
generally be more convenient to convert all of it to elemental S rather
than part to acid and part to elemental S. Local outlet for acid would,
of course, place an upper limit on production of acid thereby preventing
conversion of all of the S values recovered in (most) individual refineries
to acid.
As noted in the second paragraph of this section, 34 acid plants
use sludge or spent acid as feed, and 15 of these plants also feed H2S,
Seven of these combined operations are integral parts of petroleum refineries.
Most of the others are operated by chemical companies, e.g., Stauffer, as
a service to petroleum refineries.
Details of the plants m1d their locations are given in Table 11.
The plant capacities are not good indicators of neH acid supply in that
spent acid recovery is essentially a recycle operation. Even where HZS
is fed, most of the plants also feed elemental S, thereby obscuring the
acid capacity that is directly associated with recovered H2S, However,
it is estimated that, in 1970, approximately 200,000 LT of S in the fonn
of acid were recovered from refinery streams. Thus, the toal recovery
from petroleum refining was about 1.1 million LT of S equivalent.
-------
A4-5
A.4.3
Natural Gas
A.4.3.1
U,S. Natural Gas
Of the approximately 60 plants that recover elemental S from
sour natural gas, 40 are in Texas. These plants represent 80% of current
U.S. capacity of about 1.1 million LT/yr. In 1970, actual recovery is
estimated to have been 0.66 million LT. However, a very significant
addition to capacity, 0.4 million LT/yr., is soon to be brou~1t on stream
at Jackson, Miss. This Shell plant may be doubled in size
before 1980. Thlm, there will be a substantial change to the capacity
summarized in Table 12
An even greater boost to supply
conversion comes to commercial fruition.
Regions No.4 and 10 of the Sulfur Model,
E.N. Central and Hountain States.
will occur when coal-to-gas
This is likely to occur in
covering respectively the
For the purpose of the computer calculations, it has been
assumed that the incremental demand for gas after 1985 will be satisfied
by coal conversion. It is recognized that some sulfur will be recovered
from coal gasification before 1985. Hmvever, it is not expected that
such recovery will have a significant impact on total U.S. sulfur supplies
until after 1985. These projections are included in Table 13 .
The jump in recovery in Region No. 11 between 1970 and 1975
is due to the inclusion of new Mississippi production. Because
of its proximity to the Gulf coast (and to petrochemical demand in
Louisiana), new production from the Florida/Alabama panhandle is also
included in Region No. 11.
It is possible that domestic' natural gas production will begin
a slow rate of decline before 1985: However, this would not necessarily mean
that sulfur recovery would decline. If certain "tight" gas reservoirs
are stimulated with nuclear explosives, it is probable that S recovery
would increase as a percentage of gas processed. Last year. S reCOVf>rf.>rl
from natural gas was equivalent to about 7% of the total U.S. demand for
S in all forms. By 1975 the percentage should approximate 10, and may
reach 12% by 1980 due to the Hississippi gas. Before 1985, hmvever,
increased S demand is not likely to be matched by increased supplies
from natural gas, i.e., the % contribution to total U.S. supply is expected
to decline.
-------
A4-6
Although the sulfur. expected to be recovered from gasified coal
looms large in the later time periods in Table 13, it must be considered
that sulfur is likely to be recovered whether the coal is burned as a
solid or is first converted into a gaseous (or liquid) form. Only a
third of current gas demand is accounted for by the Residential and
Commercial Sector; almost two thirds is consumed by Industry and Electric
Utilities. Thus, sulfur recovery from coal will be influenced primarily
by total energy demand in absolute terms and by how much of this demand
is supplied by coal. The form in which coal is used \o1ill be of lesser
importance to estimates of future S supply. Nevertheless, it is recognized
that coal gasifica.tion would lead to recovery of elemental S .7hile direct
combustion of coal might yield elemental S, acid, or a throwaway by-
product. In spite of this, the direct burning capacity already in place,
together with what will be installed up till the time that coal conversion
becomes a commercial reali ty, mean that the Model is not very sensitive to
coal gasification assumptions until after the year 2000.
Projections of the combined recovery of elemental S from
petroleum, natural and synthetic gas are given in Table 14.
A.4.3.2
Canadian Natural Gas
The recovery of elemental sulfur from sour natural gas in
Western Canada is generally regarded as the single most important factor
in the current surplus of sulfur supply over demand.
Details of the W. Canadian S recovery plants are given in Table
15, which also includes capacity that is expected to come on stream during
1971.
It should be pointed out that the plant cost refers to all
facilities. for gathering, dehydration, and fractionation of natural gas
liquids, as well as separation of H2S and recovery of elemental S. On
the average, the capital invested for S removal and recovery would approxi-
mate $3/LT amortized over a 20 year period. Operating costs, in the larger
S recovery plants, are believed to be less than $2/LT of S recovered.
Thus, the out of pocket cost for sulfur recovery in W. Canada is believed
to average less than $5/LT. This figure does not include a return on in-
vestment since the current purpose of the plants is not to recover sul-
fur but to make natural gas saleable.
Another way of looking at the economics of S recovery
to charge the cost of separating "2S to the natural gas, and to
the Claus conversion of H2S to elemental S to the latter. This
also leads to costs of about $5/LT after allowing for an R.O.I.
Claus conversion.
would be
charge
approach
on the
Ex plant prices for elemental S as low as $6/LT have been re-
ported. Currently, however, the price quoted for delivery to the U.S.
is about $9/LT. The implication is that export prices, for other
than U.S. destinations, are somewhat lower.
-------
A4-7
Although it would appear that the net-back for W. Canadian sul-
fur is adequately covering production costs, it must be recognized that
only a fraction of total production is being sold and the remainder is
being stockpiled. It is very difficult to assign a value to stockpiled S
since it may be an appreciable time before the Canadian inventory can be
sold. Thus, it may be that sulfur recovery currently represents a small
charge against the production of natural gas.*
It is of interest to review the sour gas projects that are
expected to be completed this year:
MM CFD Sulfur Capacity
Location Raw Gas Product Gas LT/D
Ram River 220 150 2032
Lone Pine Creek 30 22 130
Kaybob South 445 284 2850
Strachan 250 201 840
Quirk Creek 90 68 240
Redwater 7 5 7
With the exception of the small Redwater plant, the new capacity is in-
tended to handle very sour gas. Furthermore, two of the plants are the
largest in Canada except for Shell's Waterton facility. Thus, it
appears that the price now obtainable for natural gas is sufficient to
offset the cost of sulfur removal, even though the raw gas from Kaybob
South has a sulfur content of about 20 mol. % and that from Ram River
about 30 mol. %.
-----
* The theoretical alternative of separating H2S and reinjecting it
into the producing formation (instead of recovering S by the Claus
process) is not considered attractive since the concentration of
H S in the gas produced would gradually intrease.
2
-------
A4-8
It is of interest to examine the total processing costs of
Canadian sour gas in order to obtain an idea of the way in which cost
varies with HZS content, plant size, etc. In this way, it is possible
to estimate the,total cost of ilZS removal and S recovery as a hypothetical
charge against the treated gas product. Data are presented in Table 16
and may be summarized:
(A) (B) (C)
Mol.%HZS 10 ZO 35
Costs, cents/MCF of Product Gas
- Gathering System 3.0 3.6 5.7
- HZS Removal + S Recovery 6.1 11.0 Z6.8
- Total Cost* 9.1 14.6 3Z.5
-----
* Including 10%/yr straight line depreciation, but excluding R.O.I.
Last October, the Federal Power Commission authorized the Tennessee
Gas Pipeline Company to import Canadian natural gas, paying Trans-Canada
Pipelines Ltd. 4Z~/MCF. The price received by Canadian gas producers would,
of course, be significantly less than 4Z~/MCF*. On this basis:--the total
cost of 36.5~/MCF for production of saleable gas from 35 mol.% HZS gas
raises the question of the economic feasibility of Case (C). If a sulfur
credit of $6/LT or more is assumed, the net cost of gas production would
fall to 15.9~/MCF or less. On the other hand, if only part of the sulfur
recovered could be sold, such that the effective sulfur credit were to be
only $3/LT, then the gas cost would be Z4.Z~/MCF. The latter figure would
not provide an adequate return on the operation. Nevertheless, gas with
HZS contents of 35 mol.% and even higher are being produced. In fact, the
Ram River project, to be completed this year, is essentially in this category.
A partial explanation follows from Tablel7 which indicates the
effect of plant size. The 50 MMCFD raw gas capacity chosen for the
calculations in Table 7 is small compared with the average size of 163 MMCFD
for the 44 plants listed in Table 6. Only, 10 of the plants in this table
had capacities of 50 MMCFD or less. Together, these plants amounted toonly
3.8% of the industry's estimated capacity at the end of the year.
What is happening now is that very sour gas is tending to be
processed in very large plants. The cost of the sulfur recovery step
(Claus process or equivalent) is easily covered by the effective sulfur
credit (i.e. the credit for sulfur actually sold). Other processing costs,
for gathering and HZS separation, are being charged against the treated
gas produced. Such costs \oJill vary greatly, but for large plants will be
much less than the l5.9~/MCF or 24.Z~/MCF cited above.
"'88.:'!IIIw--
*It is believed to be slightly above ZO<:/MCF.
-------
A4-9
At the end of 1970 the cumulative production of elemental S
in Western Canada was 22.7 million LT. At the same time, the S recoverable
from remaining proved reserves of sour gas was estimated to be 144.2 million
LT.* This is equivalent to about 35 years production at the 1970 rate of
4.1 million LT. However, Canadian gas production is rising and, by 1980,
will probably be double the rate last year. During this period S recovery
will be roughly proportional to total gas production. Hence, by 1980 annual
S recovery in W. Canada is likely to approximate 8 million LT. The
build up of Western Canadian S recovery capacity is recorded in Table 18
ConEideration of the reserves of sour gas, and of the fact that very large
discoveries of sweet gas have been made in the Canadian arctic, lead to the
conclusion that sulfur production will peak about 1980 and will be
declining by 1985.
- - - - - -
* An increase of 17.7 million LT over the proved reserves at the end of 1969.
-------
A4- 10
A4 4.
Smelters and Other Sources
A 4.4.1
U. S. Smelters
The former National Air Pollution Control Administration estimated
that) without abatement, U.S, smelters could generate sulfur values on the
following schedule:
Sulfur Equivalent
106ST 106 LT
1970 4.0 3.6
1980 5.3 3.7
1990 7.1 6.3
2000 9.6 8.6
The above schedule is equivalent to the following compound annual growth
rates:
% Per Year
1970-1980
1980-1990
1990-2000
1970-2000
2.9
3.0
3.1
3.0
Somewhat more recent estimates, based on a study by Arthur G.
HcKee and Co. and supplemented with Bureau of Hines data and monthly pro-
duction statistics reported by the Department of Commerce*, suggest that
the total quantity of S values generated by Cu/Pb/Zn smelters approximated
3.2 million LT in 1970. If the latter quantity is taken as a base and
projected to grow at an average rate of 3%/year to the year 2000, 2.5%/year
to 2010, and 2.0%/year to 2020, the following S potential results (million
LT of S equivalents):
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
2000
2010
2020
3.2
3.7
4.2
4.9
5.7
7.7
9.8
12.1
-----
* ''Environme:ntal Science and Technology", July 1970.
U. S. Bureau of Mines ''Minerals Handbook".
U. S. Dept. of Commerce "Survey of Current Business".
-------
A4- 11
The overall % recovery approximated 37% last year) i.e.
1.1-1.2 million LT of S values were recovered from U.S, smelters
Because of air pollution control regulations, recovery is expected
to reach about 85% in 1975 (when control systems will be almost, but
not completely) installed) and 90% by 1980. The latter level is
expected to be maintained in subsequent years. On this basis, the
quantity of S recovered would be:
1970
1. 1-1. 2
1975
3.1
1980
3.8
1985
4.4
'1990
5.1
2000
6.9
2010
8.8
2020
10.8
It is probable that only a part of the recovery will be in useful form.
The remainder, particularly from Western copper smelters, is likely to
be in the form of waste gypsum and, perhaps, sodium su1fate.* For.the
purpose of discussion, it will be assumed, arbitrarily, that 40% of incre-
mental recovery (over 1970 levels) will be in useful form. These projections
are summarized in Table 19.
The projections may also be made, separately, for copper, lead
and zinc. The primary production of these metals is expected to have the
grmvth rates shown in Table 20. The latter were used to derive the esti-
mates of recovered S values shown in Table 21. In aggregate, the totals
are similar to those in Table 19 However, the advantage of the separate
estimates for copper, lead and zinc smelters is that the figures may be
regionalized for the purpose of incorporation into regional supply/demand
balances
A listing of U.S. sulfuric acid plants that utilize smelter
gases is given in Table ~. The total capacity of 6.33 million ST/yr. of
acid is equivalent to 1. 85 million LT/yr. of elemental S, and may be
compared \o,Tith an estimated recovery of 1.1 - 1. 2 million LT or S equivalent
from smelters in 1970. A number of the plants listed use elemental S as
well as smelter gases.
-..----
~'r
"The Impact of Air Pollution on the Copper Industry", Fluor-Utah,
April 1971
-------
A4- 12
The information in the preceding tables was used to project
quantities of S that will be generated by all types of U.S. smelters. These
projections) regionalized for the computer model, are given in Table 23,
The figures refer only to generation of S values not to amounts that may
be recovered.
Theoretically, S values from smelters may be recovered as
ammonium sulfate, elemental S, waste gypsum, sulfuric acid etc. In
general, recove rj as acid is probab 1e provided that local outlet is
available. In fact, markets for acid are likely to be developed over
a period of years (as has occured in the area supplied by the
Tennessee Corporation). The time needed for market development has been
factored into the projections made in Table 24. As shown in the footnotes,
what, in effect, has been projected i.s the minimum percentage of regional
S demand that Hill be supplied in elemental form. The figures in the
Table are estimates of maximum possible penetration of regional markets
with acid at different times in the future. Actual penetration may be
appreciably below the figures shown.
A.4.4.2
Canadian Smelters
A study by the Canadian National Advisory Committee on Mining and
Metallurgical Research, has estimated that Canadian Smelting operations
generated about 2.75 million tons of S va lues in 1969. Approximate ly 0.55
million tons of this total was recovered, almost entirely in the form of
acid.
The study covered 77 mine and meta llurgica 1 sites across Canada:
Yukon 3 Ont. 24
N.W.T. 4 Que. 14
B.C. 13 N.B. 2
Alta 4 N.S. 2
Sask. 4 Nfd. & Lab. 5
Nan. 2
The above includes metallurgical operations of all kinds.
95% of the SOx emissions are from copper and nickel smelters.
However,
Air pollution control regulations will require a progressive reduc-
tion in the percentage of SOx emitted from smelters up to a level of 90% in
1979.
Some smelting operations will switch from pyrometallurgy to hydro-
metallurgy in new plants. Once consequence of this switch will be that S
values Hill be recovered in the form of ammonium sulfate. However, this
change is not likely to be applied at existing smelters.
There are plans for significant increases in production of s~lfuric
acid. However, the ability of markets (reachable at economic transportation
cost) to absorb incremental acid production is recognized to be limited. In
consequence, some smelters will recover elemental sulfur while others may go
to neutra lization with lime (particularly for more dilute S02 streams).
The above and certain other information was used to make the
projections in Table 25.
-------
A4- 13
A.4.5
Total U.S. Supplies
The projections of U.S. sulfur supplies, on a regionalized basis,
are considered first in terms of the sum of what is expected to be avail-
able before abatement S and Frasch S are taken into account. Table 26.
indicates that the total supply from natural gas, coal gasification, petro-
leum desulfurization, smelters, etc. is expected to be:
1975
1985
2000
2020
Million LT
4.8
7.8
14.7
30.1
When various degrees of recovery of abatement sulfur in useful
form are added, the effect on regional sulfur supply is shown in Tables
27-33. The top portion of each table has a column headed "Regional Supply,"
with a footnote that this is before inclusion of abatement S in useful
form and Frasch S (in Re~ion No. 11). Five different guantities of abate-
ment S in useful form are shown in the remaining columns in the top part of
each table. The effect on total regional supply, excluding Frasch S, is
shown in the bottom half of each table.
The assumptions underlying the quantities of abatement 8 in use-
ful form are indicated in Table 34. Column (a) in this table makes the
assumption that 1970 levels of 80 emissions would be maintained in terms
of the total quantity emitted. I~ will be appreciated that this would
represent a decrease in the average concentration of SOx emitted from sta-
tionary sources (assuming that the quantity of coal burned by electric utili-
ties increases). Thus, "nil" in sub-column "R" is equivalent to assuming
that only the increment in 80 emissions over 1970 levels will be abated.
The other figures in sub-colu~n "R", e.g., -20, signify the % reduction of
total 80 emitted from 1970 levels.
x
. For a given quantity of abatement 8 in useful form, it is appar-
ent that the percentage recovered in useful form must decrease as the
level of recovery increases. For example, in 1975, Case (2), 0.55 million
LT of 8 in useful form could be recovered at 1970 emission levels with 50%
in useful form or with a 40% reduction from 1970 levels with only 10% in
useful form. As time progresses, the increment in potential 80x emissions
over 1970 levels becomes larger in proportion to the 1970 level itself.
This means that percentage reduction below 1970 levels has a relatively
lesser effect on the quantity of abatement 8 recovered (in any form). How-
ever, the percentage recovered in useful form has an increasingly impor-
tant effect on total supplies of sulfur.
In Table 35 the same assumptions concerning abatement control are
translated on the basis of the average sulfur content of utility coal that
would be needed to achieve the equivalent levels of 80 emissions without
any sulfur recovery systems. .Although these average s~lfur content figures
are hypothetical, they are not without meaning. With a knowledge of the
na~ura1 sulfur contents of U.S. coals (Appendix 3), it is at once apparent
that the higher levels of control of SO emissions, particularly in later
years, are not possible without abateme~t systems or coal pre-treatment
processes that would lower 8 cont2nt appreciably. For example, without
-------
A4-14
these alternatives (i.e., abatement system or coal pre-treatment),
coal would have to have an average S content of about 1.06 wt % in
year 2000--less than half the average S content of today's utility
utility
the
coal.
A.4.6
u.s. Regionalized Supply/Demand Balances
Demand projections are discussed in Appendix 5. However, the
results of these projections are summarized in Tables 36-42, in the left-
hand column of each table, so that the "balance" or net regional demand
may be calculated in conjunction with the regionalized supply projections
given in Tables 27-33.
The top part of each table is concerned with the base cases of
demand. The lower part or parts indicate the effects of "parametric demand
increases" on the regional balances. For 1975, "parametric demand" is
limited to the possibility of a 5% increase over the base case. Both 5%
and 10% increases are considered for 1980, 1985, 1990 and 2000; 10% and 15%
increases are examined for 2010; while 15% and 30% increases are included
as possibilities for. the year 2020.
The "parametric demand" cases simulate ne~v uses for sulfur. How-
ever, they may also be considered as representing more expansive estimates
of sulfur demand for existing uses. In either case, the possible differen-
tial would increase with time. Clearly, there is no chance of demand in
1975 being 30% higher than has been estimated, whereas such a possibility
is conceivable for the year 2020. On the other hand, there is also a pos-
sibility that sulfur demand might develop more slowly than has been pro-
jected, in spite of the relatively low prices that are expected for many
years. Under these circumstances, the viable outlet for abatement S in
useful form would be reduced.
-------
A4-l5
A.4.7
Foreign Supply Forecast
Projections of sulfur supplies from the "Free World ex U.S."
are given in Table 43 on a geographical basis, and in Table 44 on a
source basis. Some of the projections for Canada (in A.4.3.2 and
A.4.4.2) are included in these summaries for the sake of completeness.
Hexican
roles in deciding
reasonably stable
in later years.
and Iraqi Frasch sulfur, which may well play important
whether sulfur markets in the next few years are
or chaotic. are expected to be of declining importance
Recovery of sulfur from sour natural
about 1985. At the turn of the century, it is
factor in world supplies.
gas is expected to peak
not expected to be a major
In 1970, recovery of sulfur from petroleum outside the U.S.
approximated one million tons. The recovery level is projected to in-
crease steadily until, by 1990, petroleum becomes the principal source
of sulfur supply outside the U.S.
Recovery of 5 values from smelter gas and pyrite roaating is
projected to increase slowly on balance, but with considerable differ-
ences in the pattern of supply from one geographic area to another.
"Other" sulfur supply refers to ammonium sulfate and many other
sulfur-containing by-products that are produced on a relatively small
scale. Overall, the level of such production is expected to increase
slowly, mostly as a consequence of industrial development in the
"developing countries": Latin America, Africa and Asia.
A.4.8
Foreign Supply/Demand Balances
Projections of demand/supply balances for the "Free World ex.
U.S." are given in Table 45. These are net internal balances without
taking trade with the U.S. and Communist countries into account. It will
be seen that all of the "developing" areas, the Middle East/Far East
(excluding Japan), Africa, and Latin America are projected to have grow-
ing net demands for sulfur. Much of the expanding demand will relate to P
fertilizers while, on the supply side, proportionately less 5 will be
recovered from fossil fuels (because of relatively lower energy demand).
Derivation of the demand projections is discussed in Appendix 5.
Western Europe is projected to stay in a net demand position
partly because of a healthy growth in industrial demand and partly be-
cau~ of access to North Sea and Netherlands gas and oil (which are of
low 5 content). In the long run. W. Europe is expected to satisfy in-
cremental industrial energy demand with nuclear power in order to de-
crease dependence on petroleum imports.
-------
A4-16
Japan has less access to natural gas than W. Europe, and im-
ported LNG will be more expensive than Netherlands or North Sea gas.
Although prospects for oil discoveries in Indonesia and the South China
Sea appear good, the relationship of such oil to Japan will not be the
same as that of North Sea oil to European countries. Furthermore, the
industrializable land areas of Japan are small and will require a more
rapid installation of pollution controls than in W. Europe. In con-
sequence, Japan, which already has moved into sulfur surplus, is expected
to stay in a surplus position. Japan may be expected to export sulfur
to Pacific countries including Australia.
Although Canadian production of sulfur from sour gas is expected
to peak soon after 1980, the country is expected to have a continuing
surplus of production over domestic demand. In the later years of the
forecast, smelters are projected to contribute much of the surplus. Re-
covery of elemental S from Canadian smelters is expected.
D/S balances for Communist countries are projected in Table 46,
together with net exports from the Bloc. A surplus position is expected
at least through 1990 because of growing exploitation of Polish deposits
and also recovery of S from sour gas in the Orenburg area of the U.S.S.R.
The surplus is expected to force a gradual curtailment of pyrite roasting.
Longer range, and dependent upon the construction of a mammoth pipeline
network, the U.S.S.R. will utilize sweet arctic gas. This is a principal
reason for the projected reversal of the D/S balance between 1990 and
2000. At first, the net demand could be filled from S stockpiled over
the next 20 years. Eventually, however, the net demand projected for
2010 and 2020 might be met by a re-expansion of pyrite roasting, by re-
covery of S from coal, and/or by switching P fertilizer manufacture to
nitrophosphate processes. The net demand projected in Table 46 stems
from using the same oasis as that for the other countries. In practice,
however, it seem more likely that the Bloc countries will withdraw from
export markets before the turn of the century and will then fill their
own demand from higher cost indigenous sources rather than becoming major
importers of S from the U.S.
Table 47 draws on the previous projections in order to obtain
the quantities of foreign supply and demand that are used in the comp~ter
calculations. These are the foreign components that affect the U.S.
balance and prices. The computer model uses the following names:
Calgary
Sudbury
Coatzacoalcos
Aruba
=
W. Canadian elemental S
E. Canadian sulfuric acid
Mexican Frasch S
Caribbean recovered S
=
-------
A4-17
The bottom line of Table 45, after correction for imports from
the Communist Bloc (bottom of Table 46), shows a net surplus until 1990
but a net deficit subsequently. The implication is that the U.S. can
become a substantial net exporter again in these subsequent years.
Availability of U.S. sulfur for export will depend to a considerable
degree on the way in which recovery of abatement S evolves. For example,
the existence of a national stockpile of S would make substantial exports
more likely. In contrast, if effective technology for recovery in
elemental form is not developed, export potential would be lower. In
consequence, a resurgence of pyrite roasting and nitrophosphate process-
ing would be expected in potential export markets. However, as long as
exported S can be delivered at prices less than $35-40/LT in N. Europe,
there is little likelihood of re-expansion of pyrite roasting in N.
Europe.
It should also be pointed out that the projections beyond the
year 2000 become increasingly sensitive to assumptions made about the
extent to which nuclear power will replace fossil fuels both for elec-
tricity generation and for industrial process heat. If nuclear power
develops very rapidly outside the U.S., the pinch in S supply would
occur sooner than projected in Table 45. For the later years of the fore-
cast. the size of the projected net demand is less important than the
projection of the reversal of D/S balance around the year 1990. This is
because the reversal implies steadily strengthening values for recovered
S up to the cost of either the next supply source (e.g., pyrite) or alter-
native of meeting demand (e.g., nitrophosphates). Thus, the projected
reversal implies that recovered S will move up to a delivered value of
about $35/LT in the 1990's. Subtraction of the delivery cost, e.g.,
from an Illinois Waterway stockpile to Rotterdam, amounting to just over
$lO/LT on a constant dollar basis, suggests that the net-back to a well-
located electric utility may be in the range of $20-25/LT (in the 1990's)
versus about $12-13/LT for the same hypothetical transaction today.
-------
. Closed Domes
Company
Union
Baker Williams
Allied Chemical
Phelan Sulphur
Standard Sulphur
Mecom
U.S. Sulphur
Duval (1)
Jefferson Lake (2)
Hooker Chemical (2)
Freeport
Texas Gulf
'<
less than 100,000 LT
A4- 18
APPENDIX 4
Table 1
U.S. (Frasch) Sulfur Domes
Dome
Sulfur Mine, La.
Big Creek
Bo ling Dome
Bo ling Dome
Sulfur Mine, La.
Nash
DB man
Chacahou1a
High Island
pa 1angana
Bo 1 ing Dome
Orchard Dome
Ft. Stockton-1<*
Lake Peigneur
Clemens Dome
Long Point
Starks Dome
Bryan Mound
Bryan Mound
Hoskins Mound
Bay St. Ela ine
Nash
Chacahoula
Camina da
Gulf
Long Point
Years of
Opera tion
1894 - 1924
1925 - 1926
1928 - 1929
1935
1966 - 1970
1966 - 1970
1953 - 1957'
196.7 - 1970
1960 - 1962
1928 - 1935
1935 - 1940
1938 - 1970
1968 - 1970
1932 - 1936
1937 - 1960
1946 - 1970
1951 - 1960
1967 - 1968
1912 - 1935
1923 - 1955
1952 - 1959
1954 - 1956
1955 - 1962
1968 - 1970
1919 - 1936
1930 - 1938
Approx. Output
106 LT
9.4
*
*
*
*
0.2
0.1
0.1
*
0.2
0.6
5.4
0.5
0.4
3.0
5.6
0.8
*
5.0
10 .9
1.1
0.2
1.2
0.3
12.8
0.4
-------
A4- 19
APPENDIX 4
Table 2
U.S. (Frasch) Sulfur Domes
.
()pera t ing Domes
Company
Pan Am. Pet.
Sine la ir
Duval (1)
Jefferson Lake (2)
Freeport
Texas Gulf
.'< Nodified - Frasch
(1) Pennzoil United
(2) Occidental Petroleum
6 Producible by Frasch
Dome
Cumulative Production
to 1966, 1]6 LT
High Island
Ft. Stockton .k
N.A.
Culbertson County 6
Long Point
Tilden
Lake Hermitage
4.6
N.A.
N .A.
Gra nd Eca i lle
Garden I. Bay
Grand Isle
Lake Pelto
30.9
7.0
4.5
2.5
Boling
Spind1etop
Moss Bluff
Fannett
Bully Camp
61.1
6.3
5.1
1.8
technique, although not a salt dome.
Sources:
"The Economics of the Sulphur Industry", Hazleton, RFF, 1970.
Annual Reports of Occidental Petroleum, Freeport and other
Companies.
-------
A4-20
APPENDIX 4
Table 3
Frasch Sulfur Reserves
. Estimated Remaining Reserves
Million Long Tons
Grand I, Grand Ecaille, Garden I. Bay, Lake Pelto
Boling, Spindletop, Bullycamp, Moss Bluff, Fannett"
Culbertson County
Other U.S. Frasch and Mod-Frasch
80
65
57
8
210
Mexican Domes
Jaltipan, Nopalapa, Salinas, Texistipec
70
280
..Hypothetical production of U.S. Frasch sulfur (in order to obtain a
concept of time at which reserves may become depleted) - million LT.
Product ion To "
Reserves Remaining
1975 33
1980 28
1985 24
1990 20
2000 40
2010 40
- Depleted by 2020.
- If production were to continue at an average rate of 6 million LT/yr,
reserves would be depleted by the year 2005.
- Mexican reserves appear adequate to support production of approx. 1.7
million LT/yr for 40 years, i.e., until the year 2010. Additional
discoveries are possible.
" 177
149
125
105
65
25
. Sources of Information
(1) SRI Chemical Economics Handbook
(2) "The Economics of the Sulphur Industry"
(3) U.S. Bureau of Mines
(4) "Sulphur" Magazine, Jan/Feb 1971 (For Culbertson Co. estimate)
-------
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 4
REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF U.S. PETROLEUM REFINING CAPACITY
Region Re fe rence No. of Capacity % of 48 Hydrot reating Akylation,MB/SD
No. Point State Refineries r-m/SD States MB/SD % ~ HF
- --
1 Boston R.I. 1 7.5 0.1
2 Newark N.Y. 2 87.4 0.7 40.1 0.9 2.8
N.J. 6 519.8 4.1 188.2 4.3 19.2 2.3
Pa. 12 649.1 5.2 297.4 6.9 29.4
20 1256.3 10.0 525. 7 12.1 48.6 5.1
3 Norfolk Md. 2 18.4 0.1 :I>-
~
Del. 1 140.0 1.1 88.0 2.0 5.0 I
N
W.Va. 2 8.4 0.1 4.0 0.1 ......
Va. 1 51.4 0.4 24.1 0.6
Ga. 2 8.8 0.1
-
8 227.0 1.8 116.1 2.7 5.0
-
4 Chicago Mich. 7 156.8 1.2 54.3 1.3 6.7 1.2
Ohio 8 532.0 4.2 171.3 3.9 18.0 15.1
Ind. 9 598.3 4.8 180.9 4.2 29.7 3.1
Ill. 10 846.1 6.7 334.6 7.7 49.3 21.1
Wis. 2 39.0 0.3 9.2 0.2 1.2
36 2172.2 17.2 750.3 17.3 103.7 41. 7
5 Memphis Ky. 3 150.4 1.2 39.0 0.9
Tenn. 1 28.5 0.2 3.0
Ala. 5 37.7 0.3 5.5 0.1
-2- 216.6 1.7 44.5 1.0 3.0
Source:
Oil and Gas Journal, 3/22/71
-------
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 4 con't.
Region Reference No. of Capacity %of48 Hydrotreat:!:£L A1ky1ation,MB/SD
No. Point State Refineries MB/SD States MB/SD % ~ HF
-
6 Omaha Minn. 3 151.5 1.2 66.9 1.5 7.0 2.5
Mo. 1 83.0 0.7 20.0 0.5 4.5
N.D. 2 55.0 0.4 9.0 .0.2 2.8
Nebr. 1 5.0 neg1.
Kan. 11 378.0 3.0 84.1 1.9 36.1
18 672.5 5.3 180.0 4.1 11.5 41. 4
- -
7 Seattle Wash. 5 225.5 1.8 100.2 2.3 14.2 3.8
Oreg. 1 11.0 0.1
- -
:>
8 Los Angeles Cal. 34 1700.9 13.5 694.2 16.0 73.4 13.5 .s:-
I
N
N
9 Tampa Fla. 1 3.1 negl.
10 Tueson Mont. 9 126.8 1.0 60.7 1.4 8.4
Wyo. 9 138.9 1.1 65.0 1.5 3.0 1.3
Col. 4 44.7 0.4 16.9 0.4
N.M. 5 42.7 0.3 10.7 0.2 3.1
Nev. 1 0.5 neg1.
Utah 5 117.7 0.9 14.0 0.3 4.0 6.9
33 471. 3 3. 7 167.3 3.8 . 7.0 19.7
-
11 New Orleans Ark. 6 93.5 0.7 26.0 0.6 4.0 2.5
La. 17 1306.5 10.4 213.7 4.9 90.9 4.5
Oka1. 13 46 3. 7 3. 7 82.5 1.9 5.1 31. 7
Tex. 43 3469.8 27.5 1423.3 32.8 145.9 68.9
Miss. 5 311. 7 2.5 21.0 0.5 13.0
- -
84 5645.2 44.8 1766.5 40.7 258.9 107.6
-
48 State Total 250 12609.1 100 4344.8 100 522.2 235.8
-------
A4-23
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 5
ELEHENTAL SULFUR RECOVERY FROM REFINERY GAS
Region Capaci ty
No. State Location Company 1000 LT Iyr.
2 N.Y. Buffalo Ashland 20
N.J. Elizabeth Allied Chern. * 20
Port Reading Arne rada - Hes s 15
Perth Amboy Anlin* 18
Eagle Point Freeport* 15
Pau1sboro Mobil 25
Bayway Humble 50
143
Pa. Philadelphia Arco 10
Philaddphia Gulf 16
Marcus Hook .Sohio/B.P. 15 est.
Marcus Hook Sun 15
56
~egion Subtotal 219
3 Del Delaware City Getty 122
Va. Yorktown Indiana 23
Region Subtotal 145
4 Mich. Alma Leonard Ref. 4
Detroit Marathon 40
Trenton Mob il 10
54
Ohio Toledo Sohio/B.P. 11
Toledo Sun 5
16
Ind. E.Chicago Arco 30 est.
Whiting Indiana 30
60
Ill. '''ood River Anlin* 53
Robinson Marathon 55
Le mon t Union 11
79
Region Subtotal 209
5 Ky. Catlettsburg Ashland N.A. (1)
Region Subtotal N.A.
-------
A4-24
TABLE 5 can 't.
Region Capacity
No. State Location Comp any 1000. LT~
-
6 l'iinn. St. Paul Ashland 6
Pine Bend Koch Ind. 46
52
Mo. Sugar Creek Indiana 35
Kan. Co ffeyville .Farmland Ind. 2
Kans as City Phillips 13
15
Region Subtotal 102
8 Cal. El Segundo Allied Chern. * 45
Wilmington Arco 25
Paramount Conoco 38
Santa Fe Springs Gulf 11
Torrance l'fo b il 30
Avon Monsanto* 55
Santa Fe Springs Powerine 7
Martinez Shell 15
Benicia Humble 50
Long Beach Stauffer* 91
Wilmington Texaco 25
Arroyo Grande Union 19
Rodeo Union 19
Wilmington Union 40
Wilmington Union Pacific 10
480
Region Subtotal 480
10 Mont. Laurel Farmers Union 5
E. Billings Montana Sulphur* 35
40
N.M. Artesia Phillips 4
Col. Denver Conoco N.A. (1)
Wyo. Sinclai r Arco N.A. (1)
Re gi on Subtotal 44+
-------
L---
Region
No.
State
11
Hiss.
Ark.
La.
Tex.
- - - - - - - -
*
A4.;;25
TABLE 5 con' t.
Location
Capacity
1000 LT/vr.
Comp any
Purvis
Gulf
11
E1 Dorado
Monsanto*
.s
Lake Charles
Norco
Baton Rouge
Baton Rouge
16
12
5
18
51
Cities Service
Shell
Humble
Stauffer
Port Arthur
Port Arthur
Beaumont
Goldsmith
Sweeney
Hous ton
Houston
Port Arth ur
Bay town
Big Spring
Arco
Gulf
Olin
Phillips
Phillips
Shell
Signal
SOhio/B.P.
Stauffer*
Sulpetro
25
52
15
30
10
35
15
20
35
5
242
Regional Subtotal 309
Chemical companies which recover sulfur from H2S streams supplied by
Petroleum Refineries
Sources: 1971 Directory of Chemical Producers, S.R.I.
(1) Freeport Ninera1s' Testimony to u.S. Tariff Commission
-------
A4-26
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 6
REGIONAL SUMMARY OF SULFUR RECOVERY
FROM REFINERY GAS
Region Capacity % of Capacity Operated
No. State 1000 LT /yr. % By Chemical Coso
2 N.Y. 20 1.3 NIL
N.J. 143 9.5 37
Pa. 56 3. 7 NIL
219 14.5 24
3 Del. 122 8.1 NIL
Va. 23 1.5 NIL
145 9.6 NIL
4 Mich. 54 3.6 NIL
Ohio 16 1.1 NIL
Ind. 60 4.0 NIL
Ill. 79 5.2 67
209 13.9 25
5 Ky. N.A. N.A. NIL
6 Minn. 52 3.5 88
No. 35 2.3 NIL
Kan. 15 1.0 NIL
102 6.8 45
8 Cal. 480 31.8 40
10 Col. N.A. N.A. NIL
Wyo. N.A. N.A. NIL
Mont. 40 2.6 88
N.H. 4 0.3 NIL
44 2.9 80
11 Hiss. 11 0.7 NIL
Ark. 5 0.3 100
La. 51 3.4 NIL
Tex. 242 16.1 14
309 20.5 13
TOTAL 1508+ 100 28
-------
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 7
PROJECTED GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDENT POPULATION OF CONTINENTAL U.S.
(% Basis)
Region Reference
No. Point 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000 2010 2020
1 Boston 5.87 5.86 5.85 5.79 5.73 5.55 5.34 5.14
2 Newark 18.38 18.00 17.61 17.23 16.85 16.13 15.46 14.84
3 Norfolk 11. 81 11. 83 11.85 11.80 11. 75 11. 64 11.52 11.44
4 Chicago 19.92 19.74 19.55 19.34 19.13 18.73 18.33 17.96 »-
J:-
5 4.83 4.56 4.39 I
Memphis 5.23 5.08 4.93 4.72 6.46 N
-...J
6 Omaha 8.09 7.81 7.56 7.34 7.12 6.82 6.59 6.41
7 Seattle 2.72 2.78 2.85 2.91 3.00 3.16 3.36 3.52
8 Los Angeles 9.88 10.41 10.94 11.44 11. 94 12.89 13.79 14.60
9 Tampa 3.36 3.66 3.95 4.23 4.50 4.98 5.43 5.83
10 Tucson 4.08 4.20 4.32 4.47 4.62 4.78 4.81 4.79
11 New Orleans 10.66 10.63 10.59 10.62 10.64 10.76 10.91 11.08
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Millions Mid-year 202.1 214.0 226.2 239.0 252.4 278.7 304.7 329.7
-------
APPENDIX 4
TAB LE 8
PROJECTED DISTRIBUTION OF U.S. PETROLEUM REFINING CAPACITY
(% Basis)
Region Reference
No. Point 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000 2010 2020
1 Boston 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.6
2 Newark 10.0 9.8 9.5 9.3 9.0 8.5 8.1 7.7
3 Norfolk 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
4 Chicago 17.2 16.8 16.5 16.2 16.0 15.6 15.1 14.7 :>
~
,
5 Memphis 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 N
00
6 Omaha 5.3 5.2 5.0 4.9 4.7 4.4 4.2 4.0
7 Seattle 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3
8 Los Angeles 13.5 14.2 14.6 15.2 15.7 16.8 17.9 18.9
9 Tampa neg1. neg1. 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.9 2.6 3.3
10 Tucson 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.9 '4.0 4.0 '4.1
11 New Orleans 44.8 44.7 44.4 43.8 43.5 42.4 41.5 40.3
-------
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 9
PROJECTIONS OF SULFUR IN U.S. PETROLEUM SUPPLY
(Millon LT of S Equivalent)
Sulfur In 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000 2010 2020
Total Petroe1um Supply 4.6 5.6 6.2 7.1 8.4 11.9 16.6 22.3
Refinery Runs 3.3 4.3 5.1 6.1 7.4 10.9 15.6 21.1
Domestic Products 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 :>
l:'-
I
Imported Products 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 N
\0
Total Products 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.7
Recovered Elemt. 0.9 2.0 2.9 3.9 5.2 8.7 13.4 18.9
Recovered Acid 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Recovered Total 1.1 2.2 3.1 4.1 5.4 8.9 13.6 19.1
Re fine ry Emissions 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Refinery Emissions % 21 14 10 8 7 5 3 2
-------
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 10
REGIONALIZED PROJECTIONS OF ELEMENTAL SULFUR RECOVERED
FROM U.S. PETROLEUM REFINERIES (MILLION LT)
Region Reference
No. Point 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000 2010 2020
-
1 Boston 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3
2 Newark 0.13 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.1 1.6
3 Norfolk 0.09 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 :>
~
4 0.12 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.3 2.0 I
Chicago 0.3 3.0 w
o
5 Memphis 0.01 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3
6 Omaha 0.06 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
7 Seattle 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
8 Los Angeles 0.28 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.7 2.6 3.6
9 Tampa 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6
10 Tucson 0.03 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
11 New Orleans 0.18 0.7 1.1 1.3 2.0 3.4 5.2 7.0
Total 0.90 2.0 2.9 3.9 5.2 8. 7 13.4 18.8
. Recovery as Acid
2 Newark 0.04
7 Seattle 0.01
8 Los Angeles 0.03
0 Tucson 0.01
1. NevI Orleans O.
0.20
-------
A4-31
APPENDIX 11
TABLE 11
SULFURIC ACID PLANTS THAT USE H2S AND
SPENT ACID (ACID SLUDGE) AS FEEDSTOCK
Region Cap ad ty Feed**
No. State Location Cornpany 1000 ST /YR S.A. ~
2 N.Y. Buff alo Allied Chern. 195 x x
N.J. Elizabeth Allied Chern. 200 x
Linden Du P on t 325 x
Newark Essex Chern. 180 x
Paulsboro Olin 300 x
Pa. Newell Allied Chern. 250 x
Philadelphia Arco* 140 x x
Pittsburgh U.S.S. Agrichern. 50 x
Petrolia Witco 45 x
3 Del. N. Cl ayrnon t Allied Chern. 350 x
4 Mich. Detroit Allied Chern. 200 x
Ind. E. Chicago Du Pont 375 x
Hammond Stauffer 275 x
Ill. Chicago Allied Chern. 160 x
Elwood Arn. Can 325 x
5 Ky. Wurtland Du Pont 200 x
7 Wash. Anacortes Allied Chern. 80 x x
8 Cal. Bay Point Allied Chern. 140 x
El Segundo Allied Chern. 180 x x
Richrnond Allied Chern. 220 x x
Avon Monsanto 135 x x
Los Angeles Stauffer . '325' x
Martinez Stauffer .350" x
Wilmington Union* 140 x x
10 N.M. Monurnent Clirnax Chern. 75 x
-------
A4- 32
Region
No.
Statc'
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 11 cont'd
Capacity Feed**
Location Company 1000 ST /YR S.A. ~
Baton Rouge Allied Chem. 100 x
Lake Charles Cities Service* 150 x x
Burns ide Du Pont 510 x
Baton Rouge Stauffer 450 x
Dumas Diamond Shamrock* 35 x x
La Porte Du Pont 350 x
Port Arth ur Gulf* 140 x x
Texas City Indiana* 175 x x
Baytmvn Stauffer 275 x x
Houston Stauffer 1400 x x
Port Arthur Texaco* 95 x ){
Beaumont Olin 190 x. x
11
La.
Tex.
*
Direct .part of petroleum refining operations
**
Most of the above plants also use elemental S as feed.
Source:
1971 Directory of Chemical Producers, Stanford Research Institute.
-------
A4-33
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 12
SUNMARY OF U. S. SOUR NATURAL GAS
SULFUR RECOVERY CAPACI1Y
Re'gion
No.
State
Recovery Capacity
1000 LT /YR of S
-
6
N.D.
52
10
N.H.
'''yo.
Utah
49
84
5
138
11
Miss.*
Ark.
Okla.
Tex.
5
30
8
892
. 935
Total
1125
*
Excluding 400,000 LT/YR of new capacity
to be brought on stream at Jackson, Hiss.
Note:
A relatively small amount of S will also be .
recovered from the Jay-Little Field in the
Florida Panhandle.
So,urces :
Oil and Gas Journal, 7/21/71
1971 Directory of Chemical Producers, S.R.I.
-------
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 13
REGIONALIZED PROJECTIONS OF ELEMENTAL SULFUR RECOVERY FROM
U.S. NATURAL AND SYNTHETIC GAS (MILLION LT)
. Natural Gas
Region Reference
No. Point 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000 2010 2020
- -
6 Omaha 0.046 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
10 Tucson 0.073 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 ~
I
11 New Orleans 0.541 1.04 1.50 1.57 1. 37 0.82 0.77 0.77 w
- ~
Subtotal 0.660 1.19 1.65 1. 74 1.54 0.99 0.94 0.94
-
. Synthetic Gas (from coal)
4 Chicago neg1. 0.33 1.29 2.51 3.77
10 Tucson neg1. 0.14 0.55 1-.07 1. 62
Subtotal neg1. 0.47 1. 83 3.58 5.39
. Combined Totals
4 Chicago 0.33 1.29 2.51 3.77
6 Omaha 0.046 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
10 Tucson 0.073 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.24 0.65 1.17 1.72
. .
11 New Orleans 0.541 1.04 1.50 1.57 1. 37 0.82 0.77 0.77
Total 0.660 1.19 1.65 1. 74 2.01 2.83 4.52 6.33
-------
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 14
REGIONALIZED PROJECTIONS OF ELEMENTAL SURFUR RECOVERY FROM PETROLEUM)~,
NATURAL GAS AND SYNTHETIC GAS (MILLION LT)
Region Reference
No. Point 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000. 2010 2020
- -
1 Boston 0.10 0.10 0.10 6.20 0.30
2 Ne\-lark 0.24 0.24 0.34 0.44 0.74 1.14 1. 54
3 Norfolk 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.20. 0.30
4 Chicago 0.30 0.40 0.60 1.13 2.59 4.51 6.57
5 Memphis 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.30
6 .Omah a 0.16 0.16 0.27 0.27 0.47 0.67 0.87
7 Seattle 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.21 0.31 0.41
S Los Angeles 0.43 0.63 0.83 1.03 1. 73 2.63 3.63
9 Tampa 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.60 >
.p-
10 Tucs on 0.20 0.20 0.31 0.46 1.07 1. 79 2.53 I
(.,.)
11 New Orleans 1. 85 \.n
2.71 2.98 3.48 4.33 6.08 8.38
Total 3.39 4.75 5.84 7.42 11.74 18.13 25.43
. % of Total From
Petroleum 65 65 70 73 76 75 75
Natural Gas 35 35 30 21 8 5 4
Synthetic Gas (Coal) 6 16 20 21
* Making the simplifying assumptions (1) that future recovery from petroleum refineries
\-li11 be as elemental S rather than acid, and (2) combining the current level of 0.2
million LT/YR of S equivalent in acid form into the above projections.
-------
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 15
Capaci ties of Plants Processing Sour Natural Gas in Western Canada
S
1st Yr. on Cost Gas, MMCFD Rip 1970 Raw % of S Capac. 1970
Company Loca tion Stream $MM Raw Product % MMCFD Capacity LT/D MLT
Amerada aIds 1964 5.0 100 72 72 39 39 600 85.4
Amoco(l) Bigstone 1968 2.0 56 43 77 49 88 376 120.8
Amoco(l) Crossfield 1965 12.5 193 114 59 157 81 1610 476.0
Amoco/TGS Windfall 1961 22.0 371 136 37 296 80 1875 547.5
Arco Gold Creek 1970 7.0 52 40 77 20 38 105 14.7
Aquita ine Ra inbow 1968 15.0 75 30 40 40 53 70 13.6
Aquitaine Ram River 1971 25.0 220 150 68 2032
Can. Delhi Buck Lake 1961 4.0 108 100 93 56 52 32 6.1
Can. Fina Wildca t Hills 1961 5.2 125 115 92 93 74 135 36.7
Can. Superior Ha rma t ta n 1966 0.5 42 16 38 33 79 805 232.1
Can. Superior Lone Pine Cr. 1971 4.0 30 22 73 130
Chevron(2) Kaybob S 1971 80.0 445 284 64 2850 ~
Chevron(2) I
Nevis 1959 7.6 79 70 89 61 77 200 56.2 I....)
0\
Gulf Oil Nevis 1956 8.6 116 70 60 73 63 198 45.5
Gulf Oil Pincher Creek 1957 30.3 148 114 77 105 71 326. 84.5
Gulf Oil Rimbey -1961 20.0 422 357 85 397 94 326 111.9
Gu1 f Oil Strachan 1971 25.0 250 201 80 840
Gulf Oil Turner Va !ley 1933 7.9 88 85 97 38 43 30 4.7
Home Oil Ca rs ta irs 1960 15.0 350 280 80 258 74 46 12.4
H.B.O.G. (3) Brazeau R. 1969 8.5 102 90 88 67 66 32 7.7
H.B.O.G.(3) Caroline 1968 6.5 55 27 67 35 64 18 4.2
H.B.O.G. (3) Edson 1965 11.0 371 337 91 282 76 285 79.1
H.B.O.G. (3) Kaybob S. 1968 25.0 212 154 73 127 60 1044 228.6
H.B.O.G. (3) Kaybob S. 1970 20.0 170 113 66 117 69 1030 259.4
H.B.O.G.(3) Lone Pine Cr. 1967 5.5 50 40 80 39 78 175 49.8
H.B.O.G.(3) Sturgeon L. 1969 12.0 28 12 43 9 32 62 7.2
H.B.O.G. (3) Sy 1 va n L. 1965 2.0 59 54 92 48 81 13 3.9
Imperial (4) Quirk Cr. 1971 8.0 90 68 76 240
Imperial (4) Redwa ter 1956 2.2 10 6 60 9 90 9 3.0
"Imperia 1 (4) Redwater 1971 1.0 7 5 71 7
-------
TABLE 15 (Cont'd)
S
1st Yr. on Cost Gas, MMCFD Rip 1970 Raw % of S Capac. 1970
Compa ny Location Stream $MM Raw Product % MMCFD Capacity LT/D MLT
-
Occidental Crossfield 1961 30.0 312 216 69 263 84 1970 606.2
Occidental Peale R. 1957 22.0 435 400 92 385 89 300 96.9
Occidental Coleman 1961 6.1 75 59 79 13 17 795 50.2
Hobil Wimbourne 1965 5.0 70 53 76 44 63 395 90.8
She 11 Burnt Timber 1970 4.0 57 47 82 16 28 187 19.2
She 11 Innisfail 1960 2.6 15 10 67 8 53 115 22.4
Shell Jumping Pound 1951 4.0 248 200 81 146 59 430 92.6
Shell Simonette 1969 2.0 15 11 73 11 73 90 24.0
Shell Wa terton 1961 46.0 473 315 67 260 55 2970 596.2
Steelman Steelman 1958 6.0 38 30 79 28 74 8 2.2
Tenneco Brazeau R. 1970 4.0 67 60 90 41
Tenneco Nordegg 1970 3.0 67 59 88 42 63 40 9.2
TGS Okotoks 1959 62 37 17 46 25 68 430 106.7
Westcoast T. Fort Nelson 1965 33.6 820 760 93 475 60 100 21.9 ~
I
W
To ta 1 (A) 572.8 5452 76 4164 68* 23372 4229.5 -...J
7153
Total Additions Projected for 1971 143.0 1042 730 70 6099
1971 Additions as % of Total 25.0 14.6 13.4 26.1
Total Gas Plant Capacity** 834.2 15210 13145 86 8580 70* 23488
(A) as % of Total 69 47 41 49 99.5
(1) Affiliate of Standard Oil of Ind ia na
(2) Affiliate of Standard Oil of Ca 1 ifornia
(3) Affiliate of Continental Oil
(4) Affiliate of Standard Oil of New Jersey
* Of 1970 capacity
** Including plants processing sweet gas and pIa nts in Eastern Canada
Source: Canadian Petroleum, June 1971.
-------
A4-38
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 16
Processing Costs for Canadian Sour Gas
..i&
~
..i.Q
.JQL
Sour Ga s (Raw Ga s)
- Flow, MMCFD
- H2S, Mol./o
- C02' Mol..%
- Hydrocarbons,
Mol.%
50
0.5
3.0
96.5
50
10
5
85
50
20
5
75
50
35
10
55
Residue Gas (Product Gas)
- Gross, MNCFD
- Plant fuel, MMCFD
- Sa les, MMCFD
48.25
0.60
47.65
42.50
1.55
40.95
37.50
2.11
35.39
27.50
3.53
23.97
Investment, $MM
- Field and gathering
- Processing(l)
- Tota 1
1.71
1.17
2.88
2.74
4.17
6.91
2.74
6.92
9.66
2.85
9.55
12.40
Operating Cost ($/Day)
- Field and gathering
- Processing
- Tota 1
330
790
1120
475
1360
1835
535
1985
2520
585
3030
3615
Depreciation ($/Day)(Z)
- Field and gathering
- Processing
- To ta 1
467
322
789
749
1144.
1893
751
1895
2646
781
2617
3398
Op. Cost Plus Depreciation
- Field and gathering
- Processing
- Tota 1
($/Day)
797
1122
1909
lZ24
2504
3728
1286
3880
5166
1366
6428
7794
Cost of Product Gas
- Field and gathering,
- Processing, ~/MCF
- Total, c;:/MCF
c;:/NCF
1.7
Z.4
4.1
3.0
6.1
9.1
3.6
11.0
14.6
5.7
26.8
32.5
Sulfur Production, LT/D
190
380
665
(1) HZS separation and conversion to elemental S
(2) 10% per year, straight line
Note:
Return on investment is not included in above estimates.
Source:
"Economics of the Sour Gas Industry," J. W. Estep and E. W. Plum, Texas
Gulf Sulphur, "Sulphur" Jan./Feb. 1968.
-------
A4-39
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 17
Cost of Recovering Sulfur from Alberta Sour Gas
.
Claus- type process for conversion of H2S to elemental S.
Plant Capacity LT/D of S
Actual Cost, $/LT
Steam Credit, $/LT
Net Cost, $/LT
100
5.80
1.62
4.18
300
3.96
1.62
2.34
1000
2.64
1.62
1.02
.
Cost of H2S separation, based on 300 LT/D of S production.
Mo1.% H2S in Raw Sour Cas
Separation Cost, $/LT of S
2
19.4
5
11.5
10
8.9
20
7.7
.
Typical cost for H2S separation and conversion to elemental S, assigning
total cost of operation to sulfur recovery (i.e. no charge against gas)*.
- $9/LT
-----
* Not unreasonable in 1968 when elemental sulfur prices were very high.
Note:
OCJ of 9/2/68 is cited by author.
Source:
'~lberta Sulphur 1968, the Promise and the Problems of the Industry
in Alberta, " J. B. Hyne.
-------
A4-40
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 18
Build up of Western Canadian Sour Gas Sulfur Recovery Capacity
(1) Cumulative S Recovered S Recovered in Year
Year LT/D LT/D 106 LT/Yr. l06 LT As % of B.Y.* Capacity
1951 430 460 0.17
1956 207 667 0.24 0.03 18
1957 626 1293 0.47 0.09 38
1958 8 1301 0.47 0.16 35
1959 630 1931 0.70 0.26 56
1960 161 2092 0.76 0.37 53
1961 8103 10195 3.72 0.48 63
1962 10195 3.72 1.02 27
1963 10195 3.72 1.28 34
1964 600 10795 3.94 1.46 39
1965 3208 14003 5.11 1.58 40
1966 14003 5.11 1.72 34
1967 175 14178 5.17 2.12 41
1968 1508 15686 5.73 3.05 59
1969 184 15870 5.79 3.54 62
1970 1403 17273 6.30 4.13 71
1971 E 6099 23372 8.53
-----
(1) Listed by the year in which the plants first went on stream.
* Beginning of year.
Source:
Canadian Petroleum, April, May, June 1971 and June 1969.
-------
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 19
Estimates of Quantities of Sulfur Associated
With U.S. Smelting Operations
A 11 Copper. Lead &
Zinc Smelters Millions of Long T of S Equivalent, or %
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000 2010 2020
Generated 3.2 3.7 4.2 4.9 5.7 7.7 9.8 12.1
% Recovery 37 85 90 90 90 90 90 90
Recovered 1.2 3.1 3.8 4.4 5.1 6.9 8.8 10.8
Increment Over 1970 1.9 2.6 3.2 4.0 5.7 7.6 9.7 >
~
% of Inc. in Useful Form 40 40 40 40 40 40 .40 I
~
Useful Increment 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.6 2.3 3.0 3.9 I-'
Total in Useful Form 1.2 2.0 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.5 4.2 5.0
-------
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 20
Growth Rate 'Projections For U.S. Primary
Production of Copper, Lead, and Zinc
Compound Annual % Growth
Period Copper Lead Zinc
1970 - 1975 4.0 1.0 1.0 ;I>
-i'-
1975 - 1980 3.8 1.0 1.0 I
-i'-
1980 - 1985 3.6 1.0 1.0 N
1985 - 1990 3.4 0.9 1.0
1990 - 2000 3.0 0.8 0.9
2000 - 2010 2.5 0.7 0.9
2010 - 2020 2.0 0.6 0.8
-------
A4-43
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 21
Separate Estimates of Quantities of
Associated With Primary Smelting of
Lead and Zinc in the U.S.
(Million LT of S Equivalent)
Sulfur
Copper
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000 2010 2020
. r.n~
Generated 1.9 2.3 2.7 3.2 3.8 5.2 6.6 8.0
% Recovery 21 70 90 90 90 90 90 90
Recovered 0.4 1.6 2.5 2.9 3.5 4.6 5.9 7.2
Inc. Over 1970 1.2 2.1 2.5 3.1 4.2 5.5 6.8
% In Useful Form 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
Useful Increment 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.5 1.9 2.4
Total in Useful Form 0.4 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.9 2.3 2.8
. Lead
Generated 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.25 0.27 0.29
% Recovery 26 85 90 90 90 90 90 90
Recovered 0.05 0.17 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.23 0.24 0.26
Inc. Over 1970 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.19 0.21
% In Useful Form 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
Useful Increment 0.11. 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.16 0.17 0.19
Total In Useful Form 0.05 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.21 0.22 0.24
. Zinc
Generated 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.7
% Recovery 69 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
Recovered 0.75 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.6
Inc. Over 1970 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8
% In Useful Form 95 95 95 95 95 95 95
Useful Increment 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8
Total In Useful Form 0.75 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
. Tota 1
Generated 3.2 3.6 4.1 4.7 5.4 6.9 8.5 10.1
Recovered 1.2 2.8 3.7 4.3 4.9 6.2 7.6 9.1
Useful Form 1.2 2.0 2.3 2.6 2.8 3.4 4.0 4.5
-------
Re gion
No.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
State
Pa.
Md.
Del.
Ohio
Ill.
Tenn.
Kan.
Mo.
Wash.
Cal.
Mont.
Ida.
Col.
Utah
A4-44
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 22
Sill_FURIC ACID PLANTS UTILIZING S~ffiLTER GASES
Location
Palmerton
Jo~ephtmvn
Newell
Easton
Sparrows Pt.
N. Claymont
Col urnb us
Fairmount City
La Salle
Depue
E. St. Louis
Copper Hill
Galena
Herculaneum
Salem
Bixby
Tacoma
Selby
Anaconda
Kellogg
Denver
Garfield
Comp any
N.J. Zinc ( G + WInd.)
St. Joseph Minerals
Allied Chern.
C.K. Williams (Pfizer)
Bethlehem Steel
Allied Chem.
Am. Zinc
Am. Zinc
Matthiesen & Hegler
N.J. Zinc ( G + WInd.)
C.K. Williams (Pfizer)
Tennessee Corp.
(Citgo)
Eagle - Pitcher
St. Joseph Minerals
Missouri Lead (2)
Arnax
Asarco
Asarco
Anaconda
Bunker Hill (Gulf Resources)
Allied Chern.
Kennecott
Capacity
1000 ST/YR*
384
265
250 p
6
905
(1)
90 p
350 P
440
65
145
55
420
5
690
(1)
1260
(p)
150
120
.6
55
331
55
14
(3)
145
230
50 p (3)
575
-------
A4-45
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 22 Can't
Region
No.
State
Location
Company
Capacity
1000 ST/YR*
Ariz.
Bagdad
Hayden
Hayden
San Hanue1
Morenci
Tucson
Bagdad Copper
Asarco
Kennecott
Magma Copper
Phelps Dodge
Newmont Mining
64
270
275
N.A.
270
650
2479
(4 )
11
Okla.
Bart1esvi11e
Nat. Zinc
100
Tex.
Corpus Christi
Asarco
70
170
Tot a1
6330
*
Capacity estimates by different sources may vary because of different
conversions of daily to annual basis, e. g., operating day assumptions
ranging from 320-365.
p Source is pyri te
(p) Source is pyrite and NFM Smelter Gases
(1) Source is Ferrous Sulfate
(2) 50% mvned by Amax
(3) To be shut down; cap ad ty excluded from totals
(4) Proposed
Sources:
Battelle Memorial Institute
Search
OPD Reporter
1971 Directory of Chemical Producers, S.R.I.
Freeport Minerals
-------
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 23
REGIONALIZED PROJECTIONS OF GENERATION OF SULFUR VALUES
BY U.S. SrlliLTERS
Region Reference
No. Point 1970 1975 1980 . 1985 1990 2000 2010 2020
1 Boston
2 Ne\vark 0.286 0.318 0.337 0.368 0.380 0.426 0.473 0.521
3 Norfolk 0.044 0.046 0.048 0.050 0.053 0.58 0.063 0.068
4 Chicago 0.162 0.188 0.217 0.250 0.286 0.367 0.455 0.544
5 Memphis 0.308 0.327 0.347 0.368 0.391 0.437 0.486 0.535 $:
I
6 .j::-
Omaha 0.160 0.173 0.185 0.198 0.211 0.238 0.266 0.292 0\
7 Seattle 0.057 0.063 0.070 0.079 0.087 0.106 0.126 0.146
8 Los Angeles 0.013
9 Tampa
10 Tucson 1.988 2.348 2.761 3.228 3. 751 4.911 6.179 7.446
11 New Orleans 0.024 0.025 0.026 0.027 0.028 0.031 0.034 0.038
Continental U.S. 3.042 3.488 3.991 4.558 5.187 5.574 8.082 9.590
Rounded Total 3.1 3.5 4.0 4.6 5.2 6.6 8.1 9.6
. Percentage Basis
Re gion No.
2 9 9 8 8 7 6 6 5
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6
5 10 10 9 0 3 7 6 f)
u
6 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 3
7 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
8 1
10 66 67 69 71 72 74 76 77
1. 1 1 1 1
-------
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 24
MAXIMUM PERCENTAGES OF REGIONAL SULFUR DEMAND ESTIMATED
TO BE POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE TO ABATEMENT ACID*
Region Re fe ren ce
No. Point 1975 1Q80 1985 1990 2000 2010 2020
1 Boston 25 30 40 SO 65 75 75
2 Newark 35 40 45 60 70 75 75
3 Norfolk 5 10 25 35 50 60 70
4 Chicago 15 20 35 50 60 75 75
5 Memphis 70 75 75 75 75 75 75 t
~
-....J
6 Omah a 33 35 38 40 45 50 60
7 Seattle 15 18 20 25 30 40 50
8 Los Angeles 5 5 10 15 20 30 40
9 Tampa 5 5 10 12 15 20 30
10 Tucson 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
11 New Orleans 5 5 10 10 15 20 20
* From Electric Utility stack gases and/or smelters
Note; In effect, what is being projected is the minimum percentage of total sulfur demand that
will be supplied in elemental form. Reasons for such minima include:
8 Demand for ~1ementa1 S, e.g., in Pacific N.W. (Region No.7)
. Customer for S is also captive producer of elemental S
. Logistics, i.e., limitations on economic transportation of acid within re gi on
8 Need for evolution of market structure for abatement acid
8 Need to keep some elemental S in the acid manufacuring picture in order to < ~~~~ce
supply with demand, make oleum etc.
-------
A4-48
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 25
Projection of Sulfur Recovery From Canadian Smelting Operations
(Millions of Long Tons of Sulfur Equivalent)
1969 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000 2010 2020
Total Generat ed 2.75 2.8 3.4 4.1 4.8 5.6 7.4 9.5 11.8
Total Recovered 0.55 0.6 1.5 3.6 4.3 5.0 6.7 8.5 10.6
Recovery
- As Acid 0.55 0.6 1.1 1.5 1.9 2.3 3.1 4.0 5.2
- As E1. S ** ** 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.9 1.9 2.9 3.9
*
- Other Forms ** ** 0.2. 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 .5
*Ammonium.Sulfate, Waste Gypsum Etc.
**Very Small, Included With Acid.
. Growth Assumptions For Smelting:
1970 - 80
1980 - 85
1985 - 90
3.8%/Yr.
3.5%/Yr.
3.2%/Yr.
1990 .:. 00
2000 - 10
2010 - 20
2.8%/Yr.
2 .5%/Yr.
2.2%/Yr.
. References: - "Enviromental Control in the Mining and Metallurgical Industries
In Canada ", National Advisory Committee on Mining and Metallurgical
Research, Jan. 1971.
- Wall St. Journal, 5/25/71.
- International Nickel, 1970 Annual Report.
":' Allied Chemical, 1970 Annual Report.
-------
A4 -4 9
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 26
REGIONALIZED PROJECTIONS OF U.S. SULFUR SUPPLY*
. 1975 . 1980
Region Million LT of S Equiv. Million LT of S Equiv.
No. Gas Pet. Other Total Gas Pet. Other Total
1
2 0.20 0.27 0.47 0.20 0.30 0.50
3 0.10 0.04 0.14 0.10 0.04 0.14
4 0.30 0.16 0.46 0.40 0.19 0.59
5 0.10 0.28 0.38 0.10 0.31 0.41
6 0.06 0.10 0.15 0.31 0.06 0.10 0.17 0.33
7 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.06 0.16
8 0.40 0.40 0.60 0.60
9 0.10 0.10
10 0.09 0.10 0.65 0.84 0.09 0.10 0.80 0.99
11 1.04 0.70 0.01 1. 75 1.50 1.10 0.01 2.61
1.19 2.00 1.61 4.80 1.65 2.90 1.88 6.43
. 1985 . 1990
Region Million LT of S Equiv. Million LT of S Equiv.
No. Gas Pet. Other Total Gas Pet. Other Total
1 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
2 0.30 0.33 0.63 0.40 0.34 0.74
3 0.10 0.04 0.14 0.10 0.05 0.15
4 0.60 0.22 0.82 0.33 0.80 0.26 1.39
5 0.10 0.33 0.43 0.10 0.35 0.45
6 0.07 0.20 0.18 0.45 0.07 0.20 0.19 0.46
7 0.10 0.07 0.17 0.10 0.08 0.18
8 0.80 0.80 1.00 1.00
9 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.20
10 0.10 0.20 0.97 1.27 0.24 0.20 1.20 1.64
11 1.57 1.30 0.01 2.88 1.37 2.00 0.02 3.39
1. 74 3.9U 2.15 7.79 2.01 5.20 2.45 9.70
- -
* U.S. Frasch supply and U.S. abatement potential are
each dealt with separately elsewhere.
-------
A4-50
TABLE 26
(Cont'd)
. 2000 . 2010
Region Million LT of S Equiv. Million LT of S Equiv.
No. Gas Pet. Other Total Gas. Pet. Other Total
1 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.20
2 0.70 0.38 1.08 1.10 0.43 1.53
3 0.10 0.05 0.15 0.20 0.06 0.26
4 1.29 1.30 0.33 2.92 2.51 2.00 0.41 4.92
5 0.10 0.37 0.49 0.20 0.44 0.64
6 0.07 0.40 0.21 0.68 0.07 0.60 0.24 0.91
7 0.20 0.09 0.29 0.30 0.11 0.41
8 1. 70 1. 70 2.60 2.60
9 0.30 0.30. 0.40 0.40
10 0.65 0.40 1.72 2.77 1.17 0.60 2.35 4.12
11 0.82 3.40 0.03 4.25 0.77 5.20 0.03 6.00
2.83 8.70 3.20 14.73 4.52 13.40 4.07 21. 99
- -
. 2020
Region Million LT of S Equiv.
No. Gas Pet. Other Total
1 0.30 0.30
2 1.60 0.47 2.07
3 0.40 0.06 0.46
4 3.77 3.00 0.497 7.26
5 0.30 0.48 0.78
6 0.07 0.80 0.'26 1.13
7 0.40 0.13 0.53
8 3.60 3.60
9 0.60 0.60
10 1.72 0.80 3.05 3.57
11 0.77 7.00 0.03 7.80
6.33 18.80 4.97 30.10
- -
-------
A4-51
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 27
PARAMETRIC CASES OF U.S. REGIONALIZED SUPPLY
. 1975
Region Regional Regional Abatement Supply
No. Supply 0 -DL -0- -.UL ~ ....ill-
1 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03
2 0.47 0.05 0.08 0.11 0.15 0.23
3 0.14 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.17
4 0.46 0.16 0.27 0.41 0.55 0.82
5 0.38 0.04 0.07 0.10 0.13 0.20
6 0.31 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.09 0.13
7 0.05
8 0.40
9 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.04
10 0.84 neg1. 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03
11 1. 75*
4.80 .Q.:l1 0.55 0.83 1.10 1. 65
Region Regional Total Supp1y*
No. --UL -0- -.UL ~ ....ill-
1 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03
2 0.52 0.55 0.58 0.62 0.70
3 0.17 0.20 0.23 0.26 0.31
4 0.62 0.73 0.87 1.01 1. 28"
5 0.42 0.45 0.48 0.51 0.58
6 0.34 0.35 0.38 0.40 0.44
7 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
8 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
9 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.04
10 0.84 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.87
11 1.75* 1.75* 1.75* 1.75* 1.75*
5.13 5.35 5.63 5.90 6.45
o Before inclusion of abatement and Frasch S.
* Excluding Frasch sulfur.
-------
A4-52
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 28
PARAMETRIC CASES OF U.S. REGIONALIZED SUPPLY
. 1980
Region Regional Regional Abatement Supply
No. Supply 0 ~ ~ -ill..- ..J.2L ~
1 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.07
2 0.50 0.12 0.23 0.35 0.47 0.59
3 0.14 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
4 0.59 0.49 0.96 1.45 1.94 2.44
5 0.41 0.12 0.24 0.36 0.47 0.60
6 0.33 0.07 0.14 0.21 0.28 0.36
7 0.16
8 0.60
9 0.10 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.12
10 0.99 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.12
11 2.61
6.43 Q.:.22 1.90 2.85 3.80 4.80
Region Regional Total Supp1y*
No. ~ ...QL -ill.- ..J.2L ~
1 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.07
2 0.62 0.73 0.85 0.97 1.09
3 0.24 0.34 0.44 0.54 0.64
4 1.08 1.55 2.04 2.53 3.03
5 0.53 0.65 0.77 0.88 1.01
6 0.40 0.47 0.54 0.61 0.69
7 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16
8 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
9 0.12 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.22
10 1.01 1.04 1.06 1.08 1.11
11 2061* 2.61* 2.61* 2.61* 2.61*
l.:1!! 8.33 9.28 10:23 IT:23
o Before inclusion of abatement and Frasch S.
* Excluding Frasch sulfur.
-------
A4-S 3
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 29
PARAMETRIC CASES OF U. S. REGIONALIZED SUPPLY
. 1985
Region Regional Regional Abatement Supply
No. Supply (/) --ill..- -l1L ~ ....ill- ~
1 0.10 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.07
2 0.63 0.16 0.28 0.38 0.55 0.76
3 0.14 0.15 0.26 0.36 0.52 0.72
4 0.82 0.78 1.30 1.82 2.60 3.64
5 0.43 0.19 0.31 0.44 0.62 0.87
6 0.45 O.ll 0.18 0.25 0.37 0.51
7 0.17
8 0.80
9 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.18
10 1. 27 0.05 0.08 0.12 0.17 0.25
11 2.88
7.79 1.50 2.50 3.50 5.00 7.00
Region Regional Total Supp1y*
No. --ill..- -l1L ~ ....ill- --ill-
1 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.17
2 0.79 0.91 1.01 1.18 1. 39
3 0.29 0.40 0.50 0.66 0.86
4 1.60 2.12 2.64 3.42 4.46
5 0.62 0.74 0.87 1.05 1.30
6 0.56 0.63 0.70 0.82 0.96
7 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17
8 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80
9 0.14 0.16 0.19 0.22 0.28
10 1.32 1. 35 1.39 1.44 1.52
11 2.88* ~* 2.88* 2.88* 2.88*
9.29 10.29 11. 29 12.79 1&11
(/) Before inclusion of abatement and Frasch S.
* Excluding Frasch sulfur.
-------
A4-54
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 30
PARAMETRIC CASES OF U.S. REGIONALIZED SUPPLY
. 1990
Region Regional Regional Abatement Supply
No. Supply 0 --i!L ~ ~ -l?.L -i2L
1 0.10 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
2 0.74 0.31 0.46 0.61 0.77 0.92
3 0.15 0.31 0.46 0.61 0.77 0.92
4 1.39 1.53 2.29 3.06 3.82 4.59
5 0.45 0.37 0.56 0.75 0.94 1.12
6 0.46 0.23 0.34 0.45 0.56 0.68
7 0.18
8 1.00
9 0.20 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20 0.24
10 1.64 0.15 0.23 0.31 0.38 0.46
11 3.39
9.70 3.0 4.5 6.0 L2- .2.:.Q....
Region Regional Total Supp1y*
No. --i!L ~ ~ -l?.L -i2L
1 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17
2 1.05 1.20 1.35 1.51 1.66
3 0.46 0.61 0.76 0.92 1.07
4 2.92 3.68 4.45 5.21 5.98
5 0.82 1.01 1. 20 1.39 1.57
6 0.69 0.80 0.91 1.02 1.14
7 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18
8 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
9 0.28 0.32 0.36 0.40 0.44
10 1. 79 1.87 1.95 2.02 2.10
11 3.39* 3.39* 3.39* 3.39* 3.39*
12.70 14.20 15.70 17.20 18.70
o Before inclusion of abatement and Frasch S.
* Excluding Frasch sulfur.
-------
A4-55
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 31
PARAMETRIC CASES OF U. S. REGIONALIZED SUPPLY
. 2000
Region Regional Regional Abatement Supply
No. Supply 0 -ilL -..ill- ~ .J1L ..l2L
1 0.10 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
2 1.08 0.48 0.72 0.96 1.20 1.44
3 0.15 0.46 0.68 0.91 1.14 1.37
4 2.92 2.54 3.81 5.08 6.35 7.62
5 0.49 0.62 0.94 1. 25 1.56 1.88
6 0.68 0.38 0.56 0.75 0.94 1.12
7 0.29
8 1. 70
9 0.30 0.14 0.22 0.29 0.36 0.43
10 2.77 0.36 0.54 0.72 0.90 1.08
11 4.25
14.73 1&.. LL 10.0 1hL 15.0
Region Regional Total Supp1y*
No. ..J!L -ill- --ill.- -1ZL ..l2L
1 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16
2 1.56 1.80 2.04 2.28 2.52
3 0.61 0.83 1.06 1.29 1.52
4 5.46 6.73 8.00 9.27 10.54
5 1.11 1.43 1.74 2.05 2.37
6 1.06 1.24 1.43 1.62 1.80
7 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29
8 1. 70 1. 70 1.70 1.70 1. 70
9 0.44 0.52 0.59 0.66 0.73
10 3.13 3.31 3.49 3.67 3.85
11 4.25* 4.25* 4.25* 4.25* 4.25*
.!2..:11 TI:23 24.73 27.33 29.73
o Before inclusion of abatement and Frasch S.
* Excluding Frasch sulfur.
-------
A4-56
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 32
PARAMETRIC CASES OF U. S. REGIONALIZED SUPPLY
. 2010
Region Regional Regional Abatement Supply
No. Supply f/J ..J1.L ~ ..QL ~ ...JJ..L
1 0.20
2 1.53 1.09 1.26 1.44 1.62 1.80
3 0.26 0.92 1.08 1.23 1.39 1.54
4 4.92 6.20 7.24 8.27 9.30 10.34
5 0.64 1.50 1. 75 2.00 2.25 2.50
6 0.91 0.96 1.12 1.28 1.44 1.60
7 0.41
8 2.60
9 0.40 0.36 0.42 0.48 0.54 0.60
10 4.12 0.97 1.13 1.30 1.46 1.62
11 6.00
21. 99 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0
Region Regional Total Supp1y*
No. ..J1.L ~ ..QL ~ ...JJ..L
1 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
2 2.62 2.79 2.97 3.15 3.33
3 1.18 1.34 1.49 1.65 1.80
4 11.12 12.16 13.19 14.22 15.26
5 2.14 2.39 2.64 2.89 3.14
6 1.87 2.03 2.19 2.35 2.51
7 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41
8 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60 2.60
9 0.76 0.82 0.88 0.94 1.00
10 5.09 5.25 5.42 5.58 5.74
11 6.00* 6.00* 6.00* 6.00* 6.00*
33.99 35.99 37.99 .lli.22 41. 99
f/J Before inclusion of abatement and Frasch S.
* Excluding Frasch sulfur.
-------
A4-57
A PPENDlX 4
TABLE 33
PARAMETRIC CASES OF U.S. REGIONALIZED SUPPLY
. 2020
Region Regional Regiona 1 Abatement Supp1y*
No. Supply 0 ~ ...J.!L --0- -OL --i!!L
1 0.30
2 2.07 1.19 1.53 1,,87 2.21 2.55
3 0.46 0.91 1.17 1.43 1.69 1.95
4 7.26 7.27 9.34 11.42 13.49 15.57
5 0.78 1. 75 2.25 2.75 3.25 3.75
6 1.13 1. 26 1.62 1.98 2.34 2.70
7 0.53
8 3.60
9 {) . 60 0.43 0.56 0.68 0.81 0.93
10 5.57 1.19 1.53 1. 87 2.21 2.55
11 7.80
30. 10 14.0 18.0 22.0 26.0 30.0
Region Regional Total Supp1y*
No. ..i.Q.L -1!.L -0- ....QL ~
1 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
2 3.26 3.60 3.94 4.28 4.62
3 1.37 1.63 1.89 2.15 2.41
4 14.53 16.60 18.68 20.75 22.83
5 2.53 3.03 3.53 4.03 4.53
6 2.39 2.75 3.11 3.47 3.83
7 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53
8 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60 3.60
9 1.03 1.16 1.28 1.41 1.53
10 6.76 7.10 7.44 7.78 8.12
11 7.80* 7.80* 7.80* 7.80* 7.80*
44.1 48.1 52.1 56.1 60.1
-
0 Before inclusion of abatement and Frasch S.
* Excluding Frasch sulfur.
-------
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 34
ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING RECOVERY OF ABATEMENT S IN USEFUL FORM
Million (a )-1' (b )-1' ( C )-1, (d) -I, ( e)-I'
~ Case LT R U R U R U R U -L U
1975 1 0.33 NIL 30 -10 15 -20 10 30 8 -40 6
2 0.55 NIL 50 -10 25 -20 17 -30 13 -40 10
3 0.83 NIL 75 -10 38 - 20 25 -30 19 -40 15
4 1.10 NIL 100 -10 50 -20 33 -30 25 -40 20
5 1. 65 -10 75 -20 50 -30 38 -40 30
1980 1 0.95 NIL 50 -20 23 -40 15 -60 11 -80 9
3 1.90 NIL 100 -20 46 -40 30 -60 22 -80 18
5 2.85 -20 70 -40 45 -60 34 -80 27
6 3.80 -40 60 -60 45 -80 36 >
7 4.80 -40 76 -60 ~
56 -80 45 I
I.J1
co
1985 1 1.5 NIL 50 -20 . 29 -40 20 -50 16 -80 13
3 2.5 NIL 83 -20 48 -40 34 -60 26 -80 21
5 3.5 -20 67 -40 47 -60 36 -80 30
6 5.0 -20 96 -40 68 -60 52 -80 42
8 7.0 -40 95 -60 73 -80 59
1990 1 3.0 NIL 67 -20 45 -40 34 -60 27 -80 23
4 4.5 NIL 100 -20 67 -40 51 -60 41 -80 34
6 6.0 -20 90 -40 67 -60 54 -80 45
7 7.5 -40 84 -60 68 -80 56
0 9.0 -60 81 -80 68
-------
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 34 (CONTINUED)
ASSUMPrIONS UNDERLYING RECOVERY OF ABATEMENT S IN USEFUL FORM
Million (a)* (b)* (c)* (d)* (e)*
~ ~ LT R U R .J!.... R U R U R .J!....
2000 1 5.0 NIL 54 -20 43 -40 36 -60 31 -71 29
2 7.5 NIL 81 -20 65 -40 55 -60 47 -71 44
5 10.0 -20 87 -40 73 -60 63 -71 58
7 12.5 -40 91 -60 79 -71 73
9 15.0 -60 94 -71 87
2010 1 12.0 NIL 69 -20 61 -40 55 -60 50 -61 49
2 14.0 NIL 80 -20 71 -40 64 -60 58 -61 58
3 16.0 NIL 92 -20 82 -40 73 -60 67 -61 66
5 18.0 -20 92 -40 82 -60 75 -61 74
7 20.0 -40 92 -60 83 -61 83
~
2020 0 14.0 NIL 48 -20 45 -40 42 -46 41 -70 38 I
\J1
1 18.0 NIL 62 -20 57 -40 53 -46 52 -70 49 \0
2 22.0 NIL 75 -20 70 -40 65 -46 64 -70 59
3 26.0 NIL 89 -20 83 -40 77 -46 76 -70 70
5 30.0 -46 87 -70 81
* R = % reduction in total SOx emitted by electric utilities from 1970 level
(NIL is equivalent to abating the increment over the 1970 level).
U = % of abatement S recovered in useful form.
(a) through (e) represent different combinations of Rand U that provide
the same quantity of useful form S.
-------
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 35
HYroTHETICAL COAL SULFUR CONTENTS REQUIRED TO
GIVE TABLE 34 SO LEVELS WITHOUT CONTROLS
h
Average Wt % S in Utility Coal That, Without Any
Million Lt of Abatement Control, Would Produce the SOx
S Emitted by Emission Levels Corresponding to the Cases in Table 34
Electric Utilities 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000 2010 2020
11.1 (1) 2.04 (1) 1.88 (1) 1. 66 (1) 1.46 (1) 1.06 (1) 0.77 (0) 0.56
10.0 (2) 1. 85
8.9 (3) 1. 65 (3) 1.50 (3) 1.33 (4) 1.17 (2) 0.85 (2) 0.62 (1) 0.45
7.8 (4) 1.44
6.7 (5) 1.24 (5) 1.13 (5) 1.00 (6) 0.88 (5) 0.64 (3) 0.46 (2) 0.34
6.0
4.5 (6) 0.76 (6) 0.67 (7) 0.59 (7) 0.43 (5) 0.31 (3) 0.30
4.3 (7) 0.30
3.3 (5) 0.17 $:
3.2 (9) 0.30 I
0'\
2.3 (7) 0.39 (8) 0.34 (9) 0.30 0
Note:
Figures in parentheses refer to the case numbers in Table 34.
-------
A4-61
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 36
PARAMETRIC CASES OF U.S. REGIONALIZED DEMAND
AND NET SUPPLY/DEMAND POSITION
. 1975
Region Demand Regional Demand Minus Regional Supp1y*
No. Base Base --D.L ~ -.JlL ~ -2L
1 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05
2 1.02 0.55 0.50 0.47 0.44 0.40 0.32
3 1.04 0.90 0.87 0.84 0.81 0.78 0.73
4 1.30 0.84 0.68 0.57 0.43 0.29 0.02
5 0.70 0.32 0.28 0.25 0.22 0.19 0.12
6 0.47 0.16 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.03
7 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
8 0.61 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21,
9 2.54 2.54 2.53 2.53 2.52 2.52 2.50
10 0.96 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.09
11 2.56 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81
11.58 +6.78 +6.45 +6.23 +5.95 +5.68 +5.13
Region Regional Demand Minus Regional Supp1y*
No. 1. 05 x Base 1.05, x B . ---D:.L .~ -.JlL ~ -2L
1 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.05
2 1.07 0.60 0.55 0.52 0.49 0.45 0.37
3 1.09 0.95 0.92 0.89 0.86 0.83 0.78
4 1. 37 0.91 0.75 0.64 0.50 0.26 0.09
5 0.74 0.36 0.32 0.29 0.26 0.23 0.16
6 0.49 0.18 0.15 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.05
7 0.31 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26
8 0.64 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
9 2.67 2.67 2.66 2.66 2.85 2.65 2.63
10 1.01 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14
11 2.69 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
lZ.J.Q. +7.36 +7.03 +6.81 +6'.53 ' +6.16 +5.71
* Excluding Frasch Sulfur
-------
A4-62
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 37
PARAMETRIC CASES OF U.S. REGIONALIZED
DEMAND AND NET SUPPLY/DEMAND POSITION
0 1980 ~'- , .
Region Demand Regional Demand Minus Regional Supp1y*
No. Base Base --QL ~ -0L ~ .sJL
1 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.01
2 1.09 0.59 0.47 0.36 0.24 0.12 Nil
3 1.05 0.91 0.81 0.71 0.61 0.51 0.41
4 1. 66 1.07 0.58 0.11 -0.38 -0.87 -1. 37
5 0.79 0.38 0.26 0.14 0.02 -0.09 -0.22
6 0.54 0.21 0.14 0.07 Nil -0.07 -0.15
7 0.36 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
8 0.74 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14
9 3.19 3.09 3.07 3.04 3.02 3.00 2.97
10 1. 26 0.27 0.25 0.22 0.20 0.18 0.15
11 3.00 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39
13.76 +-7.33 +6.38 +5.43 +4.86 +4.56 +4.27
-0.38 -1.03 ::..l.ill
Region
No. 1. 05 x Base 1. 05 x B (1) (3) (5) (6) (7)
1 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.02
2 1.14 0.64 0.52 0.41 0.29 0.17 0.05
3 1.10 0.96 0.86 0.76 0.66 0.56 0.46
4 1. 74 1.15 0.66 0.19 -0.30 -0.79 -1.29
5 0.83 0.42 0.30 0.18 0.06 -0.05 -0.18
6 0.57 0.24 0.17 0.10 0.03 -0.04 -0.12
7 0.38 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22 0.22
8 0.78 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18
9 3.35 3.25 3.23 3.20 3.18 3.16 3.13
10 1. 32 0.33 0.31 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.21
11 3.15 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54
14.45 +8.02 +7.07 +6.12 +5.47 +5.10 +4.81
-0.30 -0.88 .::L..22.
* Excluding Frasch sulfur
(Cont'd)
-------
A4-63
TABLE 37
(Cont'd)
Region Regional Demand Minus Regional Supp1y*
No. 1.10 x Base" 1. 10 x B -D:L ~ ~ ~ .s!L
1 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.02
2 1.20 0.70 0.58 0.47 0.35 0.23 0.11
3 1.15 1.01 0.91 0.81 0.71 0.61 0.51
4 1.83 1. 24 0.75 0.28 -0.21 -0.70 -1. 20
5 0.87 0.46 0.34 0.22 0.10 -0.01 -0.14
6 0.59 0.26 0.19 0.12 0.05 -0.02 -0.10
7 0.40 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24
8 0.81 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21
9 3.51 3.41 3.39 3.36 3.34 3.32 3.29
10 1. 39 0.40 0.38 0.35 0.33 0.31 0.28
11 3.30 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69
15.14 +8.71 +1'.76 +6.81 +6.07 +5.64 +5.35
-0.21 -0.73 -1. 44
* Excluding Frasch sulfur
NOTE:
The net regional demands (+) may not be offset with net
regional surp1usses (-), hence the U.S. totals for
. these quantities are summed separately.
-------
A4 -6 4
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 38
PARAMETRIC CASES OF U.S. REGIONALIZED DEMAND
AND NET SUPPLY/DEMAND POSITION
" "
. 1985
Region Demand Regional Demand Minus Regional Supp1y*
No. Base Base ~ ilL ~ ~ ~
1 0.08 -0.02 -0.04 -0.05 -0.06 -0.07 -0.09
2 1. 25 0.62 0.46 0.34 0.24 0.07 -0.14
3 1.20 1.06 0.91 0.80 0.70 0.54 0.34
4 2.07 1.25 0.47 -0.05 -0.57 -1.35 -2.39
5 0.94 0.51 0.32 0.20 0.07 -0.11 -0.36
6 0.65 0.20 0.07 0.02 -0.05 -0.17 -0.31
7 0.44 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.27
8 0~91 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
9 3.54 3.44 3.40 3.38 3.35 3.32 3.26
10 1.65 0.38 0.33 0.30 0.26 0.21 0.13
11 3.43 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.55
16.16 +8.39 +6.91 +5.97 +5.55 +5.07 +4.66
-0.02 .::.O.....ilil .:.Q.JQ. ~ .::.L:ZD.. .=.h2.9.
Region
No. 1. 05 x Base 1. 05 x B ~ ~ ~ ~L ~.
1 0.09 -0.01 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05 -0.06 -0.08
2 1.31 0.68 0.52 0.40 0.30 0.13 ';'0.08
3 1.26 1.12 0.97 0.86 0.76 0.60 0.40
4 2.17 1. 35 0.57 0.05 -0.47 -1. 25 -2.29
5 0.99 0.56 0.37 0.25 0.12 -0.06 -0.31
6 0.68 0.23 0.13 0.05 -0.02 -0.14 -0.28
7 0.46 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29
8 0.36 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16
9 3.72 3.62 3.58 3.56 3.53 3.50 3.44
10 1. 73 0.46 0.41 0.38 0.34 0.29 0.21
11 3.60 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72
16.97 +9.19 +7.72 +6.72 +6.22 +5.09 +5.22
-0.01 -0.03 -0.04 -0.54 -1. 51 -3.04
* Excluding Frasch sulfur
-------
A4-65
TABLE 38
(Cont'd)
Region Regional Demand Minus Regional Supp1y*
No. 1.10 x Base 1..-10 x B -1!.L --.ilL ~ ~ ~
1 0.09 -0.01 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05 -0.06 -0.08
2 1. 38 0.75 0.59 0.47 0.28 0.20 -0.01
3 1.32 1.18 1.03 0.92 0.82 0.66 0.46
4 2.28 1.46 0.68 0.16 -0.36 -1.14 -2.18
5 1.03 0.60 0.41 0.29 0.16 -0.02 -0.27
6 0.72 0.27 0.16 0.09 0.02 -0.10 -0.24
7 0.48 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31
8 1.00 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
9 3.89 3.79 3.75 3.73 3.70 3.67 3.61
10 1.82 0.55 0.50 0.47 0.43 0.38 0.30
11 3.77 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
17.78 +10.00 +8.52 +7.53 +6.81 +6.31 +5.77
- 0.01 -0.03 -0.04 -0.41 -1.32 -2.78
* Excluding Frasch sulfur
NOTE:
The net regional demands (+) may not be offset with net
regional surp1usses (-)r hence the U.S. totals for these
quantities are summed separately.
-------
A4 -6 6
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 39
PARAMETRIC CASES OF U.S. REGIONALIZED
DEMAND AND NET SUPPLY/DEMAND POSITION
" 1990
Region Demand Regional Demand Minus Regional Supp1y*
No. Base Base - (1)- ~L ..~ _JJl ~
1 0.10 Nil -0.02 -0.04 -0.05 -0.06 -0.07
2 1. 47 0.73 0.42 0.27 0.12 -0.04 -0.19
3 1. 42 1.27 0.96 0.81 0.66 0.50 0.35
4 2.51 1.12 -0.41 -1.17 -1. 94 -2.70 -3.47
5 1.10 0.65 0.28 0.09 -0.10 -0.29 -0.47
6 0.78 0.32 0.09 -0.02 -0.13 -0.24 -0.36
7 0.53 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
8 1.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14
9 3.80 3.60 3.52 3.48 3.44 3.40 3.36
10 2.23 0.59 0.44 0.36 0.28 0.21 0.13
11 3.90 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51
18.98 +9.28 +6.71 +6.01 +5.50 +5.11 +4.84
-0.43 ~1. 23 -2.22 -3.33 -4.56
Region
No. 1. 05 x Base 1. 05 x B --D:.L ~ ~ -.ill.. -.J2L
1 0.11 0.01 -0.01 -0.03 -0.04 -0.05 -0.06
2 1.54 0.80 0.49 0.34 0.19 0.03 -0.12
3 1.49 1.34 1.03 0.88 0.73 0.57 0.42
4 2.63 1.24 -0.29 ~ 1. 05 -1.82 -2.58 -3.35
5 1.16 0.71 0.34 0.15 -0.04 -0.23 -0.41
6 0.82 0.36 0.13 0.02 -0.09 -0.20 -0.32
7 0.56 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38
8 1.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
9 3.99 3.79 3.71 3.67 3.63 3.59 3.55
10 2.34 0.70 0.55 0.47 0.39 0.32 0.24
11 4.09 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70
19.93 +10.23 +7.53 +6.81. +6.22 +5.79 +5.49
-0.30 -1.08 -1.99 -3.06 ~
* Excluding Frasch sulfur
-------
A4-67
TABLE 39
(Cont'd)
Region Regional Demand Minus Regional Supp1y~
No. 1.10 x Base . 1.10 x B .-liL ~ ~- ~ -.J1L
1 0.11 0.01 -0.01 -0.03 -0;04 -0.05 -0.06
2 1.62 0.88 0.57 0.42 0.27 0.11 -0.04
3 1.56 1.41 1.10 0.95 0.80 0.64 0.49
4 2.76 1.37 -0.16 -0.92 -1. 69 -2.45 -3;22
5 1. 21 0.76 0.39 0.20 0.01 -0.18 -0.36
6 0.86 0.40 0.17 0.06 -0.05 -0.16 -0.28
7 0.58 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40
8 1.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
9 4.18 3.98 3.90 3.86 3.82 3.78 3.74
10 2.45 0.81 0.66 0.58 0.50 0.43 0.35
11 4.29 0.90 0.90 ~ 0.90 0.90 0.90
20.87 + 11.17 +8.34 +7.62 +6.95 +6.51 +6.13
-0.17 -0.95 -1. 78 -2.84 -3.96
* Excluding Frasch sulfur
NOTE:
The net regional demands (+) may not be offset with net
regional surp1usses (-), hence the U.S. totals for these
quantities are summed separately.
-------
A4-68
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 40
PARAMETRIC CASES OF U.S. REGIONALIZED
DEMAND AND NET SUPPLY/DEMAND POSITION
It 2000
Region Regional Demand Minus Regional Supp1y*
No. Demand Base Base ~ ~ ~ --.ilL. ~
1 0.14 0.04 0.02 0.01 Nil -0.01 -0.02
2 2.01 0.93 0.45 0.21 0.03 -0.27 -0.51
3 1.90 1. 75 1.29 1.07 0.84 0.61 0.38
4 3.53 0.61 -1. 93 -3.20 -4.47 -5.74 -7.01
5 1.54 1.05 0.43 0.11 -0.20 -0.51 -0.83
6 1.04 0.36 -0.02 -0.20 -0.39 -0.58 -0.76
7 0.78 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49
8 1.68 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02
9 4.20 3.90 3.76 3.68 3.61 3.54 3.47
10 3.51 0.74 0.38 0.20 0.02 -0.16 -0.34
11 4.90 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65
25.23 +10.52 +7.47 +6.42 +5.61 +5.29 +4.99
- 0.02 -1.97 -3.42 -5.11 -7.29 -9.49
Region
No. 1. 05 x Base 1. 05 x B ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-
1 0.15 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 Nil -0.01
2 2.11 1.03 0.55 0.31 0.07 -0.17 -0.41
3 2.00 1.85 1.39 1.17 0.94 0.71 0.48
4 3.71 0.79 -1 75 -3.02 -4.29 -5.56 -6.83
5 1.62 1.13 0.51 0.19 -0.12 -0.43 -0.75
6 1.09 0.41 0.03 -0.15 -0.34 -0.53 -0.71
7 0.82 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53
8 1. 76 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
9 4.41 4.11 3.97 3.89 3.82 3.75 3.68
10 3.68 0.91 0.55 0.37 0.19 0.01 0.17
11 5.14 0.89 0.89' 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
26.49 +11. 76 +8.51 +7.43 +6.51 +5.95 +5.64
-1. 75 -3.17 -4.75 -6.69 -8.88
* Excluding Frasch sulfur
-------
A4 -6 9
TABLE 40
(Cont'd)
Region Regional Demand Minus Regional Supp1y*
No. 1. 10 x Base 1.10 x B -0L ~ ~ --EL ~
1 0.15 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 Nil -0.01
2 2.21 1.13 0.65 0.41 0.17 -0.07 -0.31
3 2.09 1.94 1.48 1.26 1.03 0.80 0.57
4 3.88 0.96 -1.58 -2.85 -4.12 -5.39 -6.66
5 1. 69 1.20 0.58 0.26 -0.05 -0.36 -0.68
6 1.14 0.46 0.08 -0.07 -0.29 -0.48 -0.66
7 0.86 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57
8 1.85 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
9 4.62 4.32 4.18 4.10 4.03 3.96 3.89
10 3.86 1.09 0.73 0.55 0.37 0.19 0.01
11 5.40 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15
27.75 +13.02 +9.60 +8.47 +7.48 +6.82 +6.34
-1. 58 -2.92 ":'4.46 -6.30 -8.32
* Excluding Frasch sulfur
NOTE:
The net regional demands (+) may not be offset with
net regional surp1usses (-), hence the U.S. totals
for these quantities are summed separately.
-------
A4-70
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 41
PARAMETRIC CASES OF U.S. REGIONALIZED
DEMAND AND NET SUPPLY/DEMAND POSITION
. 2010
Kegion Regional Demand Minus Regional Supp1y*
No. Demand Base Base -D:L ~ -.UL ~ .sJ.L
1 0.1~ -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02
2 2.70 1.17 0.08 -0.09 -0.27 -0.45 -0.63
3 2.50 2.24 1. 32 1.16 1.01 0.85 0.70
4 4.~9 -0.03 -6.23 -7.27 -8.30 -9.33 -10.37
5 2.10 1.46 -0.04 -0.29 -0.54 -0.79 -1.04
6 1.41 0.50 -0.40 -0.62 -0.78 -0.94 -1.10
7 1.11 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70
8 2.43 -0.17 -0.17 -0.17 -0.17 -0.17 -0.17
9 4.48 4.08 3.72 3.66 3.60 3.54 3.48
10 5.00 0.88 -0.09 -0.25 -0.42 -0.58 -0.74
11 6.15 .0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
32.95 + 11. 18 +5.97 +5.67 + 5.46 + 5.24 + 5.03
- 0.22 -7.01 -8.71 -10.50 -12.2~ -14.07
Region
No. 1.10 x Base' 1. 10 x B -D:L --.ilL -DL ~ .sJ.L
1 0.20 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
2 2.97 1.44 0.35 0.18 Nil -0.18 -0.36
3 2.75 2.49 1.57 1.41 1.26 1.10 0.95
4 5.38 0.46 -5.74 -6.7~ -7.81 -8.84 -9.88
5 2.31 1.67 0.17 -0.08 -0.33 -0.58 -0.83
6 1.58 0.64 -0.32 -0.48 -0.64 -0.80 -0.96
7 1. 22 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81
8 2.67 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
9 4.93 4.53 4.17 4.11 4.05 3.99 3.93
10 5.50 1.38 0.41 0.25 0.08 -O.O~ -0.24
11 6.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77
36.25 +14.26 +8.32 +7.60 +7.04 + 6.74 + 6.53
-6.U6 -7.34 -8.78 -10 .48 -12.27
* Excluding Frasch sulfur
-------
A4- 71
TABLE 41
(Cont'd)
Region Regional Demand Minus Regional Supp1y*
No. 1.15 x Base 1. 15 x B ~ --.JlL ~ ~ ~
1 0.21 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
2 3.11 .1.58 0.49 0.32 0.14 -0.04 -0.22
3 2.88 2.62 1. 70 1.54 1.39 1.23 1.08
4 5.62 0.70 -5.50 -6.54 -7.57 -8.60 -9.64
5 2.41 1.77 0.27 0.02 -0.23 -0.48 -0.73
6 1.62 0.71 -0.25 -0.41 -0.57 -0.73 -0.89
7 1.28 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87
8 2.79 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19
9 5.15 4.75 4.39 4.33 4.27 4.21 4.15
10 5.75 1.63 0.66 0.50 0.33 0.17 0.01
11 7.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07
37.89 +15.90 +9.65 +8.8~ +8.27 +7.75 + 7.38
-5.7'l. -6.95 -8.37 -9.85 -11. 48
* Excluding Frasch sulfur
NOTE:
The net regional demands (+) may not be offset
with net regional surplusses (-), hence the U.S. totals
for these quantities are summed separately.
-------
A4-72
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 42
PARAMETRIC CASES OF U.S. REGIONALIZED
DEMAND AND NET SUPPLY/DEMAND POSITION
. 2020
Region Regional Demand Minus Regional Supp1y*
No. Demand Base Base -.J.QL --D.L ~ -.flL ~
1 0.25 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
2 3.59 1.52 0.33 0.01 0.35 0.69 1.03
3 3.24 2.78 1. 87 1.61 1.35 1.09 0.83
4 6.51 0.75 8.02 10.09 12.17 14.24 16.32
5 2.87 2.09 0.34 0.16 0.66 1.16 1. 66
6 1. 83 0.70 0.56 0.92 1.28 1.64 2.00
7 1.56 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03
8 3.39 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21
9 4.69 4.09 3.66 3.53 3.41 3.28 3.16
10 6.69 1.12 0.07 0.41 0.75 1.09 1.43
11 7.77 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
--
42:39 +13.30 +7.20 + 6.14 + 5.76 + 5.37 + 4.99
- 1.04 -8.94 -11. 88 -15.50 -19.11 -22.73
Region
No. 1.15 x Base 1.15 x B -.J.QL --D.L ~ -.flL li!!L
1 0.29 -0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
2 4.13 2.06 0.87 0.53 0.19 -0.15 -0.49
3 3.73 3.27 2.36 2.10 1.84 1.58 1. 32
4 7.49 0.23 -7.04 -9.11 -11. 20 -13.26 -15.34
5 3.30 2.52 0.77 0.27 -0.23 -0.73 -1.23
6 2.10 0.97 -0.29 -0.65 -1.10 -1. 37 -1.73
7 1. 79 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26 1.26
8 3.90 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
9 5.39 4.79 4.36 4.23 4.11 3.98 3.86
10 7.69 2.12 0.93 0.59 0.25 0.09 -0.43
11 8.94 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14 1.14
48.75 +18.66 '+ 11. 99 +10.42 + 9.09 + 8.26 + 7.88
- 0.01 - 7.34 - 9.77 -12.45 -15.61 -19.23
* Excluding Frasch sulfur
-------
A4- 73
TABLE 42
--
(Cont'd)
Region
No. 1. 30 x Base 1. 30 x B -<.QL --D:L ~ ..ilL ~
1 0.33 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
2 4.67 2.60 1.41 1.07 0.73 0.39 0.05
3 4.21 3.75 2.84 2.58 2.32 2.06 1.80
4 8.46 1. 20 -6.07 -8.14 -10.23 -12.29 -14.37
5 3.73 2.95 1.29 0.70 0.20 -0.30 -0.80
6 2.38 1.25 -0.01 -0.37 -0.73 -1.09 -1.45
7 2.03 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50
8 4.41 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81
9 6.10 5.50 5.07 4.94 4:82 4.69 4.57
10 8.69 3.12 1. 93 1.59 1. 25 0.91 0.57
11 10.10 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30 2.30
55.11 +25.01 +17.09 +15.52 + 13.96 +12.69 + 11. 63
- 6.08 - 8.51 -10.96 -13.68 -16.62
* Excluding Frasch sulfur
NOTE:
The net regional demands (+) may not be offset
with net regional surp1usses (-), hence the U.S. totals
for these quantities are summed separately.
-------
A4-74
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 43
FOREIGN SUPPLY PROJECTIONS BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREA
(Million LT of S Equivalent)
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000 2010 2020
- -
. Canada
Natural Gas 4.10 7.0 8.0 7.2 4.5 0.5 0.4 .0.3
Petroleum 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.6 1.2 1.8
Smelter/Pyrite 0.60 1.5 3.6 4.3 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Other 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.1 ~ 0.1 0.1
4.80 8.6 11.8 11.8 9.9 7.2 8.7 10.2
. Japan
Petroleum 0.20 0.7 1.5 2.5 4.4 8.1 11.9 16.4
Smelter/Pyrite 2.60 3.3 3.7 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Other 0.40 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4
3.20 4.2 5.4 6.1 7.7 11.4 15.2 19.8
. W. Europe
Natural Gas 1. 70 1.9 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.1 0.8 0.5
Petroleum 0.25 0.8 2.5 5.1 8.0 14.0 21.4 31.0
Smelter/Pyrite 5.25 5.3 5.2 4.7 4.2 3.5 3.4 3.4
Other 1.20 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
-
8.40 9.3 11.0 13.2 15.3 20.2 27.2 ~
- -
Ii) Latin America
Frasch 1.35 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.0 1.2 0.7
Natural Gas 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Petroleum 0.20 0.9 1.2 1.8 2.5 4.5 7.5 11.5
Smelter/Pyrite 0.10 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.8
Other 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
- -
1. 70 2.3 2.9 4.1 5.2 7.8 10.4 14.6
- -
. Africa
Natural Gas: 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2
Petroleum 0.10 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.3
Smelter/Pyrite 0.50 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0
Other 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
- -
0.60 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.6
- -
. Middle E. /Far E.
Frasch 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Natural Gas 0.20 0.4 0.4 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.2 0.9
Petroleum 0.25 0.5 0.9 1.5 3.0 7.5 12.9 20.0
Smelter/Pyrite 0.20 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.7
Other 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4
-
0.70 1.3 2.4 4.0 6.2 11.3 16.8 25.1
- -
Total (F.W. ex U.S.) 19.4 26.4 34.4 40.4 45.8 59.6 80.3 108.8
-------
A4-75
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 44
FOREIGN SUPPLY PROJECTIONS BY SOURCE OF SULFUR
(MILLION LT OF S EQUIVALENT)
. Frasch 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000 2010 2020
Latin America 1. 35 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.0 1..2 0.7
Middle East 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 v.5
1. 35 T:T J::8 2:D 2:2 2:5 1.7 1:2
. Natural Gas
Canada 4.10 7.0 8.0 7.2 4.5 0.5 0.4 0.3
W. Europe 1. 70 1.9 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.1 0.8 0.5
Latin America 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Africa 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2
M.E./F.E. 0.20 0.4 0.4 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.2 0.9
6.00 9:4 10.5 10.6 7.9 3.5 2.7 TO
. Petroleum
Canada 0.05 0.05 c.'. 1 0.2 C.3 0.6 1.2 1.8
Japan 0.20 0.7 1.5 2.5 4.4 8.1 11. 9 16.4
W. Europe 0.25 0.8 2.5 5.1 8.0 14.0 21.4 31.0
Latin America 0.20 0.9 1.2 1.8 2.5 4.5 7.5 11. 5
Africa 0.10 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.3
M.E./F.E. 0.25 0.5 0.9 1.5 3.0 7.5 12.8 20.6
1.05 3.05 6.4 IT"4 18.6 35.3 55.7 82.6
. Smelter/Pyrite
Canada 0.60 1.5 3.6 4.3 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Japan 2.60 3.3 3.7 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
W. Europe 5.25 5.3 5.2 4.7 4.2 3.5 3.4 3.4
Latin America 0.10 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.8
Africa 0.50 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0
M.E./F.E. 0.20 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.7
9.25 TI:"l 13.9 14.1 14.6 15.6 17.4 19.9
. Other
Canada 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Japan 0.40 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4
W. Europe 1.20 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
Latin America 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4
M.E /F.E. 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4
1. 75 1. 75 1:8 2:3 -rs 2.7 2.8 3:T
Total (F.W. 19.4 26.4 34.4 40.4 45.8 59.6 80.3 108.8
ex U.S.)
-------
A4-76
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 45
FOREIGN SUPPLY/DEMAND BALANCES
(MILLION LT OF S EQUIVALENT)
. Canada 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000 2010 2020
Indust. Demand 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.9 2.7 3.9
Fert. Demand 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.8
(A)Tota1 Demand 1.2 1.4 1.7 2.0 2.5 3.6 4.9 6.7
(B) Supply 4.8 8:6 11.8 11.8 9:9 T2 ~ 10.2
(B)-(A) 3.6 7.2 10.1 9.8 7.4 3.6 3.8 3.5
. J.apan
Indust. Demand 1.2 1.8 2.9 3.8 5.2 8.0 11.1 14.7
Fert. Demand 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.0 2.1
(A)Tota1 Demand 2.3 3:T L;':4 5:4 6:9 9.8 13.1 16.8
(B) Supply 3.2 4.2 5.4 6.1 7.7 11.4 15.2 19.8
(B)-(A) 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.8 1.6 2.1 3.0
. W. Europe
Indust. Demand 5.5 6.4 7.2 8.7 10.5 14.7 20.6 28.4
Fert. Demand 4.9 5.4 5.9 6.4 7.1 8.6 10.2 12.0
(A)Total Demand 10.4 1l.8 13.1 15.1 17.6 23.3 30.8 40.4
(B) Supp 1y 8.4 9.3 11.0 13.2 15.3 20.2 27.2 36.5
(B)-(A) -2.0 -2.5 -2.1 -1.9 -2.3 -3.1 -3.6 -3.9
. Latin America
Indust. Demand 0.6 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.6 4.1 6.5 9.9
Fe rt. Demand 0.6 1.0 1.7 2.5 3.3 5.4 7.7 10.4
(A)Total Demand 1.2 TO 3:2 4:s 5.9 9:5 14.2 20.3
(B) Supply 1.7 2.3 2.9 4:T 5.2 7:8 10.4 14.6
(B)-(A) 0.5 0.3 -0.3 -0.4 -0.7 -1.7 -3.8 -5.7
. Africa
Indust. Demand 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.8 2.8 3.9
Fert. Demand 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 2.0 2.6 3.2
(A) Tota 1 Demand 1.1 1:5 1:9 2:3 -z:7 3:8 5:4 7.1
(B) Supply 0.6 0.7 0.9 1:2 1.5 1:7 2.0 """'2:6
(B)-(A) -0.5 -0.8 -1.0 -1.1 -1.2 -2.1 -3.4 -4.5
. Middle E./Far E.
Indust. Demand 1.1 1.7 2.5 3.4 4.4 7.1 11.4 17.9
Fert. Demand 1.7 2.8 4.5 5.9 7.6 11.2 15.4 19.8
(A)Tota1 Demand 2.8 4.5 7:0 9:3 12.0 18.3 26.8 37:7
(B) Supply 0.7 1.3 2.4 4:0 6.2 11.3 16.8 25.1
(B) - (A) -2.1 -3.2 -4.6 -5.3 -5.8 -7.0 -10.0 -12.6
Total (F.W. ex U. S)
(A) Total Demand 19.0 24.3 31.3 38.6 47.6 68.3 95.2 129.0
(B) Supply 19.4 26.4 34.4 40.4 45.8 59.6 80.3 108.8
(B)- (A) 0.4 2.1 3.1 1.6 -1.8 -8.7 -14.9 -20.2
-------
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 46
OOMMUNIST BLOC D/s BALANCES AND PROJECTED NET EXPORTS
(MILLION LT)
Supply (A)
Demand (B)
(A) - (B)
1970 1975 1980 - 1985 1990 2000 2010
11.1 14.7 19.2 22.7 25.5 31. 7 39.7
9.3 12.4 16.2 19.9 24.3 34.7 48.3
1.8 2.3 3.0 2.8 1.2 -3.0 -8.6
Projected Net Exports To F.W.
1.5
1.8
1.8
1.3
1.7
NIL
NIL
Projected Destination of Net Exports
W. Europe 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5
Africa 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2
M.E./F.E. 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.5
Lat. America 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1
2020
51.2
65.6
-14 . 4
$:
I
-..J"
-..J
NIL
-------
APPENDIX 4
TABLE 47
R>REIGN COHPUNENTS OF NORTH AMERICAN MJDEL Dls BALANCE
(MILLIQN LT OF S EQUIVALENT)
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000 2010 2020
Potential Supp1y*
W. 'Canadian (e1. S) 4.1 :>
7.0 8.0 7.2 4.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 .s:o-
I
(Acid) "
E. Canadian 0.4 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.0 00
Me.xican Frasch 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 NIL . NIL
Caribbean 0.2 0.7 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.8 4.0 - 5.0
"Rotterdam" Demand** -1. 3 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.8 -3.1 -3.6 -3.9
.*
**
Available for export to U.S.
Net of supply minus demand; negative figure implies ne.t demand
Rotterdam is not the only potential market ,for U.S. exports. However,
it is the most favorable market because of established terminals and
transportation linkages. Thus, it is the market that establishes the
F.O.B. price of U.S. sulfur exports. Under the "free trade" assumptions
of the Mode~, the export and domestic prices of U.S. Frasch sulfur are
the same. Thus, the quantity and price of U.S. exports to Rotterdam
affect the values of abatement S calculated for different regions within
the U.S.
-------
A.5.l
APPENDIX 5
SULFUR DEMAND FORECAST
Fertilizer Sulfur Demand
Fertilizers account for about half of the world demand for
sulfur. Most of the sulfur is used in the form of sulfuric acid to
solubilize phosphate rock. However, fertilizer S also includes ammonium
sulfate (AS) and some direct use of elemental S as a nutrient. The
demand for AS is declining because it is a low analysis fertilizer
(in terms of nitrogen content) and, hence, is costly to transport and
apply when compared with urea or anhydrous ammonia.
In the future the demand for directly applied nutrient Swill
increase, mostly as elemental S but also as gypsum (e.g., in California
where it serves as a soil conditioner). However, on a percentage basis,
the growth of S demand is expected to be concentrated in the manufacture
of phosphate fertilizers, particularly those of high analysis such as
diammonium phosphate (DAP) and triple superphosphate (TSP) rather than
normal (or single) superphosphate (NSP). It is also possible that
potassium polyphosphates will be commercialized on a large scale.
products possess the advantage of high analysis by containing both
and "PZOS".
Some of the more important factors that are expected to affect
the future demand for fertilizers and, hence, the imputed demand for
fertilizer sulfur are:
Such
"K 0"
2
( 1)
New ~rain varieties ... which were introduced during the past decade
and have permitted many developing countries to become self-sufficient
in grain production.
(2)
First significant usage of fertilizers in many countries ... Older
grain varieties (rice, corn, wheat) were not very responsive to
fertilizers, while the new varieties are. In consequence, fertilizers
were used for the first time in many developing countries during the
past decade.
(3)
Yield response curve ... For every crop, larger increments in crop
yield per unit of fertilization are obtained at low fertilization
levels than at high fertilization levels.
(4)
Overall trend to higher yield per unit of fertilization ... When
items (1) - (3) are considered together, it means that a relative
shift in grain production from developed countries (which use high
fertilization levels) to developing countries (which use low
fertilization levels) will reduce the average quantity of fertilizer
needed per unit of grain production.
-------
(10)
I '
AS-2
(5)
Meat consumption affects fertilizer demand because several calories
of animal feed are required to produce one calorie of human food
in the form of meat or dairy products. Fertilizer is used to
produce feed grains and, often, on pastures to improve grazing.
(6)
Diets have caloric sufficiency in developed countries '. i. e. there
is little tendency to consume more calories of food per capita.
On the other hand, greater meat consumption per capita is associated
with rising per capita income. Thus, the latter induces higher
fertilizer consumption. Nevertheless, there appears to be a maximum
even for consumption of animal products per capita that has already
been reached in Oceania and is expected to be reached in the U.S.
by 1980. When this occurs, further growth in total caloric demand
(including that required to support animal agriculture) will become
proportional to population increase.
(7)
Exports of grains and animal products increase the apparent per
capita consumption of fertilizers in some countries. This is par-
ticularly evident in Oceania, but also applies to the U. S. However,
Oceania is primarily an exporter of animal products, while the U. S.
is primarily an exporter of grains and has been affected by greater
self-sufficiency of grain production in developing countries.
(8)
Diets are calorically insufficient in many developing countries,
but are insufficient in protein also. In consequence, higher income
per capita will permit both greater caloric intake and more calories
in the form of animal products (India is an exception because of
religious prohibitions of meat consumption, etc.). Developing
countries, in general, can not earn sufficient foreign exchange to
permit large scale importation of food. Hence, expanded food
consumption depends on, and is coming from, expansion of domestic
food production. This explains the rapid growth of fertilizer con-
sumption in developing countries. Nevertheless, this consumption is
still at a low absolute level.
(9)
New technology has demonstrated that proteins can be synthesized
from hydrocarbons and also that vegetable proteins (e.g. from soybeans)
can be spun into products having the same appearance, texture and
flavor as various kinds of meat. Consumption of "synthetic meat" is
not yet at a significant commercial level. However, both synthetic
protein and synthetic meat are expected to become important before
the turn of the century. Both of these developments will tend to
reduce the demand for fertilizer sulfur and fertilizers in general.
Plantation crops such as cotton, coffee and sugar account for a
significant amount of current fertilizer demand in the developing
countries. In aggregate, growth in demand for such crops is expected
to be slow. Statistically, this will hold down future fertilizer
growth rates in the developing countries.
-------
AS-3
The above factors were taken into account when making the
projections of imputed fertilizer S demand recorded in Table 1. It is
stressed that these estimates are for sulfur demand not for conventional
fertilizer nutrients (N, P20S, K20). The projected growth rates for the
latter are somewhat higher than for sulfur demand, for example:
Average Compound Growth Rate, 1970-2000, % per year
4.5
N + P2QS....:t.....K2Q
4.0
-L
..1L
Free World
3.6
Although it is convenient to express growth on
compound annual basis, it is expected that actual growth
decline progressively, as indicated in the table.
an average
rates will
The population forecasts associated with the fertilizer projections
are given in Table 2. It will be seen that Oceania is treated as a separate
region because of its important role in world agriculture, because of
extremely high fertilization with P205 in Australia, and because of high
living standards in Oceania relative to the rest of Asia/Pacific area
excluding Japan. projections of acreage under cultivation and of acres
cultivated per capita are given in Tables 3 and 4.
For convenience in making additional calculations, the imputed
fertilizer S demand is converted to billions of pounds in Table 5. This
makes it possible to calculate the imputed fertilizer S demand in lbs/acre
(Table 6), in lbs/capita (Table 7), and in terms of pounds per $1000 of GNP
for both the "most probable" and "low economic growth" cases (Tables 8 and 9).
Table 10 shows how the geographical distribution of fertilizer
sulfur demand is expected to change during the next fifty years. Last
year, 84% of this demand was in developed countries; more than one third
was in the U. S. alone. However, by the year 2020, a more even distribution
is expected. The same point is evident from Table 7 where fertilizer S
demand is expressed on a per capita basis.
Fertilizer sulfur per capita demand is expected to increase
more than four-fold in the developing countries during the next fifty
years, rising from one twentieth of the average U.S. level now to one
seventh of this level by the year 2020. Free world consumption of
fertilizer sulfur per capita is expected to double during the same period.
As mentioned above, future fertilizer demand for sulfur is
associated primarily with the manufacture of phosphatic fertilizers
since the demand for (by-product) ammonium sulfate, a low analysis
fertilizer, is declining. However, the geographical location of the
sulfur demand, as indicated in Table 1, may be misleading in that large
volumes of phosphate fertilizers will be manufactured in countries with
major phosphate deposits (e.g. U. S., Spain/Spanish Sahara, Algeria,
Morocco, Tunisia). These countries will export both phosphate rock and
phosphate fertilizers. In consequence, some of the demand for sulfur
attributed to the developing countries (e.g. in Asia) will actually occur
in the U. S. and W. Europe where TSP and DAP will be manufactured. This
will not affect the worldwide demand for fertilizer sulfur except to
-------
M~
the extent that it may be constrained by foreign exchange availability,
i.e. by the need for most developing countries to use foreign exchange
to pay for imports of P fertilizers or P rock plus sulfur. The parallel
need to import potash is another factor that may serve as a brake on
fertilizer consumption in developing countries. On the other hand, the
latter will move up the fertilizer-response/crop yield curve (increasing
quantity of fertilizer required for a unit of crop yield as intensity
of fertilization increases as discussed in items 3 and 4), and this will
tend to force the use of heavier fertilization.
Last year, on an acreage basis, developing countries used about
one ninth as much fertilizer sulfur as developed countries. Fifty years
hence, the former are expected to be using one third as much per acre as
the developed countries will then be using, or about as much per acre as
the developed countries used last year.
It is considered that average fertilization rates in developing
countries will not match those in developed countries until rates of
population increase decline sharply. The latter is a key to more rapid
growth in per capita income and to making it possible to finance the
inputs required for modern agriculture. Probably the greatest need is
capital for industrial development in order to provide jobs for those
displaced from the land by agricultural mechanization. Thus, rapid
growth in fertilizer sulfur demand per capita is associated with slow
population growth. Clearly, these two factors will have opposite effects
on total sulfur demand. On balance, however, a slowing of population
growth in developing countries (to a greater degree than projected in
Table 2) would be expected to increase fertilizer sulfur demand.
Some water pollution problems, e.g. rain-induced run off of
nitrates into rivers, have been experienced in the U. S. Better fertilizer
schedules and improvements in weather forecasting may relieve the problem.
Nevertheless, it is an indication that maximum feasible rates are being
approached in some places. Although the problem has been with N-fertilizers,
the impact is on all nutrients since crops require balanced fertilization.
Overall, it is projected that total fertilizer and fertilizer
sulfur demand will increase about S-fold during the next fifty years.
On an absolute basis more than half of this increase will be in the
developing countries although supplied, to some extent, by exports from
the developed countries. However, the rates at which demand grows are
expected to decline progressively, and the fertilizer industry will lose
its growth label long before the turn of the century. By that time,
synthetics of various kinds, including meat-substitute products, are
expected to have a restraining influence on fertilizer growth.
-------
A5-5
A.,5.2
Industrial Sulfur Demand
The projections of industrial demand, already presented in the
regional supply/demand balance tables in Appendix 4, were based on
correlation with constant dollar GNP as discussed in Appendix 1.
On a historical basis, using GNP aggregates for both the
"Free World ex U.S." and the Communist Bloc, the following relationship
was found between industrial S consumption and GNP in 1958 constant dollars:
Lbs of S per $1000 of GNP
Free World Communist
Year ex U.S. Bloc
1950 19.4
1955 20.6 12.5
1960 21.2 16.3
1965 20.8 19.0
1970E 19.5 20.7
The apparent divergence of the trends in these ratios is
attributed to a relatively higher, and more advanced, state of industrialization
in the Free World countries such that a declining percentage of goods and
services (components of GNP) is associated with the forms of industrial
production that utilize sulfur and sulfuric acid. Such a decline has
been observed in the U.S., and is evident in other Free World countries
during the past decade. The estimated value for 1970 is somewhat below
the trend line because a recession, in terms of slower growth of industrial
production, was experienced in many of the Free World countries. Thus,
the downtrend in ratio is expected to continue but not at the apparent
decline rate between 1965 and 1970. In fact, the 1975 ratio for the
"F.W. ex U.S." is projected to be 19.4 lbs of industrial S per $1000 of
GNP. With further moves towards "services economies" in industrialized
countries, the ratio is projected to decline as follows:
Year
Ratio
1975
19.4
1980
19.2
1985
18.9
1990
18.5
2000
17.7
2010
17.0
2020
16.3
On the other hand, in 1955, the Communist countries were still
at an early stage of (industrial) recovery from World War II. Subsequently,
rapid recovery and development occurred in the U.S.S.R. and most E. European
countries. In consequence, the level of basic industrial production has
risen sharply. The importance of sulfuric acid production to such basic
development is clear. Recently, there have been signs of shifts in the
economies of the developed Communist countries in the direction of more
consumer goods. Thus, while "service ecol).omies" are hardly in evidence,
the same shifts that occurred in composition of GNP in the Free World
countries during the 1960's now appear to be under way in the industrialized
parts of the Communist Bloc. Hence, the S/GNP ratio is not expected to
rise much further. The following is projected:
Year
Ratio
1975
20.7
1980
19.9
1985
19.4
1990
19.0
2000
18.2
2010
17.4
2020
16.7
-------
AS-6
In essence, what is being projected is that industrial demand
for sulfur is a function of GNP/capita and also of total GNP. Low GNP/capita
is consistent with a low level of industrialization. However, certain
countries (e.g. Brazil) have highly industrialized areas even though the
average level of industrialization is low. Such countries will have a
higher level of industrial S demand than would be calculated on the basis
of GNP/capita.
As GNP/capita rises so will the demand for industrial sulfur,
particularly in the form of sulfuric acid. However, at some point, the
contribution of industrial production to GNP will begin to decline on a
percentage basis. When this happens, the industrial S/GNP ratio will decline.
It will be appreciated that the above is a hypothesis. While
it fits the historical facts, there is a danger that the correlation will
become less and less accurate as a quantitative predictor. Thus, it must
be pointed out that the projections of industrial sulfur demand beyond
the year 2000 are extremely sensitive to the S/GNP ratios that have been
projected. Because these ratios have been projected to decline, it means
that industrial S demand is projected to grow at a slower rate than GNP.
A sharp drop in the ratio would not be expected because some of the
"developing countries" will indeed develop industrially. The S/GNP ratio
may be expected to increase in such countries thereby partially offsetting
the anticipated decline in those that are at a more mature state of development.
Sulfur demand will have been underestimated if the "developing
countries" industrialize more rapidly than has been projected (in terms
of GNP and GNP/capita). However, in these circumstances the greater
economic activity would be accompanied by a greater demand for fossil
fuels with a consequent level of sulfur recovery higher than has been
projected. Thus, the higher level of S demand would be offset, at least
in part, by a higher level of supply, and with a reasonable chance that the
net balance would not be affected significantly (i.e. not to the point
that world balance would be changed sufficiently to affect the value of
abatement S in the U.S.).
-------
AS-7
A.S.3
Regionalized U.S. Demand
dustrial
shown on
The separate totals of U.S. demand for fertilizer and in-
sulfur, obtained as described in the preceding sections, are
a regionalized or disaggregated basis in Tables 11 and 12.
The regionalization was performed by superimposing the simu-
lation of anticipated specific developments, e.g., greatly expanded
utilization of the natural resources of the Western states, on a demand
pattern prorated from the breakdown of regional demand estimated for
1970.
Development of the coal, shale, phosphate and other mineral
resources of the Western states, including copper (oxide as well as
sulfide) ores and the various materials recoverable from Great Salt Lake
and other brines, will affect both the supply of and demand for sulfur.
Part of the demand will be in the form of specific captive uses, e.g.,
the use of by-product smelter acid to leach oxide ores and low copper
content residues separated during the beneficiation of sulfide ores to
be treated by pyrometallurgical processes. In some cases, by-product
smelter acid may be used for leaching uranium ores. However, it is also
anticipated that parts of the Western states will become progressively
industrialized as a consequence or multiplier effect of resource de-
velopment. For example, the construction of coal-to-gas or coal-to-oil
plants and the production of shale oil would be expected to be followed
by chemical operations based on utilization of various feedstocks and
by-products obtained from the new forms of fossil fuel industry (i.e.,
the conversion plants). Thus, in the long term, the demand for both
industrial and fertilizer sulfur is expected to grow significantly in
the sulfur Model's "Tucson region," i.e., the Mountain states.
The sum of regionalized fertilizer and industrial demand for
sulfur is recorded in Table 13. Because of large quantitative differences
in demand among the various regions, the calculations were made to two
decimal places (i.e., rounded to the nearest 10,000 LT of annual demand).
However, the estimates themselves certainly do not have this accuracy.
The lower half of Table 13 illustrates what has been projected when the
sulfur demand of the various regions is expressed as a percentage of
total U.S. demand.
On an absolute basis, sulfur demand is expected to expand in
all regions. However, on a relative basis, demand in the East and South
is projected to decline as the West Coast, Mountain states and parts of
the Midwest show relative gains:
-------
AS-8
Regions
% of U.S. Demand for
Sulfur in All Forms
1970 2000
Boston, Newark, Norfolk
Tampa, New Orleans
Chicago, Hemphis, Omaha
Tucson
Seattle, Los Angeles
20.5
42.7
21.5
7.6
7.7
16.1
36.1
24.1
13.9
9.8
The projected pattern reflects the combined impact of population shifts,
resource availability and, in the Chicago region, access to water-borne
transportation for movement of both raw materials and products. It is
reasoned, further, that the population shift to the West Coast can not
be sustained in the long run without the development of "Pacific in-
dustries." In concept, the latter would not only be more or less self-
sufficient on a domestic basis but would also engage in international
trade with Pacific nations such as Japan, China, Australia, countries
on the west coast of Latin America, and other countries of S.E. Asia
that are expected to undergo considerable agricultural and industrial
development during the next fifty years.
The concept of Pacific development is based on analogy with
what has occurred during the last century in the mutual economic develop-
ment of the Eastern U.S. and Western Europe. The latter is expected to
continue, but economic growth rates in major Pacific countries are ex-
pected to be higher. In this context, the West Coast states may be con-
sidered as a "country." The same reasoning would apply to Siberia which,
in terms of logistics and international trade is a Pacific country where-
as Russia (in its historical sense) and Eastern European countries are
oriented towards W. Europe, the Mediterranean and the Middle East.
On a very approximate basis, and recognizing that lines of
constant longitude are not involved, it is possible to redefine the
Eastern and Western Hemispheres from a logistical standpoint. One of
the dividing lines would run through the Canadian Prairies, the U.S.
Mountain states, Mexico and Central America, while the Andes would form
the natural division in South America. The other dividing line'would
separate Western Russia from the Siberian republics, and would pass
through the Persian Gulf. The countries of East Africa might be con-
sidered to be in the Pacific/Indian Ocean "hemisphere," while West and
North African countries would be in the Atlantic/Hediterranean "hemi-
sphere." Although extremely crude, this concept is believed to have
some merit in relation to future trade patterns in international
commodities including sulfur.
-------
APPENDIX 5
TABLE 1
PROJECTIONS OF IMPUTED FERTILIZER SULFUR DEMAND IN MILLION
LONG TONS AND COMPOUND ANNUAL GROWTH RATES BY DECADE
Million Long Tons Compound Growth, % Per Year
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 70/80 80/90 90/00 00/10 10/20
U.S. 5.03 7.05 9.ll 11.01 12.84 14.52 3.4 2.6 1.9 1.55 1.25
Canada 0.47 0.85 1.27 1. 73 2.24 2.80 6.1 4.1 3.1 2.6 2.25
Japan 1.12 1.57 1.71 1.85 1.96 2.07 3.4 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.6
European OECD 4.86 5.86 7.11 8.55 10.21 12.03 1.9 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7
OECD 1l.48 15.33 19.20 23.14 27.25 31.42 2.9 2.3 1.9 1.7 1.45
Oceania 0.78 1.34 2.01 2.73 3.56 4.51 5.6 4.1 3.1 2.7 2.4
Devt. F.W. 12.26 16.67 21.21 25.87 30.81 35.93 3.15 2.45 2.0 1.8 1.55
Dev. Asia 0.96 3.14 5.54 8.44 11.80 15.30 12.6 5.85 4.3 3.4 2.7
Africa 0.69 1.07 1.48 2.03 2.62 3.22 4.5 3.3 3.2 2.6 2.1
Latin America 0.63 -1..:.Z2. 3.34 5.43 7.75 10.36 6.0 6.6 5.0 3.6 2.9 ;I:-
lJ1
Dev. F.W. 2.28 5.97 10.36 15.90 22.17 28.88 10.1 5.7 4.4 3.4 2.7 I
\0
Free World 14.54 22.6 31.6 41.8 53.0 64.8 4.5 3.4 2.85 2.4 2.1
Communist Bloc 4.0 8.2 12.2 16.7 21.6 27.0 7.3 4.1 3.1 2.65 2.2
World 18.6 30.8 43.8 58.5 74.6 91.8 5.2 3.6 2.9 2.5 2.1
Comm. Bloc as
% of World 21.7 26.5 28.0 28.5 29.0 29.4
-------
APPENDIX 5
TABLE 2
POPULATION PROJECTIONS CORRESPONDING TO FERTILIZER FORECAST
Ratio
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2020/1970
U.S. 205.4 229.1 255.6 282.3 308.8 334.4 1.63
Canada 21.5 26.0 31.1 36.8 42.7 49.1 2.28
Japan 103.4 114.2 126.1 137.9 149.3 160.1 1.55
European OECD 370.1 600.8 434.0 465.3 494.0 519.2 1.40
OECD 700.4 770.1 846.8 922.3 994.8 1062.8 1.52
Oceania 15.4 18.7 22.5 27.0 32.1 38.0 2.47
Devt. F.W. 715.8 788.8 869.3 949.3 1026.9 1100.8 1.54
Dev. Asia 1104.8 1415 1778 2192 2648 3076 2.78
Africa 355.5 455 571 703 857 995 2.80
Latin. America 282.6 376 496 634 781 924 3.27 ~
Dev. F. W. 1742.9 2246 2845 3530 4286 4995 2.87 I
t-'
o
Free World 2459 3035 37.5 4479 5313 6096 2.48
Communist Bloc 1156 1321 1495 1682 1874 2068 1. 79
World 3615 4356 5210 6161 7187 8164 2.26
-------
APPENDIX 5
TABLE 3
PROJECTIONS OF ACREAGE UNDER CULTIVATION
Million Acres Ratio
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2020/1970
U.S. 445 432 420 408 395 383 0.86
Canada 104 109 116 124 131 138 1.33
Japan 15 14.6 14.3 14.1 13.8 13.6 0.91
European OECD 301 297 292 289 287 285 0.95
OECD 865 852 843 835 828 820 0.95
Oceania 84 89 94 99 106 114 1.36
Devt. F.W. 949 941 937 934 934 934 0.98
Dev. Asia 852 914 951 971 981 981 1.15 G;
Africa 395 435 482 531 645 786 1.99 I
Latin America 259 366 467 558 635 702 2.71 ,.....
,.....
1507 1715 1900 2061 2261 2469 1.64
Free World 2456 2656 2837 2995 3195 3403 1.39
Communist Bloc 1033 1045 1055 1067 1077 1090 1.06
World 3489 3701 3892 4062 4272 4493 1.29
-------
APPENDIX 5
TABLE 4
PROJECTION OF CULTIVATED ACRES PER CAPITA
Ratio
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2020/1970
U.S. 2.17 1.89 1.64 1.45 1.28 1.15 0.53
Canada 4.84 4.19 3.73 3.37 3.07 2.81 0.58
Japan 0.15 0.13 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.59
European OECD 0.81 0.74 0.67 0.62 0.58 0.55 0.68
OECD 1.24 1.11 1.00 0.91 0.83 0.77 0.62
Oceania 5.45 4.76 4.18 3.67 3.30 3.00 0.55
Devt. F.W. 1.33 1.19 1.08 0.98 0.91 0.85 0.64
Dev. Asia 0.77 0.65 0.53 0.44 0.37 0.32 0.41
Africa 1.11 0.96 0.84 0.76 0.75 0.79 0.71 ~
Latin America 0.92 0.97 0.94 0.88 0.81 0.76 0.83 I
Dev. F.W. 0.86 0.76 0.67 0.58 0.53 0.49 0.57 ~
N
Free World 1.00 0.88 0.76 0.67 0.60 0.56 0.56
Conununist Bloc 0.89 0.79 0.71 0.63 0.57 0.53 0.60
World 0.97 0.85 0.75 0.66 0.59 0.55 0.57
Note: Above projections do not take account of double and triple cropping.
-------
APPENDIX 5
TART.F. 5
PROJECTIONS OF IMPUTED FERTILIZER SULFUR DEMAND
(Billion Pounds)
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
U.S. 11.27 15.79 20.41 24.66 28.76 32.52
Canada 1.05 1.90 2.84 3.87 5.02 6.27
Japan 2.51 3.52 3.83 4.14 4.39 4.64
European OECD 10.89 13.13 15.93 19.15 22.87 26.95
OECD 25.72 34.34 43.01 51.83 61.04 70.38
Oceania 1. 75 3.00 4.50 6.11 7.97 10.10
Devt. F.W. 27.46 37.34 ~ 57.95 69.01 80.48
Dev. Asia 2.15 7.03 12.41 18.91 26.43 34.27 ~
Africa 1.55 2.40 3.32 4.55 5.87 7.21 I
......
Latin America 1.41 3.94 7.48 12.16 17.36 23.21 UJ
Dev. F. W. 5.11 13 .37 23.21 35.62 49.66 64.69
Free World 32.6 50.7 70.7 93.6 118.7 145.2
F . W . ex. U. S. 21.3 34.9 50.3 68.9 89.9 112.7
Communist Bloc 9.0 18.3 27.4 37.3 48.5 60.5
World 41.6 69.0 98.1 130.9 167.2 205.7
-------
APPENDIX 5
TABLE 6
PROJECTIONS OF IMPUTED FERTILIZER SULFUR DEMAND IN LBS. PER ACRE
Ratio
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2020/1970
U.S. 25.3 36.6 48.6 60.4 72.8 84.9 3.36
Canada 10.1 17.4 24.5 31.2 38.3 45.4 4.50
Japan 167 241 268 294 318 341 2.04
European OECD 36.2 44.2 54.6 66.3 79.7 94.6 2.61
OECD 29.7 40.3 ..2l:..Q 62.1 73.7 85.8 2.89
Oceania 20.8 33.7 47.9 61.7 75.2 88.6 4.26
Devt. F.W. 28.9 39.7 50.7 62.0 73.9 86.2 2.98
Dev. Asia 2.52 7.69 13.1 19.5 26.9 34.9 13.9 >-
Ut
I
Africa 3.92 5.52 6.9 8.6 9.1 9.2 2.35 ,.....
.p..
Latin America 5.44 10.8 16.0 21.8 27.3 33.1 6.1
Dev. F.W. 3.39 7.8 12.2 17.3 22.0 26.2 7.7
Free World 13.3 19.1 24.9 31.2 37.1 42.7 3.22
Conununist Bloc 8.8 17.5 26.0 35.0 45.0 55.5 6.3
World 11.9 18.6 25.2 32.2 39.1 45.8 3.8
-------
I
AP?~O:X 5
TART.F. 7
PROJECTIONS OF IMPUTED FERTILIZER SULFUR DEMAND PER CAPITA (LBS.)
Ratio
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2020/1970
U.S. 54.9 68.9 79.9 87.4 93.1 97.2 1.77
Canada 48.8 73.1 91.3 105.2 117.6 127.7 2.62
Japan 243 308 304 300 294 290 1.19
European OECD 29.4 32.8 32.8 41.2 46.3 51.9 1.77
OECD 36.7 44.6 50.8 56.2 61.3 66.2 1.80
Oceania 114 160 200 226 248 266 2.34
Devt. F.W. 38.4 47.3 54.7 61.0 69.4 75.7 1.97
Dev. Asia 1.95 4.97 6.98 8.63 9.98 11.14 5.7
Africa 4.36 5.27 5.81 6.47 6.85 7.25 1.66 ~
Latin America 4.99 10.5 15.1 19.2 22.2 25.1 5.0 I
i-'
Dev. F.W. 2.93 5.95 8.15 10.1 11.6 13.0 4.4 VI
Free World 13.2 16.7 19.0 20.9 22.2 23.8 1.80
Communist Bloc 7.8 13.9 18.3 22.2 25.9 29.3 3.08
World 11.5 15.8 18.8 21.2 23.3 25.2 2.10
Note that food imports, e.g. by Japan and European OECD, will decrease the effective
fertilizer sulfur demand "in their areas and increase it in the food exporting areas
such as the U.S., Canada and Oceania.
-------
APPENDIX 5
TABLE 8
LBS. OF IMPUTED FERTILIZER SULFUR DEMAND PER $1000
OF GNP IN 1958 CONSTANT DOLLARS
1955 1965 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
U.S. 10.4 12.2 15.6 14.7 12.9 10.8 8.9 7.3
Canada 12.0 17.6 17.9 20.2 19.1 16.7 14.1 11.7
Japan 68 27.9 17.2 10.6 6.1 4.1 3.0 2.3
European OECD 21.4 18.5 19.9 15.8 12.6 10.3 8.4 6.9
OECD 16.3 15.8 17.4 14.7 11.9 9.6 7.9 6.4
Far East (ex. Japan) 16.1 18.9 22.0 32.4 31.7 27.9 22.7 18.1
Africa 12.2 20.3 27.2 25.8 22.1 19.3 16.0 13.2
Latin America 1.4 6.1 13.4 21.6 24.2 23.3 20.3 17.1
Non-OECD ""9:8 14.9 20.2 28.0 27.9 25.2 21.1 17.2 ~
f
I-'
Free World 15.2 15.7 18.0 17.4 15.3 13.3 11.3 9.5 Q'\
F.W. ex. U.S. 19.6 18.2 19.5 19.0 16.6 14.5 12.4 10.4
Communist Bloc 14.1 16.0 16.4 20.9 20.0 17.3 14.6 12.0
World 14.9 15.8 17.6 18.2 16.4 14.2 12.1 10.1
-------
APPENDIX 5
TA RT.F. 9
POUNDS OF IMPUTED FERTILIZER SULFUR DEMAND PER $1000 OF
GNP IN 1958 CONSTANT DOLLARS - LOW ECONOMIC GROWTH CASE
1955 1965 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
U.S. 10.4 12.2 15.6 15.1 14.1 12.7 11.2 9.8
Canada 12.0 17.6 17.9 20.7 20.9 19.6 18.1 16.1
Japan 68 27.9 17.2 11.6 7.4 5.7 4.4 3.6
European OECD 21.4 18.5 19.9 16.2 13.5 11.8 10.6 9.7
OECD 16.3 15.8 17.4 15.3 13.1 11.5 10.2 9.0
Far East (ex. Japan) 16.1 18.9 22.0 34.3 37.0 36.2 33.7 30.6
Africa 12.2 20.3 27.2 26.1 23.1 21.1 18.3 15.9
Latin America 1.4 6.1 13.4 21.9 25.3 26.4 25.2 23.2 (;.
Non-OECD 9.8 14.9 . 20.2 29.0 30.9 30.5 28.3 25.8 I
~
-.J
Free World 15.2 15.7 18.0 18.0 16.9 16.0 14.8 13.6
F . W. ex. U. S. 19.6 18.2 19.7 19.7 18.4 17.6 16.5 15.3
Communist Bloc 14.1 16.0 16.4 21.3 21.4 20.3 19.2 18.0
World 14.9 15.8 17.6 18.8 18.0 17.0 15.8 14.6
-------
APPENDIX 5
TABLE 10
PROJECTED DISTRIBUTION OF FREE WORLD FERTILIZER Stn..FUR DEMAND
(% Basis)
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000 2010 2020
u. S. 34.6 33.2 31.1 30.1 28.8 26.3 24.2 22.3
Developed Countries exc1. u. S. 49.8 46.3 42.5 40.3 38.3 35.5 33.8 32.8
Developed Countries 84.4 79.5 73.6 70.4 67.1 61. 8 58.0 58.1
Developing Countries 15.6 20.5 26.4 29.6 32.9 38.2 42.0 44.9
Free World 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
~
I
I-'
C1J
-------
APPENDIX 5
TABLE 11
REGIONALIZED PROJECTIONS OF U.S. FERTILIZER S DEMAND
(Million LT of S Equivalent)
Region 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000 2010 2020
Boston 0.02 0.02 0.01
Newark 0.15 0.16 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Norfolk 0.58 0.55 0.46 0.48 0.55 0.66 0.77 0.87
Chicago 0.32 0.36 0.50 0.64 0.76 0.98 1.21 1. 44
Memphis 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Omaha 0.09 0.13 0.15 0.19 0.24 0.30 0.38 0.46
Seattle
Los Angeles 0.18 0.22 0.25 0.29 0.35 0.46 0.58 0.66 :J>
VI
Tampa 2.10 2.54 3.19 3.54 3.80 4.20 4.48 4.69 I
t-'
Tucson 0.25 0.38 0.56 0.79 1.18 1. 97 2.83 3.68 \0
New Orleans 1.16 1.57 1.82 2.00 2.15 2.36 2.51 2.64
Continental U.S. 4.90 5.97 7.05 8.01 9.11 11.01 12.84 14.52
-------
APPENDIX 5
TABLE 12
REGIONALIZED PROJECTIONS OF U.S. INDUSTRIAL S DEMAND
(Million LT of S Equivalent)
Region 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000 2010 2020
Boston 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.14 0.18 0.25
Newark 0.75 0.86 1.01 1. 20 1. 42 1.96 2.65 3.54
Norfolk 0.42 0.49 0.59 0.72 0.87 1.24 1. 73 2.37
Chicago 0.76 0.94 1.16 1.43 1. 75 2.55 3.68 5.07
Memphis 0.56 0.66 0.76 0.91 1.07 1. 51 2.07 2.84
Omaha 0.28 0.34 0.39 0.46 0.54 0.74 1. 03 1. 37 :>
\.J1
Seattle 0.25 0.30 0.36 0.44 0.53 0.78 1.11 1. 56 I
N
Los Angeles 0.31 0.39 0.49 0.62 O. 79 1. 22 1.85 2.73 a
Tampa Negligible (in relation to fertilizer S demand)
Tucson 0.48 0.58 0.70 0.86 1.05 1.54 2.17 3.01
New Orleans 0.84 0.99 1.18 1.43 1. 75 2.54 3.64 5.13
Continental U.S. 4.70 5.61 6.71 8.15 9.87 14.22 20.11 27.87
-------
APPEN ) :X 5
TABLE 13
REGIONALIZED PROJECTIONS OF TOTAL U.S. DEMAND
FOR SULFUR IN ALL FORMS
(Million LT of S Equivalent)
Region 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000 2010 2020
Boston 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.14 0.18 0.25
Newark 0.90 1.02 1.09 1. 25 1. 47 2.01 2.70 3.59
Norfolk 1.00 1.04 1.05 1.20 1. 42 1. 90 2.50 3.24
Chicago 1.08 1. 30 1.66 2.07 2.51 3.53 4.89 6.51
Memphis 0.61 0.70 0.79 0.94 1.10 1.54 2.10 2.87
Omaha 0.37 0.47 0.54 0.64 0.78 1.04 1.41 1. 83
Seattle 0.25 0.30 0.36 0.44 0.53 0.78 loll 1.56
Los Angeles 0.49 0.61 0.74 0.91 1.14 1.68 2.43 3.39
Tampa 2.10 2.54 3.19 3.54 3.80 4.20 4.48 4.69 :I:-
Ln
Tucson 0.73 0.96 1.'26 1. 65 2.23 3.51 5.00 6.69 I
N
New Orleans 2.00 2.56 3.00 3.43 3.90 4.90 6.15 7.77 I-'
Continental U.S. 9.60 11. 58 13.76 16.16 18.98 25.23 32.95 42.39
. Percentage Basis
Boston 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6
Newark 9.4 8.8 7.9 7.7 7.7 8.0 8.2 8.5
Norfolk 10.4 9.0 7.6 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.6 7.6
Chicago 11.3 11.2 12.1 12.8 13.2 14.0 14.8 15.3
Memphis 6.3 6.0 5.7 5.8 5.8 6.0 6.4 6.8
Omaha 3.9 4.1 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.3 4.3
Seattle 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.7
Los Angeles 5.1 5.3 5.4 5.6 6.0 6.7 7.4 8.0
Tampa 21.9 21.9 23.2 22.0 20.1 16.7 13.6 11.1
Tucson 7.6 8.3 9.1 10.2 11. 7 13.9 15.2 15.8
New Orleans 20.8 22.1 . 21.9 21. 3 20.6 19.4 18.6 18.3
-------
APPENDIX 6
COST ASSUMPTIONS
A.6.1.
Transportation Costs
Transportation costs depend on a number of factors:
what is being carried
the form in which it is carried
the mode of transportation (tanker, freighter, barge,
hopper car, tank car, etc.)
the size of parcel
loading and/or unloading costs
distance
special restrictions, e.g., that shipment must be made
in a U.S. flag vessel (Jones Act)
spot charter, long-term charter or contract of affreight-
ment rates
special arrangements such as unit trains or backhau1
provisions
Sulfur is transported either as a bulk, powdered solid or as
a (heated) liquid. U.S. deliveries are made by tankers or barges to
more than two dozen liquid terminals. The latter are located on the
Gulf Coast, at Tampa, on the E. Coast, and on the Mississippi River
system. Local delivery from these terminals is made, as liquid, by
rail or tank-truck. In addition, there are several customer terminals
to which liquid is delivered by U.S. and Mexican Frasch producers.
For the most part, Canadian exports to the Mountain and Midwest states
are as liquid in rail tank-cars.
Superimposed on the transportation pattern for elemental sulfur
is that for sulfuric acid. The latter moves by tank-truck, barge and R.R"
tank-car. Because of much higher transportation costs, when considered
on an S-va1ue basis~ sulfuric acid is seldom shipped more than 150
miles. Furthermore, acid is normally shipped in approximately 100%
concentration even though actual use often involves much lower concentra-
tions, ranging down to 10% and even lower.
The importance of transportation costs varies with the value
of the material being transported. Because sulfur has a low unit value
(e.g., in $ per LT), transportation costs represent a significant
part of the delivered price ranging from as little as 10-15% to as much
as 70%.
On a ton-mile basis water-borne 'transportation costs,
particularly for foreign flag vessels, may be only 10%, or even less,
of U.S. rail costs. In consequence, there is a greater interconnection
of world sulfur markets by sea than there is of U.S. markets by land.
-----
*i.e. a sulfur equivalent basis.
-------
A6-2
The Jones Act, which requires shipments between u.s. ports
cost) U.S. vessels, produces the seeming anomaly of making
to ship U.S. Frasch sulfur to N. Europe (in a foreign flag
than to ship it to Boston (in a U.S. flag carrier).
in (high
it cheaper
vesse 1)
In late 1970, the price of sulfur ex a Rotterdam terminal was
about $26/LT. With a $6/LT liquid tanker charge, this price netted
back to about $20/LT F.D.B. Gulf Coast. At that time*, the freight
for Canadian sulfur between Vancouver and Rotterdam was about $lO/LT.
After adding a melting charge at the delivery end (Rotterdam) and also
the unit train costs from Calgary to Vancouver together with handling
and loading charges in Vancouver, the netback to calgary was about
$7/LT. At the same time, the netback to the Mexican export port of
Coatzacoalcos was approximately the same as that to U.S. Gulf ports
(Galveston, Beaumont, Port Sulphur). Both French and Polish sulfur
was also entering N. European markets with transportation costs
from Bayonne (France) and Gdansk (Poland) of about $5/LT. The
actual price at Rotterdam depended on a number of factors (e.g., whether
the sulfur offered is dark or bright, liquid or solid, spot or long-
term contract), but the netbacks to major supply points approximated:
Netback
$/LT
Transportation Cost
as % of Delivered Price
U. S. Gulf Ports
Coatzacoalcos
Vancouver
Calgary
Bayonne (France)
Gdansk (Poland)
20
20
15
7
21
21
23
23
73 (1)
19 (1)
19
(1)
These percentages do not include the internal transportation costs
for delivering French and Polish sulfur to the ports of Bayonne
and Gdansk respectively.
The very high marine transportation rates experienced during
1970 have fallen back to normal, .or below normal, levels. In consequence,
the Vancouver/Rotterdam rate may now be of the order of $6/LT for
favorable charters. A comparable reduction has not occurred between
Beaumont or Port Sulphur and Rotterdam because the liquid tankers used
for the shipments are owned by Sulexco.
The North European price situation connects back into U.S.
pricing through the netbacks to principal supply points in N. America.
Theoretically, $7/LT F.D.B. Alberta sulfur could move across the border
into Montana and be delivered there for little more than $lO/LT.
Clearly, it would not be possible for U.S. Frasch producers to come
close to meeting such a price. Even if the Alberta F.D.R. price were
to be $15/LT, it would still have a competitive edge** in large areas
-----
* When marine spot charter rates were abnormally high.
** Except over local supplies recovered from sour natural gas, etc.
-------
A6-3
within the Mountain and Midwest states that cannot be supplied
directly by barge up the Mississippi River system. Many points on
this system can be reached by barge from U.S. Gulf locations
for less than $4/LT. Using a notional "free on barge" price of $20/LT,*
it would appear that U.S. Frasch sulfur could be delivered to terminals
on the Mississippi River system for $24/LT or less. To meet this
competition, starting with an F.O.R. Alberta price of $7/LT, would mean
that W. Canadian sulfur could not afford a transportation cost of
more than $17/LT. This, in fact, is the approximate cost of shipment
from Calgary to Chicago.
The above discussion summarizes several of the most important
transportation cost factors that have affected sulfur markets recently.
However, this is not a sufficient basis for projecting future trans-
portation cost relationships. A major problem is that rail costs have
been increasing faster than costs of other forms of transportation. A partial
way around this difficulty has been the arrangement of deliveries by
"unit train." The technique was first used for shipment of coal
(which has an even lower unit value than sulfur), and was devised by
the railroads as a response to experimentally demonstrated technology
of moving coal by slurry pipeline.** Unit trains move Duval's (Penn-
zoil United) sulfur from Culbertson county to Galveston, Texas, and
also move Canadian sulfur from Alberta to Vancouver. In the future, it
seems possible that sulfur will be shipped by unit train*** between
Alberta and one or more Midwest points.
The use of unit trains has permitted R.R. costs not much
higher than the low rates achievable with barge shipment. Unfortunately,
however, rail operating costs are increasing faster than barge costs.
Hence, when the unit train contracts are renegotiated it seems certain
that the rates will be hiked. Consequently, the approxi~ate parity that
has existed between unit train and barge rates will not be maintained.
A principal reason that unit trains have been able to lower
costs relative to conventional shipments by rail is the generally
poor utilization of rolling stock. Prompted by difficulties in effecting
deliveries of coal during 1970 due to limited availability of hopper cars,
demurrage rates were increased. It remains to be seen whether this will
significantly improve utilization of rolling stock for transportation
purposes (as opposed to customers' use of hopper cars for storing coal).
In some cases, unit trains get around this difficulty by requiring the
cars to be owned by the company making the shipments rather than by the
railroad. Obviously, this provides the customer with the incentive for
using the transportation equipment for its intended purpose and for
arranging alternative ways of storing the material shipped.
-----
*
**
Somewhat lower at the Frasch mine.
The technique has been revived for
Black Mesa project.
The. introduction of
statistical average
costs of individual
rapidly.
application to Peabody's (Kennecott)
***
unit trains has had the effect of lowering the
of rail costs while, at the same time, the
modes of rail shipment have been increasing
-------
A6-4
A combination of railroad consolidation with use of computer
programs to keep track of rolling stock may eventually bring the
escalation of rail shipment costs under control. However, there is
no immediate prospect of this occurring. In fact, the prospects
appear so poor, at least for another decade, that it has been necessary
to project increases in rail costs relative to other modes of
transportation.* The matter is of critical importance in certain
markets, e.g.:
.
W. Canadian delivery costs to Chicago are projected to increase rela-
tive to deliveries of Frasch S up the Mississippi by barge.
.'
W. Canadian delivery costs to Rotterdam will decrease relative to Canadian
delivery costs to Chicago (in spite of the need to move to Rotterdam
by first making a rail shipment from Alberta to Vancouver).
~
Duval's cost of shipping S from Culbertson county to Galveston will
increase on a relative basis.
"
Landlocked locations such as Arizona will be relatively dis-
advantaged--doubly so if acid has to be shipped ~y rail).
These considerations are directly pertinent to the future
value of abatement sulfur. However, some additional points must be
made:
..
Unit trains are feasible only for high volume movements between fixed
points.
..
Elemental S can be stored until a sufficient quantity is available
for economic shipment by barge or bulk-carrier. (This consideration
does not apply to unit trains which must be kept in constant operation.)
G
Sulfuric acid cannot be stored, except at significant cost and as limited
by available storage capacity. This would seem to favor (or even
mandate) the establishment of local markets for abatement acid
that could be served by owned transport.** A transportation strike
of any kind could force the shutdown of abatement acid plant--with
serious consequences for an electric utility.
-----
*
The Sulfur Model is constructed on a constant dollar basis, because
any other basis introduces extreme complications. Therefore, it
was with great reluctance that rail costs were projected to escalate
relative to barge or marine transportation rates. However, it was
felt that it would be unrealistic to ignore the fact that rail costs
have been rising so rapidly, and must continue to rise in this manner
until labor and equipment can be employed more effectively.
Probably road tankers or, in special cases, pipeline to nearby
petrochemical plants.
-!.*
-------
A6-5
.
Little or no value can be projected for abatement S recovered by
a poorly located plant. This point has pertinence on a local as well
as on a macrogeographical basis. It is rather obvious that sulfur
recovery in Arizona is unfavorably located. It may be less obvious
that recovery of abatement S from mine-mouth power plants in Eastern
states could also be poorly located with respect to marketing of S
values.
.
In general, recovery of abatement S at plants directly on the
Mississippi River system, or with direct access to marine transporta-
tion, may be considered as favorable from the standpoint of marketing
S values.
.
Prices at locations some distance from main terminals will be higher
than at the terminals (to take account of local delivery costs).
Hence, there may be specific locations where abatement S can enjoy
a good netback. This is possible if local industry could absorb
all of the abatement supply.
.
Special situations involving major suppliers may develop. For
example, acid recovered from nickel and copper smelting in the
Sudbury/Timmins area of Ontario may be shipped to N. Europe if long
range contracts can be arranged. This possibility arises because
of the very large quantity of acid potentially available and the
fact that there is outlet for merchant acid in N. Europe. Recovery
in the form of sulfuric acid, while having a transportation dis-
advantage relative to elemental sulfur, has the potential advantage
to a consumer of acid of not having to manufacture it. This is why,
in the future,and subject to local demand limitations, recovered
acid may be able to enjoy a higher recovery value than elemental
sulfur. This topic is discussed in detail in Part 2 of the report.
The basic data and assumptions for projected 1975 transporta-
tion costs are given in Tables 1 and 2. The delivery cost for acid,
e.g., from Tucson to Los Angeles, is expressed in terms of "$ per LT
of acid." Subsequently, such costs are converted to "$ per LT of S-value
in the form of acid" for the purpose of handling acid and elemental S
simultaneously in the computer calculations. This is done by multiplying
the "$ per LT of acid" delivery cost by 3.06.
For subsequent years, the following escalations of rail trans-
portation costs re lati ve !£ other transportation modes were assumed:
1975 - 1980 2%/yr., i.e. x 1. 104
1980 - 1985 1. 5%/yr., i.e. x 1.077
1985 2000 l%/yr., i.e. 1 98 5 - 1990: x 1. 051
1990 - 2000: x 1. 1046
2000 - 2010 0.5%/yr., Le. x 1.051
2010 - 2020 0.5%/yr., i.e. x 1. 051
-------
A6-6
These relative escalations are tantamount to assuming that U.S.
railroads will be considerably automated by about 1985. The results
of these assumptions, in terms of total delivery cost, are shown in
Table 3. The following assumptions are also implicit in the cost
proj ectians :
.
Unit train link between Calgary and Chicago by 1980.
.
Transshipment out of Chicago (unit train) terminal by barge after
establishment of Calgary/Chicago unit train link.
.
Calgary/Vancouver pipeline assumed by 1990.
.
Calgary/Chicago pipeline by 1990, with transshipment out of pipeline
terminal by barge.
.
Rail movement between Vancouver and Seattle.
For the computer calculations, the relative advantage to the
customer of being able to receive acid instead of elemental S is
simulated by deducting $6.85/LT (for 1975 and 1980 cases) and $27.42/
LT (for subsequent years) from the projected total delivered cost of
acid. The difference between these two figures reflects the differential
advantage of purchasing acid (a) when this would require the shutdown
of existing acid manufacturing capacity and (b) instead of building
new capacity for manufacturing acid.
A.6.2.
Production Costs and F.O.B. Price Basis
The costs of producing Frasch sulfur have been discussed
by Manderson.* In the first of the two papers cited, the following
estimates are given:
Production
Type of 106 LT Operating Min.
Frasch Production 1970 1975 Cost R.O.I." S.G.&A... F.O.B...
Low Cos t 3.0 3.0 7 3 4 14
Medium Cost 5.2 5.8 11 4 4 19
High Cost 2.8 2.8 15 8 4 27
11.0 11.6
..
These quantities are in $/LT.
R.O.I. a Return on Investment (15% before taxes)
S.G.&A. = Severance taxes and general corporate expenses
Min. F.O.B. = Minimum F.O.B. price
;; (D "The Sulfur Outlook," M. C. Manderson, Chemical Engineering
Progress (CEP) technical manual, A.I.Ch.E., 1971.
(2) "World Sulfur Outlook into the Late 1970's," M. C. Manderson,
American Chemical Society Annual Convention, September, 1970.
-------
A6-7
The "minimum F.O.B. prices" are hypothetical because it is
clear that this range of prices could not co-exist. However, if
these figures are treated as costs, it is possible to calculate a
weighted average price for each year based on the "production" cited:
1970
1975
Weighted average, $/LT
Total production, 106 LT
19.7
1l.0
19.6
11.6
The "production" refers more to productive capacity than
to actual production which amounted to about 7 million LT in 1970.
Under continuing conditions of oversupply, it is hardly likely that
much high-cost Frasch production will occur in 1975. If just the low
and medium cost production is considered, the weighted average "minimum
F.O.B. price" would be $17.3/LT.
The second paper revises the above numbers somewhat and
presents them in a different form. In this case, the different types
of production are characterized according to the annual production of
individual (hypothetical) mines, together with their associated
water rates and fixed investments:
Annual Production
106 LT
Water Rate
gals. /LT
Fixed Investment
106 $
Low Cos t
Medium Cost
High Cos t
1.4
0.35
0.175
1,600
3,000
5,000
15.5
8.1
7.4
The above quantities are then used to calculate hypothetical
selling prices for the different cost classes of Frasch production ($/
LT):
Operating Loading and
Cost Severance
General
Corp. Exp.
Profit, 15% at
on Fixed Invest.
F.O.B.
Price
Low Cos t
Medium Cost
High Cos t
5.0
9.5
15.0
1.7
1.7
1.7
0.9
1.4
2.0
3.3
6.9
12.7
10.9
19.5
31.4
It will be noted that the basis has been shifted from 15% R.O.I.
before taxes in the first paper to 15% R.O.I. after taxes in the above
tabulation. There is a conceptual difficulty in either of these
cases in that it is hardly possible to expect the same R.O.I. on high and
low cost production. Presumably, if high cost production can be justified
by market conditions or expectations, then the profit on low cost,
production would be spectacular.
-------
A6-8
It is of some interest to review the production cost
figures before adding any profit margin ($/LT):
Operating Costs Plus
Expenses (Zero R.O.I.)
Low Cos t
Medium Cost
High Cost
7.6
12.6
18.7
These figures suggest that "low cost" production would begin to be
marginally profitable (i.e., produce a positive cash flow) at about
$8/LT, while "medium cost" production would require about $13/LT.
These values are less than those obtained by adding "s. G. &A." to the
Operating Costs cited in the first paper. This is surprising since
operating costs, particularly those for fuel and labor, have been rising.
Information on U.S. Frasch S production costs is also reported by
Hazleton.* Cases are worked, using different assumptions, that result
in operating costs ranging from $4.8l/LT to $22.02/LT. Actual operating
costs for Jefferson Lake's Long Point dome** for the year 1961-1963,
after deduction of estimated royalty payments, are stated to be:
Output Water Ra te Operating Cost
1000 LT Gals./LT $/LT
1961 230 4900 9.82
1962 256 4550 9.11
1963 234 4910 9.96
Adding back the royalty expense, and making an allowance for other
expenses, would raise the F.O.B. cost to about $18/LT (without any
return on investment). Labor and fuel costs have risen since 1963 so
that the F.O.B. cost of sulfur from Long Point may now approximate
$20/LT. This figure is somewhat higher than the estimated average
netback obtained by the U.S. Frasch industry in 1970/71. Hence, the
question arises: "How can Long Point continue in production?" A partial
answer is that much of the production is used captively.
In the Sulfur Model "New Orleans" is taken to be representative
of actual terminals at Galveston, Beaumont, Port Sulphur and other principal
locations where Frasch sulfur is loaded. The "F.O.B. Orleans" prices
used in the Model include the cost of moving sulfur from the individual
mines to the main terminals and of loading it aboard a vessel, barge,
etc. These costs (which could be applied after those considered by
Manderson and Hazleton) vary considerably. For example, shipment by
unit train from Culbertson county into and out of storage at Galveston
may cost about $10/LT. Thus, even though the W. Texas mining operation
-*- TTThe-Economics of the Sulphur Industry," Chapter 3, Jared E. Hazleton,
RFF, 1970.
** Generally considered to be "medium cost".
-------
A6-9
is said to have favorably low production costs,* the F.O.B.
Galveston cost cannot be less than $15/LT. The leading Frasch S
producers, Freeport Minerals and Texas Gulf Sulphur, may have the
theoretical capability of operating with positive cash flow (from
their sulfur business) with an average "F.O.B. Orleans" price below
$15/LT. However, it is not considered likely that either company
would be willing (or will be forced) to do this. Even though direct
operating costs may be reduced per unit of production by shutting down
all but the lowest cost domes, other costs would rise if production
were to be cut below a certain level. These costs are associated
with the operation of owned liquid tankers and terminals, as well as
involving marketing and administrative expenses. Furthermore,
the Frasch S producers are well aware that labor and fuel costs will
continue to rise. As discussed elsewhere, a principal strategy
must be to secure and continue to develop the Tampa/Bartow market and to
maintain reasonable overall levels of production by capitalizing on
marketing strengths in other locations.
The minimum "F. O. B. Orleans" price may be approached in
another way. The difference in delivery cost (after cOTrecting for
melting charges, terminalling costs, etc.) between Calgary/Tampa
and Orleans/Tampa is estimated to be about $12/LT. Hence, with an
"F.O.B. Orleans" price of $12/LT the U.S. Frasch producers would be
competitive with W. Canadian production even if the latter were to
be offered at $NIL/LT. It is obvious that Alberta sulfur will not
be given away. Among other things, this would deny royalty
revenue** to the Province of Alberta. In addition, some costs are
associated with sales in addition to the cost of loading the sulfur
"free on rail" (F.O.R.) in Alberta. Consequently, no circumstance can
be foreseen in which the F.O.R. Calgary price would fall below about
$5/LT.*** The latter is equivalent to a minimum "F.O.B. Orleans"
price of $17/LT. Consequently, the Sulfur Model does not consider cases
much below this price level in the computer calculations. Nevertheless,
the hypothetical effects of lower W. Canadian prices are quite easy to
estimate from the cases that have been calculated.
There have been fluctuations in exchange parities between
the U.S. and Canadian dollars. A large fluctuation could invalidate
the reasoning given above. However, the currencies are now trading
essentially at par. Given the high level of reciprocal trade between
the U.S. and Canada, it seems likely that approximate parity will
continue. However, if the Canadian $ were to go to a substantial
premium relative to the U.S. $--15% is as much as can be conceived--
Alberta S producers could remain competitive by cutting F.O.R. Calgary
- * -AS low as the lowest cost (other) Frasch production.
** Which is based on sales realizations.
*** Current actions by the Alberta Provincial Government may
in prices above $lO/LT and, perhaps, as high as $lS/LT.
result
-------
A6-10
prices by $1.50/LT, a remedy that is clearly within their capability.
If the exchange rate were to shift in the other direction, a small
price increase would maintain the balance.
Of possibly greater importance is the potential impact of
realignment of foreign exchange rates on export sales of both u.s.
and Canadian producers in the Eastern Hemisphere. Both dollars and the
Mexican peso are likely to float together against the yen and European
currencies. The effect should be to make exports of sulfur from N.
America more competitive in foreign markets.
In summary, it is considered that production from the more
efficient (i.e., lower cost) U.S. Frasch mines will remain economically
viable, that this will entail a lowering of production below recent
levels, that some marginal production remains to be shut down, and
that there is no likelikhood for many years of reactivation of high cost
production. Although Canadian producers could destroy the profitability
of the U..S. Frasch industry, this is extremely unlikely to happen because
it would also remove profitability from the Canadian industry. At the
same time, the Canadian producers hold the initiative and, because
of rising by-product production in Alberta, may be expected to keep
pressure on foreign export markets.
-------
Supply Point
Tucson
New Orleans
Coatzcoalcos
Aruba
- - - -
APPENDIX 6
TABLE 1
TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVERY MODES ( 19 75)
Destination Via Mode Approx. Distance Discharge
Los Angeles Direct Rail 500 Pump Out
Boston Direct Liquid Tanker 2320 Pump Out
Newark Direct Liquid Tanker 2070 Pump Out
Norfolk Direct Liquid Tanker 1880 Pump Out
Chicago Direct Liquid Barge 1270 Pump Out
Memphis Direct Liquid Barge 550 Pump Out
Omaha Direct Liquid Barge 1370 Pump Out
Tampa Direct Liquid Tanker 520 Pump Out
Rotterdam Direct Liquid Tanker 5540 Pump Out
:x>
2440 C1\
Boston Direct Liquid Tanker Pump Out I
I-"
Newark Direct Liquid Tanker 2190 Pump Out I-"
Norfolk Direct Liquid Tanker 2000 Pump Out
Tampa Direct Liquid Tanker 1130 Pump Out
Rotterdam Direct Liquid Tanker 5810 Pump Out
Boston Direct Bulk Carrier 2280 Melt, Pump Out
Newark Direct Bulk Carrier 2030 Melt, Pump Out
Norfolk Direct Bulk Carrier 1840 Melt, Pump Out
Tampa Direct Bulk Carrier 1650 Melt, Pump Out
Rotterdam Direct Bulk Carrier 4900 Melt, Pump Out
NOTE:
All Distances in Statute Miles.
-------
Supply Point
Calgary
Sudbury
- - - -
*
TABLE 1 Cont'd
Destination Via Mode Approx. Distance Discharge
Boston Vancouver Unit Train, Bulk Carrier 640 + 7180 Melt, Pump Out
Newark Vancouver Unit Train, Bulk Carrier 640 + 6930 Melt, Pump Out
Norfolk Vancouver Unit Train, Bulk Carrier 640 + 6740 Melt, Pump Out
Chicago Direct Rail 1570 Pump Out
Memphis Direct Rail 2160 Pump Out
Omaha Direct Rail 1410 Pump Out
Seattle Vancouver Unit Train, Rail 640+ 120 (3)
Los Angeles Vancouver Unit Train, Bulk Carrier 640 + 1380 Melt, Pump Out
Tampa Vancouver Unit Train, Bulk Carrier 640 + 6140 Melt, Pump Out
Rotterdam Vancouver Unit Train, Bulk Carrier 640 + 10220 Melt, Pump Out
Buffalo (1) Niagara Falls Unit Train, Rail 400 + 30 Pump Out >
Detroit (2) Sarnia Unit Train, Rail 400 + 70 Pump Out 0\
I
Rotterdam Sore] Unit Train, Tanker 440 + 3560 Pump Out to-'
N
Unit Train is a future possibility.
1.
2.
3.
Part of Boston Region.
Part of Chicago Region.
Assumed to be melt and pump out for the purpose of cost calculations.
NOTE:
All Distances in Statute Miles.
-------
APPENDIX 6
TABLE 2
TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVERY COSTS ($/LT) ESTIMATED FOR 1975
Transportation Cost Handling Total Delivery Transportation
Supply Point Destination (1) .Q2 Costs Cost, $/LT Mills/Ton Mile
Tucson Los Angeles 11.25 0.25 11. 50 22.5
New Orleans Boston 6.26 0.40 6.66 2.7
Newark 5.59 0.40 5.99 2.7
Norfolk 5.08 0.40 5.48 2.7
Chicago 3.81 0.40 4.21 3
Memphis 1. 65 0.40 2.05 3
Omaha 4.11 0.40 4.51 3
Tampa 1.40 0.40 1.80 2.7 ~
Rotterdam 6.00 0.40 6.40 1.08 I
I-'
\.J.J
Coatzcoalcos Boston 2.64 0.40 3.04 1.08
Newark 2.37 0.40 2.77 1.08
Norfolk 2.16 0.40 2.56 1.08
Tampa 1.22 0.40 1. 62 1.08
Rotterdam 6.27 0.40 6.67 1.08
Aruba Boston 2.28 2.00 4.28 1.0
Newark 2.03 2.00 4.03 1.0
Norfolk 1.84 2.00 3.84 1.0
Tampa 1. 65 2.00 3.65 1.0
Rotterdam 4.90 2.00 6.90 1.0
-------
TABLE 2 Cont'd
Transportation Cost Handling Total Delivery Transportation
Supply Point Destination --Dl.. ~ Costs Cost, $/LT Mills/Ton Mile
Calgary Boston 5.76 4.31 4.27 14.34 9.0 0.6
Newark 5.76 4.16 4.27 14.19 9.0 0.6
Norfolk 5.76 4.04 4.27 14.09 9.0 0.6
Chicago 17.27 0.40 17.67 11
Memphis 23.76 0.40 24.16 11
Omaha 15.51 0.40 15.91 11
Seattle 5.76 2.16 4.27 12.19 9.0 18
Los Angeles 5.76 1.38 4.27 11.41 9.0 1.0
Tampa 5.76 3.68 4.27 13.71 9.0 0.6
Rotterdam 5.76 6.13 4.27 16.16 9.0 0.6 :>
CJ'\
I
Sudbury Buffalo 4.52 0.68 0.50 5.70 11.3 22.5 f-'
~
Detroit 4.52 1.58 0.05 6.60 11.3 22.5
Rotterdam 4.97 4.81 2.50* 12.28 11.3 1.35
- - - - - - -
* Includes estimate of storage costs in Sorel.
-------
APPENDIX 6
TABLE 3
PROJECTED DELIVERY COSTS, $ PER LT OF S VALUE
Supply Point Destination 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000 2010 2020
Tucson* Los Angeles 35.19 38.77 42.01 43.79 48.29 50.70 53.24
New Orleans Boston 6.66 - No Change -
Newark 5.99 - No Change -
Norfolk 5.48 - No Change -
Chicago 4.21 - No Change -
Memphis 2.05 - No Change - >
0\
Omaha 4.51 - No Change - I
I-'
Tampa 1.80 - No Change - U1
Rotterdam 6.40 - No Change -
Coatzcoalcos Boston 3.04 - No Change -
Newark 2.77 - No Change -
Norfolk 2.56 - No Change -
Tampa 1. 62 - No Change -
Rotterdam 6.67 - No Change -
Aruba Boston 4.28 - No Change -
Newark 4.03 - No Change -
Norfolk 3.84 - No Change -
Tampa 3.65 - No Change -
Rotterdam 6.90 - No Change -
- - - -
* 100% Acid
-------
TABLE 3 Cont'd
Supply Point Destination 1975 1980 1985 1990 2000 2010 2020
Calgary Boston 14.34 15.26 16.32 14.98 - No Change -
Newark 14.19 15.11 16.17 14.83 - No Change -
Norfolk 14.09 15.01 16.07 14.73 - No Change -
Chicago 17.67 16.73 19.00 16.10 - No Change -
Memphis 24.16 20.49 23.16 20.26 - No Change -
Omaha 15.91 17.98 20.85 20.83 - No Change -
Seattle 12.19 13.45 14.91 14.03 14.36 14.73 15.13
Los Angeles 11.41 12.33 13.39 12.05 - No Change -
Tampa 13.71 14.63 15.69 14.35 - No Change -
Rotterdam 16.16 17.08 18.14 16.80 - No Change -
Sudbury* Buffalo 17.44 19.03 20.38 21.33 23.41 21.51 25.67
Detroit 20.20 22.12 23.72 25.46 27.26 28.58 29.96 ~
Rotterdam 37.58 39.17 40.45 41.37 43.37 44.43 45.53 I
~
0\
Chicago Newark 10.20 - No Change -
Norfolk 9.69 - No Change -
Memphis 2.16 - No Change -
Tampa 6.01 - No Change -
Rotterdam 10.61 - No Change -
Newark Norfolk 1.80 1.80
Rotterdam 6.90 6.90
Memphis Tampa 3.96 3.96
Rotterdam 8.45 8.45
San Francisco Seattle 5.24 5.24
- - - - -
* = 100% Acid
-------
APPENDIX 7
COMPUTER MODEL
A. 7.1
The LP Program
The computer program used in the Sulfur Supply/Demand/Price
Model is a variation of the transportation linear program. In the
application to the Sulfur Model the total delivered cost to the'
sulfur demand regions is minimized.
(1)
Z; Xij C.. = minimum
i,j ~J
where X.. = quantity of sulfur equivalents delivered
~J from supply region i to demand region j
C.. = delivered price of a unit of sulfur equivalent
~J delivered from supply region i to demand
region j
The delivered price Cij is the sum of the F.O.B. price at
point i, the transportation cost for the transaction link
other delivery costs incurred.
the supply
ij, and any
The minimization specified by equation (1) is subject to
the following constraints
(2) ~ X. . < S.
~,J - ~
j
where Si = available supply at supply region i
(3) E x. . = D.
i ~,J J
where D. = total demand at demand region j.
J
The demand regions are further divided into sub-regiDns
which can have an upper limit on their receipt of sulfur equilva1ent
from specified supply regions, k.
i=k
(3a) 2: X. . < D.k
i=l ~,J - J
where D.k is the total demand at region j which can be
received from supply Jregions 1=1 to k. This division into sub-demand
regions is used for transactions of acid sulfur where the market
for sulfur as acid in the demand region can be less than the total
demand for sulfur equivalent in the demand region. The supply regions
i=l to k are then specified as acid supply points.
-------
A7-2
The demand regions are also further divided into sub-
regions which can have a lower limit on their receipt of sulfur
equivalents from a specified supply region,~.
(3b) X f) . > D.J
...x.,J - J
where Dj.1 is the minimum quantity of sulfur
equivalent that the model will accept in demand region j from the
supply point ,J.. This type of constraint is used to force a supplier
to sell in a particular demand region. This is necessary during the
early years of the forecast when a given supplier may have sulfur
receiving facilities which enable specific forms of sulfur to be
delivered to the demand region and customers can currently
accept only that specific form of sulfur (e.g., liquid sulfur).
In latter years of the forecast it is used to force multi-source
supply in a region.
Each of these demand sub-regions is subject to the overall
constraint specified by equation (3).
The linear program output includes:
( 1)
The calculated quantity of sulfur equivalent, Xii' transferred
between supply region i and demand region j subJect to the
constraints and minimization restriction discussed above.
This calculated quantity, Xij' is taken to be the SALES of
sulfur equivalent.
(2)
Dual variables which are interpreted as follows:
(a) the incremental cost change to the total problem resulting
from an incremental demand of one unit of sulfur equivalent
in a specified demand region, j. This variable is taken
to be the DELIVERED VALUE of a unit of sulfur equivalent in
demand region j.
(b) the incremental cost change to the total problem resulting
from an incremental supply of one unit of sulfur equivalent
from a specified supply region, i. This variable is taken
to be the "marketing PROFIT of a unit of sulfur equivalent
from supply region i. When PROFIT is added to the FOB
PRICE in the supply region, the supplier NETBACK is obtained.
-------
A7-3
A.7.2
The Computer Calculations
The computer calculation for the Sulfur Supply/Demand/
Price Model consists of three elements:
(1)
(2)
(3)
The LP input program.
The LP calculation program.
The LP output operational program.
A schematic diagram of how these three elements interact is shown in
Figure 1. (See page 52)
(1)
The LP Input Program
The input programs prepare three (3) sets of data cards
in a format acceptable to the LP calculation program. The input
programs accomplish this by selecting appropriate data from previously
established data files and performing intermediate calculations to
establish the supply availability, the demand requirements and
constraints, and the delivered cost on a sulfur equivalent basis
required for input to the LP calculation program.
(2)
The LP Calculation Program
The LP calculation is accomplished using the Mathematical
Optimization Subroutine System (1130 LP-MOSS). This subroutine is
available from IBM for use with the IBM 1130 computer system.
Additional information on this subroutine can be obtained from IBM
by requesting application booklet H20-0345-2.
(3)
The LP Ou~put Operational Program
The LP output from the LP-MOSS subroutine is obtained on
cards. The LP output operational program translates this card out-'
put into a matrix presentation with the supply regions as column
elements and the demand regions as row elements. In addition, the
output operational program stores selected results of the LP
calculation in pre-established output data files.
A.7.3
Description of Specific Sulfur Model Programs
This section describes the LP input and the LP output
operational programs developed specifically for the Sulfur Model.
-------
A7-4
PROGRAMS RRB07 to 10
This series of programs prepares the current solution output
matrix from the LP report card. In addition to preparing the current
solution output matrix, these programs stores the answers from the
current solution in a set of data files. The data files include the
sales of sulfur by various supply regions, the potential netback to the
various supply regions and the delivered value for sulfur in the various
demand regions. An additional data file which is required in using this
program is the FOB cost file for calculating the true netback to the
various supply regions based on the profit established in the LP solution.
In application of this set of programs RRB07 is the main program which
is called by the user. This program in turn calls RRB08, RRB09, and RRBIO.
The subroutine RPAQ is used and this subroutine in turn calls the subroutine
RFILE. A function GEX is also used in the program.
SUBROUTINE RPAQ
Subroutine RPAQ is a versatile means of operating on the
information contained in the 18 word per record files, containing 50
records, used in this system. The operation of this subroutine in-
volves the search of a specified file to extract or to add values
of the associated variable.
The transfer options available include:
1.
The value of all the
in the accessed file
variables associated
array.
variables associated with a record name
is replaced by the value of all the
with the same record name in the program
2.
The value of the variable associated with a record name in the
accessed file for the time period N, is replaced by the value
of the variable associated with the same record name in the
array. In this option there is only one value of the associated
variable in the array that is associated with the record name.
3.
The inverse of option 2, namely, that the single value of the
variable associated with a record name in the array is replaced
by the value of the variable associated with the same record
name in the accessed file for time period N.
4.
The inverse of option 1, namely, that the value of all the
variables associated with a record name in the array are
replaced by the value of all the variables associated with
the same record name in the accessed file.
A second option is provided concerning what to do with the information
that has been transferred. These include:
1.
Returning the information to the main program, and
2.
Writing the new value of the variables associated with the
record name into the originally accessed file.
-------
A7-5
This latter option is restricted to the use of transfer options 1
and 2 in which the original value of the variable associated with
the record name in the accessed file has been replaced by values
associated with the same record name in the array of the main program.
In using this option the subroutine RFILE is called and the new file is
written on the 1132 printer. The use of the subroutine RPAQ requires
that the calling program contain a COMMON block, in which the first
element of COMMON is "the value NN, namely the year or time period for
which the variable in the accessed file is to be extracted. This value, NN,
is a number between land 7.
The calling sequence for RPAQ is as follows (JJ, KK. LL,
NAME 3 , N3, X3, NEXT) where JJ is the transfer option, KK is the number
of the file to be accessed, LL is the second option, namely what to
do with the data once it has been transferred, NAME3 is the name given
the array containing the record names in the calling main program,
N3 is the number of records contained in the main program array, X3
is the name of the variable array associated with the record name
in the calling program, and NEXT is the incrementing variable
for the file to be accessed.
SUBROUTINE RFILE
This subroutine is used to write a file record on the 1132
printer. The call statement of the subroutine is (N, JR) where
N is the number of the file to be printed on the 1132 printer and
JR is the name of the incrementing variable for the accessed
file.
PROGRAM RRB12
This program prepares an 18 word per record data file con-
taining the title of each record and associate values for seven
different time periods. The use of this file requires the prior
creation of an 18 word per record data file containing a maximmm
of 50 records for input of the information created by the program.
Unused positions in the record are replaced with asterisks.
PROGRAM RRB15
This program calculates the delivered cost and prepares
the cost cards for input to the LP MOSS linear program system.
The use of this program requires access to three data files. Data
file No.1 is an 18 word per record file containing information
on the FOB costs at all possible supply points for seven different
time periods. Data file No.2 is an 18 word per record file con-
taining the transportation linkages and transportation costs. File
No.3 contains data on the acid equivalency value. It is an 18 word
per record file.
-------
A7-6
PROGRAM RRB16
This program is used to prepare the supply and demand cards
for use with the LP MOSS linear programming system. Use of this
program requires access to an 18 word per record file containing
50 records, each record of which contains the name (or location)
of a region for which supply or demand data is furnished for seven
time periods.
This program calls subroutine RFIND.
SUBROUTINE RFIND
This subroutine obtains a file from the disc library and
returns it to a main program array. It operates on an 18 word per
record file, containing 50 records. The call statement of the sub-
routine is (A, NEXT, NAME, N, X) where A is the file number, NEXT
is the incrementing variable on the file which is being called,
NAME is the name given to the record titles that are brought to
the main program array, N is the number of records which have been
returned to the main program and X is the name given to the value
of the seven associated variables in each file record when brought
to the main program array. The value N is determined by subroutine
RFIND and is returned to the main program for future use.
PROGRAM ARG 02
This program enables data to be read from an 18 word per record
file containing 50 records.
-------
- 4.
5.
6.
. A7-7
A.7.4
Listing of Programs
The pages that follow are a "listing", i.e., a print-out,
of the programs discussed in Section A.7.4. In sequence, the
programs and subroutines are:
RRB 07 (2 pages)
RRB 08
RRB 09 (2 pages)
RRB 10
RPAQ
RFILE
FUNCTION GEX
RRB 12
RRB 15 (2 pages)
RRB 16
RFIND
ARG 02
The dates associated with the titles of these programs
signify the data when each program was last checked or revised.
A. 7.5
Instructions for LP Runs and Output
This section describes the use of the programs and includes
a sample input and output, in tabular form, for each program.
PROGRAM RRB 12
The use of program RRB 12 requires the following input
cards:
l.
2.
3.
//bXEQb RRB 12 and a 1 in data field position 17.
*FILES (1, the name of the file to be entered)
The number of records in the file (right justified in data
field positions 3 and 4)
A first file title in data field positions 1 to 36.
A second file title in data field positions 1 to 36.
Seven column headings specified by a letter in data field
positions 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24 and 28.
A card for each file record with the following format:
(1) The name of the record in data field position 1-8; (2) the
value of the column elements in F5.2 notation with the
decimal points in data field positions 18, 28, 38, 48, 58,
68 and 78.
7.
A sample execution deck is given in Table 1.
output from RRB 12.
There is no
-------
A7-8
PROGRAM ARG 02
The use of program ARG 02 requires the following input
cards:
l.
2.
//bXEQb ARG 02 and a 1 in data field position 17.
*FILES (1, the name of the file to be read).
The following is a sample execution deck for ARG 02:
1 ~ .~ /:~) 7
1 "j 1 I. [.) A 7 c q J 1 ;; .~ I. I.") () 7 q n !"j 1 ? '),4 tj f, 7 Q ;j:. 1 ") -~ I.. ::. h 11:~~: U ] ;: ~ I. :- eJ "I :..~ S<) 1 :"; '~ /.. 5 (-- 7 P '''; (' 1:: 'j /, ~) C 7 ~ ~J (~ : ;> 3 'i ') () O( :'~ '.;
(;
/ / X ~ f) ;\ I.: ::;" ?
~H- ; I ..::) ( 1 ." F;- r; )
Sample output from ARG 02 is given in Table 2A to 2E.
PROGRAM RRB 16
The use of program RRB 16 requires the following input
cards:
l.
2.
3.
/ /bXEQb RRB 16 and a 1 in data field position 17.
*FILES(l, the name of the file to be accessed).
A card containing the following information: (a) the system
bound for the LP run (in data field positions 1 to 8), (b) the
file column from which the supply or demand data is to be taken
(specified as 1 through 7 in data field posi tion 11), and (c) a
key specifying whether a supply or demand card is to be prepared
(a 1 in data field position 20 indicates a supply card and
a 2 in data field position 20 indicates a demand card).
The user is required to provide an adequate number of blank
cards for the supply or demand cards to be punched following the
last input card.
Sample Card Set-Up for Preparation of Demand Cards for LP Program
Using RRB 16
1 2 '3 4 5 6 7 8
123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345890
/IXEQ RRB16 1
*FILES (l ,MFD20)
2020D 04
(BLANK CARDS FOR PUNCHING)
-------
A7-9
The output from the demand portion of RRB 16 is a set of
punched cards for input to LP-MOSS. A sample listing of such cards
is given in Table 3.
The supply portion of the program is treated similarly as
shown below and in Table 4.
Sample Card Set-Up for Preparation of Supply Cards for LP Program
Using RRB 16
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234578901234567890
/ / XEQ RRB16
*FILES(1,MFS20)
2020D 04
(B LANK CARDS
1
FOR PUNCHING)
PROGRAM RRB 15
The use of this program requires the following input
cards:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
//bXEQb RRB15 (Also a 4 in data field position 17).
*FILES (1, the name of the FOB cost file).
*FILES (2, the name of the transportation cost data file).
*FILES (3, the name of the acid equivalency value data file).
A card specifying the column from which the transportation cost
data and the acid equivalency value is to be extracted (specified
as a digit from 1 to 7 in data field position 11), and the
column from which the FOB price data is to be extracted specified
as a digit between 1 and 7 and located in data field position 21)..
A card specifying the verbal description of the run in data field
positions 1-20, and the year of the run in data field positions
25-28, and the case number in data field positions 33-37.
6.
The user is required to provide an adequate number of blank cards
for the cost cards to be punched following the last input card.
-------
A7-10
Sample Card Set-Up for Preparation of Cost Cards for LP Program Using RRB 15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
II XEQ RRB15 1
*FILES(l, MFC20), (2,MFTRN), (3,MFEQ)
7 4
2020
(BLANK CARDS FOR PUNCHING)
2020D
RRB 15 provides a punched card output for input to LP-MOSS,
and also a printed summary of the delivered cost of sulfur equivalent
($/LT of S equivalent). A sample is given in Tables 5A and 5B.
PROGRAM LP-MOSS
The execution of LP-MOSS requires:
1.
A series of LP-MOSS control cards as specified in the IBM LP-MOSS
Application Program booklet H20-0345-2. These control cards are
underlined in the sample input deck that follows.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
A set of activity cards for the LP run.
A set of supply cards prepared using RRB 16.
A set of demand cards prepared using RRB 16.
A set of cost cards prepared using RRB 15.
A series of blank cards on which the LP solution
will be punched.
A sample of the LP-MOSS input deck is given in Table 6.
The output from LP-MOSS is a series of punched cards con-
taining the LP solution data. The first two punched cards are title
cards and are not used in subsequent computer processing of the data.
The remainder of the punched cards are used as input to RRB 07. A
sample output is given in Table 7.
PROGRAMS RRB 07 TO RRB 10
This series of programs prepares the current solution output
matrix from the LP report cards. In using this program the following
data input cards are required:
1.
2.
IlbXEQb RRB 07 and a 4 in data field position 17.
Four file cards as follows:
a) *FILES (2, the name of the output file to contain the
delivered value).
b) *FILES (3, the name of the output file to contain the sales).
c) *FILES (4, the name of the output file to contain the supplier
netback).
d) *FILES (5, the name of the file containing the FOB cost).
-------
A7-11
3.
A card containing the following information: the column of the
FOB cost file from which the data for the current run are to be
extracted (this is also the column of the output file that the
output data is to be filed into), represented by a digit in data
field position 11.
4.
The report card deck obtained from the LP solution from which the
top two cards containing the title of the LP solution report have
been removed.
5.
A blank card.
6.
A card specifying the verbal description of the run in.~ata field
positions 1-20, and the year of the run in data field positions 25-
28.
A sample input deck for RRB 07 is shown in Table 8.
Program RRB 07 operates on the LP solution to:
1.
2.
Prepare a matrix presentation of the LP solution.
Update the output files to include the result of the current LP run.
A sample of the matrix is given in Table 9.
three other output files are given in Tables 10-12.
Samples of the
A.7.6
Special Instructions
The use of the computational programs requires a consideration
of two additional elements:
1.
2.
The nomenclature allowed.
Preparation of ~ctivity cards for input to LP-MOSS.
1.
Nomenclature Allowed
The NAME assigned to a supply or demand region is limited to
eight characte~(blanks are allowed characters), the first four of
which must be unique to a given supply or demand region. The term
REGION in this connotation includes any sub-regions that may be used
in formulating the problem. An example follows:
NAME
~
~~~5678
Unique
-------
Al-12
The first character of the NAME of SUPPLY REGIONS must be either an
asterisk (*) or a dollar sign ($). An asterisk signifies that the
supply region is an acid supply point. A dollar sign signifies that
the supply region is an elemental sulfur supply point. ~xamples include:
NAME ~
1 2 345 6 7 8
NAME ~
1 2 345 6 7 8
Acid supply point
Elemental sulfur supply point
The first character of the NAME of DEMAND REGIONS must be either a pound
sign (#) or a numeral. The pound sign is associated with the region's
total demand; numerals 1, 2 or 3 signify a sub-demand region in which
a lower bound of sulfur equivalent from a given supply point is desired;
and numerals 5 or 6 signify a sub-demand region in which an upper bound
on sulfur as acid from a given supply point is desired. Examples include:
NAME ~
1 2 345 6 7 8
NAME ~
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
NAME ~
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Total Demand in Chicago region
Lower bound on sulfur equivalent
Upper bound on sulfur equivalent
as acid received from acid
supply point SUDBURY
In selecting the demand sub-region nomenclature, the user will find it
convenient to assign a given number to a given supply point, e.g.,
*SUDBURY has been assigned the numeral ~ in demand sub-region supply
allocations.
The first four characters of the NAME of an ACTIVITY consist
of the first four characteris of the supply-rgion name, and the
second four characters of the NAME of an ACTIVITY consist of the first
four characteris of the demand region name, e.g.,:
Supply Region Name
Demand region name
ACTIVITY NAME
The ACTIVITY NAMES are used in preparing the ACTIVITY CARDS, and are
used also as the record name in the Transportation Cost FILE.
2.
Preparation of Activity Cards
A set of activity cards which define the interaction con-
straints must be constructed for input to the LP-MOSS program.
For each ACTIVITY the following cards with entries in the
designated data field positions are required:
-------
A7-13
1st Name
(a) ACTIVITY NAME
~
5 6 7 8 9 1 1112
Data field
pos ition
(b) ACTIVITY NAME
~
(c) ACTIVITY NAME
~
2nd Name
ASSOCIATED SUPPLY REGION
NAME
~
~
ASSOCIATED DEMAND SUB-REGION
NAME
~
ASSOCIATED TOTAL DEMAND
REGION NAME
~
If there is no demand sub-region card (B) is omitted.
VALUE
m:TOl
I291r6I3l
ITG][I
[I[JQ]
-------
A7-14
PROGRAM RR~07 (1130 CO~PUTER,
-------
A7-16
DROGRArv Rpo,OB (1130 CO'.~PLJTER, 9121/71'
II FO~
*LIST SOURCE PROGRAM
**P~OGqArv. Pi:(RQP
*ONF WORD INTFGFqS
*IOCS(CARD,1132 PRr~TfQ)
* I ~)( S ( D I 5 K )
D I "1;:: '\J 5 ION r ~~ F 1,1 ( 46 , 4 ) ,X 3 ( 4 (, , 7 )
CO~VON IYFAR,~O,KRLAN,NC,N~,TCOST
Covr~O,"J (FOr:1 ('13,1?) ,DI.J'~~~Y (4 J
COMMON ICOL(30,4),PROFT(3n)
Cm/iVON p"
-------
A7-17
PQOGRAM RRg09 11130 COMPUTER,
9/27/71)
/1 FOR
**PROGRAM RRB09
*ONE WORD- INTEGERS
*IOCSICARD,ll~? PRINTEQ)
DIW,fNSION NAME2(10)
COMMON IYFAR.KO.KRLAN.~C,~R,TCOST
COM~O~ CFO~13~,12),DU~~YI4)
CO~MON ICOLI30,4),PROFTI30)
cm ....,ON PRICEI~O) ,SALES(30) ,rROW(3~),4)
CO H-1 0 N R N D I 2 Q 0 ) ,C () 5 T I 2 00 ) ,A C T I V I 2 ,) CJ ) ,R E Del? J f! ) . SUP L Y ( 30 ) . n PI ( 3 0 )
COMMON VALUEI~O,30'3)
COMMON POTNA(30),CFORlI30)
DATA IN/2/
READ IIN,lO) NA~E2,JYEAR
10 FORMATIiOA2,4X,I4)
WRITE IKO,15) NA~E2,JYEAR
15 FORMAT I1Hi,T3,'PRoeLEM NA~'E-'dOA?I/T3,'YEAR-'t!41//1//)
WRITEIKO,lA)
18 FOR~ATI1X,T3,IDATA OlJTPUT FORrv1AT I)
WRITE IKO,?O)
20 FOR~ATIIX,T35,'DE~AND REGIONI.T70,ISUPDLY REGIO\'/T35,'******
1*******1 ,T7Q, 1*.*************IIIT7a,'T~A~SACTION(~~ LONG TONS)'
? I/T3~'TOTAL DEMANDIV~ LONG TG~S)' .T70.'~lLIVFRED VALUE',
3 '1$/TON)'IIT35,'CALCULATED TRADING PRICE($/TO~n',T70,I(OST (HA;~t;
4F REQLJI~ED TO CAUSEI/T70, 'ACTIVITY TO ~Ecm/fACTIVElq;/Tnt-l) I)
WRIT~ IKO,~O)TCOST
K=l
L=10
4~O WRITF.II<.O,25)
25 FORMATIIH1,T2'DEMAND',T10'****************.**********~**n***-
1SUPPLY REGIONS******~*********~***************.******
"/T2'RFGIONS'//)
490 "JRITE (KO,30) I I ICOLIN,J) ,J=l ,4) ,!'J=K,L)
30 FOQMATI/10X,lOI2X,4A2))
DO 5?O~=1,~R
W R I TEl K 0 ,40 ) I I R 0 \~I I r-:. , J ) . J = 1 , 4 ) , ( V A L t J r:: ( ~,1 , ;'J, 1 ) ,t~ = K , LI
40 FORMATI/2X,4A2,1013X,F7.2))
WRITFIKO,~O)DEMI~) .IVALUE(~,N,2),N=K,L)
50 FOR~ATI1113X,F7.2))
WRITFIKO,55)PQICEI~) ,IVALUEIM,N,3),N=K,L)
5~ FORMATI11(3X,F7.2))
520 CONTINUE
WRITEIKO,An)
80 FORMATI/2X,6HTOTALS)
WRITEIKO,70)ISALESIN),N=K,L)
70 FORMATI1X,5HSALES,3X,1013X,F7.2))
WRITFIKO,90)ISUPLYIN),N=~,L)
90 FOf....,AT IIX,6HSUPPlY,2XtlOI3X,F7.2))
WRITFIKO,9?)ICFOA1IN),N=K,L)
92 FORMATI1X,8HCOST F09,lOI3X,F7.2))
WRITEIKO,9~)IPROFT(N),N=K,L)
93 FORMATIIX,6HPQOFIT,2X,1013X,F7.2))
WRITEIKO,95)IPOTNRIN),N=K,L)
95 FORMAT IIX,8HNET-RACK,1013X,F7.2))
K=K+IO
L=l+10
IFIL-NC)620,620,600
600 IFIL-NC-10)610,630,630
-------
A7-18
r-~OG?A~ ~RR09 (1130 COMPUTE~,
r-In L=NC
(-.70 GO TO L+~O
(,30 caf'HINUE
f,0 FORV1AT( /1/' T')TAL
CALL LI".!K(9R~10)
F ,'\J[')
1/ I")UD
*~FLFTE
*5 TOrF
',-\'5
llA
RRQn9
R9R09
9/17/71)
COST THIS PRO~LFM',?X,FIO.3,' ( $ MILLIONS) ')
-------
A7-19
0POGRAM ~R~10 (1130 COMPUTFR,
9/n/71 )
II FOR
*L!ST SOU~CE DROGRAM
**PROGRAM qR~10
*!OCS(CARD,1132 PRINTER)
*ONE ~ORD INTFGEqS
*IOCS(DISK)
D I 1v1 E f\! S ION I N F I,V ( 46 t 4) ,X 3 ( 4 (, t 7 )
COMMON IYF.A~,~O,K~LAN,NC,NR,TCOST
CO~~ON CFOq(3,,12),DU~MY(4)
CO~MaN ICOL(30.4),PRa~T(3r)
CO'v1MON D~ I CF. (,0) ,SALES (,0) d ROI,\ ('30,4)
(O~MON ~ND(200),COST(2aO),ACTIV(200) ,REDC(2DO)tSUPLY(3a't~rM(30)
CQMt't.ON VALtJr(30t30t3)
COM~ON POTNR(~C)
DATA X3/3?'2*O.01
DEFINE FILE ?(50,lR,U,~EXT?)
DEFI!\!E FILE 3(?Ot1H'U,~.JEXT3)
DF.:FI.~F. FILF 4(5J,lgtU,~jEXTl.)
W3=NR
DO 10 J=1,4
DO 10 I=1,~O
IN nn I tJ ) = r R OJ,! ( I tJ )
10 CONTINUE
DO 20 1=1,,0
X3( I tl )=PRICE( I)
20 CONTINUE
CALL RPAO (2t2t2tINEWtN3tX3tNEXT2)
N3=NC
DO 30 J=1,4
DO 30 r=1,~O
INf\.v( I ,J)=ICOU I tJ)
30 CONTI"JUF
DO ~o 1=1,,0
X3,I,1)=SALES(I)
40 CONTINUE
CALL RPAQ(',3,2,I~EWtN3,X3tNFXT3)
DO 50 I=1,~O
X3 (1,1) =POTNP. ( I)
50 CONTINUF
CALL RPAQ (2,4,?,INEWtN3,X3,NEXT4)
CALL EXIT
END
II DUD
*DELFTF.:
*STORE
WS
UA
RRqlO
RRRIO
-------
A7-20
P~OGRA~ RR~12 (1130 CO~PUTER,
9/1')/71)
II FO~
*n~F ~CRD I~Tr-GfRS
**()q(:'G~A'v1 P~81 7
*InCSICA~D,ll~1 n~I~TEq)
*I:JCSIDISK)
DB ::~SIJN TITl~13,9), lOCU46.4),XI46t7)
DEfI\!f FILe: 1(I)O,lrJ,U,JR)
D~TA TITl~!27*j '/
[)AT!\ LDCl/IR4*' '/
DATA Xr322*O.O/
IN=2
JR=l
REA D ( IN, 1 n ) ~~ R
10 ~OR~AT(?X,!2,2X,I')
':! R I T ,-' ( 1 1 J P) "J r;>
DO 30 "(=1,3
f:
-------
A7-21
PROGq~M RR~15 (1130 COMPUTER,
9/3(/71)
II FOq
*ON~ ~ORD INTEGEPS
*IOCS(CARD,113? DRI~TE~)
*IOCStDI!SK)
**PROGRAM RRR15
DIvFN5ION NA~F2(10), CQED(47,7)
D I i'/ [ ~,i 5 ION L 0 C L ( 4 7 , 4 ), C F 0 q ( 4 7 , 7 ). I L I ~i K ( 4 7 . 4 ). T RAN ( 47 . 7 )
DI~EN5ION TCFOB(47), TO(5T(47). TTOT(47)
DlvEN5ION J(A~D(l). KCARD(?). LOC2(47,4)
DATA PhKO.I':!
-------
PPOG9AfY! ~c.(~15
A7-22
(1130 COMPUTER.,
9/3n/71)
DO 3?5 1(=1,!\J1
IF (ILI~K(!,l)-LOCL(K,l) )310,300.,310
,00 IF (ILINK( I ,2)-LGCL(r;,?) )31:~,3?O,31:~
,10 GO TO 325
320 T(FOR(!)=CFO~(K,KRO~)
GO TO 330
325 CONTINUE
3 3 (' T Res T ( I) = T R Af~ ( I , I Y ':1\ '? )
TTOT( I )=TRCST( I )+TCFOO( I)
JCARD(l) = ILTNK(Td)
CALL UNPAC( JCARD, 1, 1, '
-------
A7-23
D?OGRAM ~R~16 (1130 (OM?UTfR.
9/17/71)
*IOCStDISK)
*O~E WORD I~TF~~~S
* :"J .l\ ~! F. R R q 1 6
HrprWGR A!" q:~ p 16
DI"F."~SI:-P! LO(L(47,4) ,X(47, 7) ,yROUN(Lt!
DI',1F.f'ISIO"J J(l\qD( 1). !«(l\~D(?)
DEFI~E FILF 1 (5a,lS,~,jqEC)
C---POUND SIG~ (~UM~E~ SIGN)
DATA IPQljf'~ I ,155? I
I ~~ = 2
~ E A :) (PI, 1 ') I ~ 0 U '\ , I YEA R , K ~- Y
10 FQR~AT(4A?,lX,I2,qX,Il)
CALL RFIND(l,Jqf(,LGCL,N,X)
REA D ( IN, 1 ?) In~..1y
12 FOR~\T(I2)
1') GO T0 (,'O,,5),KEY
2 C vJ ~ I T F ( I '1 , 6 !') ) I R 0 U '1
CALL ST;\CK
2? DO 3~ I=l,.'J
IF(X(I,IYFAQ)-100001.)25,23,25
23 )C. (I tIYE/\R.)=O.
2 5 VI ~ I T F ( IN. 5 ?) I R 8 U "J , ( L 0 C L ( I ,J ) ,J = 1 , 4) ,X ( I , I Y t A ~ )
(ALL S1"'.('<.
3(") COI'Hlt\UF
GO TO 78
35 DC 4S I=l,\j
IF(X(I,IYEAR)-1~1rOl.) 37, 36, 37
X(!,rYEAr::()=(').
JC.AQ[)(l) = LOCL(I,1)
CALL U:'JPA(( JCA?D, 1, 1, KC/\R[") , 1 )
ICOLl = KCA~D(l)
C---1.2,3--GO TO 40 (L~)
( 5,6--GO TO 39 (Uq)
( POUND S I C'j--(:O TO 41 (FX)
IF( ICOLl - PO UN ) ,R. 41, ~e
IF( ICOL1 + 310~ ) 40, 3~, 39
\.; q IT F ( I .'J, 5 2 ) IRe U:~, (L 0 C l( I ,J ) ,J = 1 , 4 ), X ( I , lYE M~ )
CALL STflCK
GO Tn 45
WRITF( IN. 51 ) InOU'.:, (LOCUI,J),J=l,L.), X(ItIYEAR)
CALL STACI(
GO TO I+~
4 1 wRIT E ( !I'~ , 5 () ) I 80 U ~~ , ( Lee L ( I ,.J) ,J = 1 , 4 ) ,X ( I , IYE.l\ R )
CALL SH.CK
45 CONTINlJf;
70 CALL E"XIT
50 FORMAT(lX,2hFX,1x,4A2.2X,4A2,2X,F8.2)
FOR~i\T( lX, 2YLq, lX, 4A2. 2X, 4A2, ?x, Fe.? )
FORMAT( lX, 2HU9, lX, 4A2, 2X, 4A2, 2x, FP..2 )
60 FOR~AT(lX,2HFR.IX,4A7.2X.4HCOST)
F.ND
36
37
3~
39
40
51
52
II ~UP
*DELETE
*STORE
\'15
UA
~R~16
RR~16
-------
A7-24
PR8GQA~ ARG~2 (1130 CO:JP~TFR, 9/~7/(1)
II FOq
* 0' i E '.1'0 R ~ I"J ,. F G F. ? S
*InCS(CARD,113? pqI~TFQ!
*rr:CS(DISK)
*'i:'.','F ,ARGO?
~I~E~SIO~ TITLF(3,9), LOCLI46,4),X(46,7)
~ATi\ TITLF/?7*' '/
r') A T.\ Lee L I 1 R '+ * I '/
DATA X/~2?*1.~a51
f)EFlr\'F FILF 1(5C),1P,LJ,JRi
42
A'5
1(0=3
JR=1
qEA[)(1'J~) !\;?
IjQITF(KO,?r))
?O FO~'~I'.T(1L-j1)
DO 30 1(=1,3
READ(1'J~) (TITLr.(K,~_),L=1,9)
30 co~n I I\!U~
W ~ I T F ( K 0 , 4 f'\) (T I T L E ( 1 , L ) , L = 1, () )
40 FO~~AT(43X, QA4,/)
WRITr.«O,41) (TITLF(?,L),L=l,~)
FO~~tT(47X, 9A4111)
~RITr.(Kn,4?) ITITLE(3,L), L=1,9)
FCP~Ai(1?X,9(AX.A4))
DC lQO I=l,"I~
P E iI, [) ( 1 ' ..) R) 'L OC L ( I . J ) ,.J::: 1 , L. , , ( X ( I ,J) ,J:.:. 1 , 7 )
\-J R I T r ( K 0 ,9"') (L () C L ( I , J ) ,.J = 1 . '. ) . ( X ( ! , J ) . J = 1 .'7 )
90 FO~~AT(lX,4A2,4X, 7(~X.~5.;))
1 PO CaNT I'JUF
CALL [XI':"
n~[)
II DUD
*SFLfTF
*STORF
',.i,C.
! IA
A~~Gn ?
A~G~2
41
-------
A7-25
SU9ROUTINE RFILE (1130 CO~PUTER.
I I FO~
*ONE WO~D INTEGERS
*LIST SOURCE PROG~AM
**SUPROUTI~E QFILE
SURROUTINE ~FILE(~.J~)
DIME~SION TITLE(3.9). LOCL(46,4).X(46,7)
DATA TITLF./27*' II
DATA LOCL/184*' II
DATA X/322*I.F051
KO=3
JR=1
READ(N'JR) NQ
WRITE(KO.2f))
20 FOR~AT(IHl)
DO;O K=I.3
R E ~\ i) ( ~ ' J R ) ( TIT L F ( K , L ) , L = 1 . 9 )
30 CONTINUE
WRITF.(KO.4~) (TITLF(I.L).L=1,9)
40 FOR~AT(43X, 9A4,/)
WRITE(KO,411 ITITLEt2,LI ,L=l,C))
FOR~AT(47X, 9A4111)
WRITF(KO.4?) (TITLE(3,L). L=1,9)
FOR~AT(7X, 9(6X,A4))
DO IRO r=l,N~
READ(N'JR) (LOCL( I ,J) ,J=l,4), (X( I ,J) ,J=1.7)
\AI R I T F. ( K ° , 90) (L 0 C L ( I , J ) , J = 1 ,4 ) , ( X ( r tJ ) , J = 1 , 7 )
90 FORMAT(1X,4A2.4X, 7(5X,F5.?))
1 AO CONT pJU~
RETUq.~
END
II DLJP
*I)ELETE
*STORE
41
42
85
W~
RFILE
r~FILE
UA
9/?1/71 )
-------
A7-26
SUP R 0 LJ T I ~~ F. r< F I r~:; (11 3 0 C 0 ~, PUT E R .
II FOR
*O~~ WORD INTEGE~S
**SlJ~''OUTI';F ~'FII\;[)
S LJ R R () UTI .I\~ F R F I :'J D ( t.. .1'\ EXT . ~ A ~A F . .'< . X )
I':TEGfl:? A
Drr'T\'SIO~,! I\;AVt:"(/~!,4J ,X('+7.7)
Kf"ILl\:\J= 16/p:"'''
? () ,..~ = ~~ + ]
75 (()~!TI~UE
~c; RETUPN
EN!')
II r:JlJP
H)i="LrTF
*5 T::;r~E
~d - f">,
, '-\.'
~; EXT = 5
CO 2'3 I=1.L~7
R f :'. D ( to. t ~; EXT) ( '\ t>.. :.1::: ( I , J ) . J = 1 t 4 ) , ( X ( ! . J ) ,J = 1 . 7 )
I F ( \:\ ~.! fC ( I , 1 ) -I( P. U, .'~ ) 2 ("\ , 3 (1 , 2 n
I:: S
LJ/\
R F I ~!D
RFI~jD
9/16/71 )
-------
A7-27
PROGRA~ RPAQ (1130 COMPUTER,
91?3/"?1J
II F:)R
*ONF WORD INTfGERS
**SUR~OUTI~E RPAQ
SURQOUTINE RPAQ (JJ,K~,LL,~AME3,~3,X3,NEXT)
D A T A K B L t, r\) / I I I
D I '.4. E r ~ S I 0 r< ~j t'.. \1 E 4 ( 4 (, , 4 ) ,r,: A 'I f 3 ( 46 ,4 ) 'X '3 ( 46 , 7 ) .Y..'. ( 46 , 7 )
C 0\1 ~~ ()IJ ',: N
KO=3
N4=O
45 NEXT=5
DO 5'31=1,4'"
REA. D ( ~~ K ,'\; F X T ) ( :'-J A~ E 4 ( I ,J ) ,J = 1 ,4) , ( X4 ( 1 ,J ) ,J = 1 ,7 )
IF (NA;-.~~4(Itl)-K~LMj)?~,60,50
50 N l. = '\;It + 1
55 CONTINUE
60 DO 150 K=1.~j4
DC) 14g 1=1.N3
I F ( ,'~,A M E '- ( K . 1 ) -N A:'1 E 3 ( I , 1 ) ) 1 48 ,90 , 14 A
C) (1 I F ( N A '.1 r. 4 ( K . 2 ) - N A '1 :: 3 ( I , '2 ) } 1 4 8 , 1 0 0 , 1 4 P-
1 C 0 I F ( N ll, ~1 E 4 ( K ,3 ) - N A ~~ E 3 ( I . 3 ) ) 1 '- 8 , 11 0 . 1 4 R
11 0 I F ( N M-j E 4 ( K .4 ) - NA '1 F:1 ( I . 4) ) 14 ~ . 1 30 . 1 {.8
130 GO Tn (135t!40tl41tl42}.JJ
135 DO l~r J=1,7
X4(K..J)=X'3(ItJ)
l!I P- cor: T I NUl:
GO TO 150
14 0 X '+ ( K . I\J ~~ ) = x , ( 1 . 1 )
GO Tn 150
141 X3(I,1}=X4(K,I\J{\J}
GO TO 1'30
142 DO 144 J=1.7
X3( I.J)=X4(KtJ)
144 CONTINUE
GO Tn 1'3~
14A CONTINU~
150 CONTINUE
GO TO (16()tl6?).LL
160 GO Tn 17Q
16;> NE~ T=5
DO 1(,3 1=1.1'\)4
i-i R I T F ( I( I( , I\J F. X T ) (:\) A ~/ E 4 ( I ,J ) . J = 1 ,4 ) . ( X 4 ( 1 . J ) ,J = 1 . 7 }
163 CONTINUE
CALL RFILF(KK.NEXT)
170 RETURN
END
II DUP
*DELETE
*STORE
WS
UA
RPAO
RPAQ
-------
A7-28
FUNCTION GFX (1130
CO'!~D:,JTr-;: )
II i='Q?
*Of!!:" \\'O'W !,\HF-:Gi7:""S
*L I ST SOUP<:E :")f.~C;(il,l\v
Fu~C(IC~ GfX(KARtv)
D 1-" F. ,'~ S r 'J .~ C': t, ':) A Y ( ;: ,
r) I :1 C " ~ s r Q \ K /\ R .iY ( 9 ) ." ,II ? t" Y ( tj )
D f\ T II "/I ~ A v /1 ~! S ') ::; C': 8 , 1 ::::: "i :' 8 , 1 :' (1 :,! 8 , 1 2 C 8 . 1 C' . , 1 8 . . 1 ~ 8 C 1 , 8 0 () 1 I
r;o 1 ~ ! = 1 , q
K= ('(f':,q/l,y (I) +41"32) !?5A
IF (K-PC))l::,Q,lt:
~ I(='~:
10 ~A1AY:I)=i='LO/lT(I()
(,;EX=~.
DO 2n I=l,Q
?0 GEX=C:F.X+D'\qAY(! )*nARI\Y( I)
p ~ TtJF~~'~
F ,'\D
1/ Dl.!P
*i);.LFrr.
*ST:]'<'E
':/ S
lJA
G'X,
GEX
-------
A7-29
APPENDIX 7
TABLE 1
SAMPLE EXECUTION DECK FOR PROGRAM RRB 12
1
(PEATE ~ND ~RI~T FXTRA-RFGIONAL SUpoLY FILE
1
/1 XEO P~Cj12
* j::; I L C' S ( 1 . I,~ F S 8 a )
In
l~Q0 FXT~A-RFGrONAL
1 ()-2!'-71
.~... 9
*Tl.1CSO~!
'f.1)'
-------
A7-30
APPENDIX 7
TABLE 2
SAMPLE OUTPUT FROM PROGRAM ARG 02
TABLE 2A - 1980 Ex TRA-R EG I ONAl SUPPL Y
10-28-71
A R C D E F G
*TUCSON 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0..'0 o.? 0 o.?o
$O~lEANS 6.00 5.50 5.25 5.00 4.75 4.50 5.25
$COAT~[X 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
$A~UPA 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 1. 1 C
$CALGARY 8.00 8.00 A.OO 8.00 8.0C 8.00 8.08
*SUDBURY 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
$CHICAGO ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** **.,** -11.****
$NFWARK ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ****1:
$r-1EI'.'PHIS ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** .,**** iHHI * ,}
$FRISCO ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ****"
-------
A7-31
APPENDIX 7
TABLE 2B - 1980 FOB COST
10-28-71
A A C D F 1: G
*TUCSQN 1.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.C1 0.01 0.01
$OQLFANS 27.00 21.00 20.00 19.CC' 18.50 17.00 ?Q.c;C
$COAT~EX 27.00. 21.00 2:).00 70.00 19.50 20.00 21.00
$ARl)RA 20.00 18.00 16.50 15.00 13.50 15.00 lA.50
$CA.L~ARY ,11.()O 10.00 9.50 9.00 8.50 5.00 AIOC
*SUDr=lURY 13.70 13.70 13.70 13.70 13.70 1?70 1':.7(:
$CHICAGO **-1:-** ***** ***** *:1-*** ***** *:t**~ *.1>0;<-*" .
, ,'.
-------
A7-32
APPENDIX 7
TABLE 2C - 1980 REGIONALIZED DF~AND
10-28-71
A B C D E F G
ROSTON 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.04
1BOSTON 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 ***** .:t****
2AOSTON ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ,,,"****
NFWARK 0.64 0.59 0.47 0.36 0.74 0.01 0.24
1NEWARK 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.10 ***** *****
2NFWARK 0.10 0.]0 0.10 0.10 0.05 ***** *.".***
6NEWARK 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.01 'J.02
NORFOLK 0.96 0.91 0.81 0.71 0.61 0.41 0.61
1NORFOLK 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.::'5 0.20 *****
2NORFOLK 0.10 0.10 0.11') 0.10 ').10 **--..* *.~J(.**
CHICAGO 1.15 1.07 0.58 0.11 0.01 1).01 'J.01
3CHICAGO 0.60 0.50 0.20 0.05 ***** **-)t** ***.....".
6CHICAGC 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.02 ***** 0.01 0.01
MEMPHIS 0.42 0.38 0.26 0.14 0.02 ~-*** * Q.C~
OMAHA 0.72 0.21 0.14 0.07 0.01 ***** O.Ol
30MAHA 0.70 0.19 0.12 0.05 ***** **...** ***!Ht
SEATTLE 0.22 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.2C
LANG.CA 0.18 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.1" 0.1L.
5LANG.CA 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.1') 0.01
TAMPA 3.;:>5 3.09 3.07 3.04 3.02 2.97 '3.02
1TAMPA 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 1.00 **"'"**
2 TAMPA ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ,,,"***,,"
ROTT'DM 1.60 1.60 1.61) 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60
P;10TT'DM 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 ***** *.::-***
2ROTT I DM 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 ***** *****
3ROTT I DM 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 * * oft. * * *;:.***
6ROn I DM 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Oel5 0.15 ':'.15
-------
A7-33
APPENDIX 7
TABLE 2D - TRANSPORTATION COST FILE
1
A B C D E F G
$ORll ROS 6.66 6.66 6.66 6.66 6.66 6.66 6.66
$ORL1NEW 5.99 5.99 5.99 5.99 5.99 5.99 5.99
SORL1NOR 5.48 5.48 5.48 5.48 5.48 5.48 5.48
SORL=CHI 4.21 4.21 4.21 4.21 4.21 4.21 4.21
SORL=MEM ?05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 ?05 2.05
SORL=OMA 4.51 4.51 4~51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51
SORL1TAM t.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80
SORL1ROT 6.40 6.l10 6.40 6.4G 6.l.0 6.40 6.ll:)
$COA?F'OS 3.04 3.04 3.04 3.04 3.04 3.04 3.04
$COA2NEW 2.77 2.77 2.77 2.77 2.77 2.77 2.77
SCOA?NOR 2.56 2.56 2.56 2.56 2.56 2.56 2.56
$COA2TA"1 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62
$COA2ROT 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67
$Ar~LJ=QOs 4.;>~ 4.28 4.;>8 4.28 4.;>8 4.28 4./8
$ARLJ=NFW 4.03 4.03 4.03 4.03 4.03 4.(,3 4.03
SARU=NOR 3.R4 3.84 3.84 3.84 3.84 3.34 3.~4
!.f,ARU=TA~ 3.65 3.65 3.65 3.65 3.65 3.65 3.65
$ARll=ROT (,.90 6.90 6.90 6.90 6.90 6.90 6.90
$CAL=80S 1 'h 34 15.26 16.32 14.98 14.98 14.9a 14.~8
SCAL =NE~oJ 14.19 15.11 16.17 14.83 14.83 1 'I . 8 3 14.83
$CAL="-JQR 14.09 15.01 16.07 14.73 14.73 14.73 14.73
SCAL 3CH I 17.67 16.73 19.00 1h.10 16.10 16010 16.10
seA. L =1-1 E\1 24.16 20.49 23.16 20.26 ;>0.;>6 20.26 20.26
SCAL30MA 1C:;.91 17.98 20.85 20.83 20.A3 20.83 20.83
$CAL=SEA 1?.19 13.45 14.91 14.03 14.36 14.73 15.13
$CAL=LAN 11.41 12.33 13.39 12.05 1/.05 12.05 12.05
$CAL=TAM 1~.71 14.63 15.69 14.35 14.35 14.35 14.35
$(AL3ROT 16.16 17.08 18014 11'>.80 16.80 16.80 16.HD
$CHI=NFW 10.20 10.20 10.20 10.20
SCHI=NOR 9.69 9.69 9.69 9.6':1
$CHI=:v1E~ 2.1h 2.16 7.16 ;>.16
'SCHI=TAr'-1 6.01 6.01 6.01 11.01
$(HI=ROT 10.61 10.61 10.61 10.61
*TlJC5LAN 35.19 38.77 42.01 43.79 48.?9 50.70 53.24
*SLJD6NE\.J 17.44 19.03 20.38 21.3, 23.41 24.51 25.67
*SUD6CHI 20.20 22el2 23.72 25.46 27.26 28.58 29.96
*SUD6ROT 37.58 39.17 40.45 41.37 43.37 44.43 45.53
$NE\oJ=NOR 1.80 1.80
$NF\oJ=ROT 6.90 6.90
$MEM=TAM 3.96 3.96
$ME~=ROT 8.4:' 8.45
$FRI=SEA 5.24 5.2l.
-------
*TUCSON
*SLJDBlJRY
A
6.85
.6.135
A7-34
APPENDIX 7
TABLE 2E - AC I D Eau I VALEtH FILE
B
6.85
6.85
C
27.42
27.42
D
27.42
27.42
E
2.7.42
2 7 . ,~ 2
F
27.42
27.42
1
G
27.42
27.42
-------
L-
A7-35
APPEND IX 7
TABLE 3
SAMPLE LISTING FROM PROGRAM RRB 16 (DEMAND)
SUPPLY CARDS--CASE 1980F
1
1 2 3 4 5 6.. 7 8
. 123456789012345~7890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
FR 1980F
US 1980F
US 1980F
US 1980F
US 1980F
US 1980F
US 1980F
US 1980F
US 1980F
US 1980F
US 1980F
COST
*TUCSON
$ORLEANS
SCOATMEX
$ARUSA
$CALGARY
*SUDSURY
$CHICAGO
$NEWARK
$MEMPHIS
$FRISCO
0.20
4.50
0.50
1.10
8.00
0.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-------
A7-36
APPEND IX 7
TABLE 4
SAMPLE LISTING FROM PROGRAM RRB 16 (SUPPLY)
DEMAND CARDS--CASE 1980F
1
1 2 345 6 7 8
12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789Q12~45678901234567890
FX 19AOF
LB 1geOF
LB 19e10F
FX 1980F
LB 1980F
LB 1980F
UB 1980F
FX 1980F
LB 1980F
LB 1980F
FX 1980F
LB 1980F
UB 1980F
FX 1980F
FX 1980F
LB 1980F
FX 1980F
FX 1980F
US 1980F
FX 1980F
LB 1980F
LB 1980F
FX 1980F
LB 1980F
LB 1980F
LB 1980F
UB 1980F
=BOSTON
1BOSTON
2BOSTON
=NEWARK
INEWARK
2NEWARK
6NEWARK
=NORFOLK
INORFOLK
2NORFOLK
=CHICAGO
3CHICAGO
6CHICAGO
=MEMPHIS
=OMAHA
30MAHA
=SEA TTLE
=LANG.CA
5LANG.CA
=TAMPA
ITAMPA
2TAMPA
=ROTT'DM
lROTT'DM
2ROTT'DM
3ROTT'DM
6ROTT'DM
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.41
0.20
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.14
0.10
2.97
1.00
0.00
1.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
-------
A7-37
APPENDIX 7
TABLE 5
SAMPLE OUTPUT FROM PROGRAM RRB 15
TABLE SA
COST CARDS--CASE 1980~
1
1 2 345 6 7 8
12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
SORL.1BOS
SORLlNEW
SORL.1NOR
SORL=CHI
SORLcMEM
SORL.=OMA
SORL.1TAM
SORL.1ROT
SCOA2BOS
SCOA2NEW
SCOA2NOR
SCOA2TAM
SCOA2ROT
$ARU=BOS
$ARU=NEW
SARU=NOR
SARU=TAM
SARU=ROT
SCAL.=BOS
SCAL=NEW
SCAL.=NOR
SCAL3CHI
SCAL.=MEM
SCAL.30MA
SCAL.=SEA
SCAL=LAN
SCAL=TAM
$CAL3ROT
SCI II =NEW
SCI-1I:rNOR
$CHIcMEM
SCHI=TAM
SCHI=ROT
*TUC5LAN
*SUD6NEW
*SUD6CHI
*SUD6ROT
SNEW=NOR
SNEW=ROT
SMEM=TAM
SMEM=ROT
SFRI=SEA
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
23.66
22.99
22.48
21.21
19.05
21.51
18.80
23.40
23.04
22.71
22.56
21.62
26.61
19.28
19.03
18.84
18.65
21.90
20.26
20.11
20.01
21.73
25.49
22.98
18.45
17.33
19.63
22.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
31.92
25.87
28.96
46.01
0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-------
A7-38
APPENDIX 7
TABLE SB
SAMPLE PRINT-OUT FROM PROGRAM RRB 15
MINIMUM TRANSPORTATION MINIMUM
T~AD~ lI,\J!( FOB PRICE COST DELIVERED PRICE
SORLl ROS 17.00 6.66 23.66
50RllNFW 17.0a 5.99 22.99
$O~LlNOR 17.00 5.48 22.48
$ORL UiI 17.08 4.? I, 21.21
SORL "1FM 17.00 2.a5 19.05
$O~L OMA 17.00 4.51 21.51
SORLl TA,M 17.no 1.~O 1R.8C
SORLlROT 17.00 6.40 23.40
SCO,A.2ROS 20.00 3.[')4 23.04
$COA2"~F'I~ 20.00 2.77 22.77
~COA?i\jOR 20.00 2.':16 22.~6
S(OA7Tt\~ 20.00 1.67 ?l.6?
SCOA?ROT 20.00 6.67 26.67
$APU ROS 15.00 4.?8 19.;8
c;.ARLJ N ~ ~~J 15.(')('\ 4.n3 19.03
SA~U "'JOR 15.00 3.P4 18.~4
$ARlJ T ,!IV 15.00 3.65 lP..65
c;:A~'.! ROT 15.QC 6.9:) 21.90
<:,C I\l ROS 5.00 15.?6 ?O.?6
~CAl I'.F\,.; 5.00 15.11 28.11
SCAl I\ICR 5.00 15.')1 20.01
S( AL3CH I 5.00 16.73 ?1.73
crCAL "'1~'" 5.00 20.49 25.49
sc t\l 30,vA 5.00 17.9~ 2?9f:
~(AL SEA 5.00 13.45 1 e.4 ':I
SCAl lA\J 5.0D 17.33 17.':\~
SCAL TMt 5.00 14.63 19.63
$CAl3RCT 5.00 17.0R ??ce
5CI-I! NF''': 0.00 O.()C 8.ac
iC"i! "JOR a.oo 0.'")(' 8.1C
S(I-I1 ;v1FM o.on 0.(')0 0.00
SCH1 TA'" 0.00 0.00 a.co
5(1-I! ROT 0.00 O.0() () . (j 8
*Tl'C5LA"; () . cn 38.77 31.9?
* S t J r; 6 ~~ E ',~ 13.70 19.03 25.87
*SUr')6CY! 13.70 ?2el? 21".96
*SU["\6ROT 13.70 ::\9.1' 46.01
SNC\'/ NOR -0.00 0.0(') C).:)c
$ '\ F'.'I ROT -0.0(') o.()(' -:).00
$"" t ,,/, TAV -0.00 O.GO -0.(')0
~E'~ F M ROT -a.o~ o.or -0.00
$ F I~! SF A -0.00 c.o:! -o.co
-------
INPUT .DECK
A7-3'J
APPENDIX 7 - TABLE 6
SAMPLE OF LP-MOSS INPUT DECK
TO LP-MOSS PROGRAM--CASE 1980F
1
1 2 345 678
12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
/1 XEQ MOSS
TNPUT
NAME
- $CH I =NEW
$CHI=NEW
$CHI=NOR
SCHI=NOR
SCHI=MEM
$CHI=MEM
SCHI=TAM
SCHl=TAM
SCHI=ROT
$CHI=ROT
$ORLlBOS
SORL1BOS
SORL1BOS
$ORL1NEW
SORL1NEW
$ORLlNEW
$ORL1NOR
$ORL1NOR
$ORL1NOR
SORL=CHI
$ORL=CHI
$ORL=MEM
$ORL=MEM
$ORL=OMA
$ORL=OMA
$ORL1TAM
SORL1TAM
SORL1TAM
SORLl ROT
$ORLlROT
$ORL1ROT
SCOA2BOS
$COA2BOS
$COA2BOS
$C('A2NEW
$CuA2NEW
SCOA2NEW
$COA2NOR
$COA2NOR
$COA2NOR
SCOA2ROT
SCOA2ROT
$COA2ROT
$COA2TAM
$COA2TAM
$COA2TAM
$ARU=BOS
$ARU=BOS
$ARU=NEW
S~RU=NEW
$ARU=NOR
$ARU=NOR
1980F
$CHICAGO
",NEWARK.
$CHICAGO
=NORFQLK
$CHICAGO
=MEMPHIS
$CHICAGO
=TAMPA
$CHICAGO
=ROTT'DM
$ORLEANS
1BOSTON
:BOSTON
$ORLEANS
1NEWARK
=NEWARK
SORLEANS
1NORFOLK
=NORFOLK
$ORLEANS
",CHICAGO
$ORLEANS
=MEMPHIS
$ORLEANS
=OMAHA
$ORLEANS
1TAMPA
"'TAMPA
$ORLEANS
1ROTT'DM
=ROTT'DM
$COATMEX
2BOSTON
"'BOSTON
$COATMEX
2NEWARK.
=NEWARK
$COATMEX
2NORFOLK
"'NORFOLK
$COATMEX
2ROTT'DM
=ROTT'DM
$COATMEX
2TAMPA
"'TAMPA
$ARUBA
::ROSTON
$ARUBA
=NEWARK
$ARUBA
=NORFOLK
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
(ACTIVITY CARDS)
-------
INPUT
A7-40
APPENDIX 7 - TABLE 6 (CONTINUED)
DECK TO LP-MOSS PROGRAM--CASE 1980F
2
1 2 345 6 7 8
1234567890123456789012345678901234567!9012345678901234567890123456789012345678~O
$ARU=TAM
$ARU=TAM
$ARU=ROT
$ARU=ROT
$CAL=BOS
$CAL=BOS
$CAL=NEW
$CAL=NEW
$CAL=NOR
$CAL=NOR
$Cl.L=MEM
$C""L=MEM
$CAL=SEA
$CAL=SEA
$CAL=LAN
$CAL=lAN
$CAl3ROT
$CAL3ROT
$CAL3ROT
$CAL=TAM
$CAL=TAM
SCAL3CHI
$CAL3CHI
$CAL3CHI
$CAL30MA
$CAL30MA
$CAL30MA
*SUD6NEW
*SUD6NEW
*SUD6NEW
*TUC5lAN
*TUC5LAN
*TUC5lAN
*SUD6CHI
*SUD6CHI
*SUD6CHI
*SUD6ROT
*SUD6ROT
*SUD6ROT
$NEW=NOR
$NEW=NOR
SNEW=ROT
SNEW=ROT
$MEM=TAM
SMEM=TAM
$MEM=ROT
$MEM=ROT
$FRI=SEA
$FRI=SEA
SOr.L1BOS
$OkLlNEW
$ORL1NOR
$ORL=CHI
$ORL=MEM
$ORL=OMA
$ARUBA
=TAMPA
$ARUBA
=ROTT'DM
SCALGARY
=BOSTON
$CALGARY
=NEWARK
SCALGARY
=NORFOLK
SCALGARY
=MEMPHIS
$CALGARY
=SEATTLE
SCALGARY
=LANG.CA
$CALGARY
3ROTT'DM
=ROTT'DM
SCALGARY
=TAMPA
$CALGARY
3CHICAGO
=CHICAGO
SCALGARY
30MAHA
=OMAHA
*SUDBURY
6NEWARK
=NEWARK
*TUCSON
5lANG.CA
=lANG.CA
*SUDBURY
6CHICAGO
=CHICAGO
*SUDBURY
6ROTT'DM
=ROTT'DM
$NEWARK
=NORFOLK.
$NEWARI<.
=ROTT'DM
$MEMPHIS
=TAMPA
SMEMPHIS
=ROTT'DM
$FRISCO
=SEA TTLE
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
23.66
22.99
22.48
21.21
19.05
21.51
(COST CARDS PREPARED BY RRB 15)
-------
A7-41
APPENDIX 7 - TABLE 6 (CONTINUED)
INPUT DECK TO LP-MOSS PROGRAM--CASE 1980F
3
1 2 345 6 7 8
12345618901234561890123456189012345618901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
SORL.1TAM
SORL.1ROT
SCOA2BOS
SCOA2NEW
SCOA2NOR
SCOA2TAM
SCOA2ROT
SARUzBOS
SARUzNEW
SARU=NOR
!ARU=TAM
SARU=ROT
$CAL.=BOS
SCAL.=NEW
SCAL=NOR
SCAL3CHI
SCAL=MEM
SCAL30MA
SCAL=SEA
SCAL=LAN
SCAL=TAM
SCAL3ROT
SCI!I =NEW
SCI, I = NOR
SCHI=MF.M
SCHI=TAM
SCHI=ROT
*TUC5LAN
*SUD6NEW
*SUD6CHI
*SUD6ROT
SNEW=NOR
SNEW=ROT
SMEM=TAM
SMEM=ROT
SFRI=SEA
FX 1980F
LB 1980F
LB 1980F
FX 1980F
LA 1980F
LA 1980F
US 1980F
FX 1980F
LB 1980F
LA 1980F
FX 1980F
LB 1980F
UB 1980F
FX 1980F
FX 1980F
LB 1980F
FX 1'180F
FX 1980F
UB 1980F
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST.
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
-BOSTON
1BOSTON
2BOSTON
=NEWARK
1NEWARK
2NEWARK
6NEWARK
-NORFOLK
1NORFOLK
2NORFOLK
=CHICAGO
3CHICAGO
6CHICAGO
=MEMPHIS
-OMAHA
30MAHA
-SEA TTLE
=LANG.CA
5LANG.CA
18.80
23.40
23.04
22.11
22.56
21.62
26.67
19.28
19.03
18.84
18.65
21.90
20.26
20.11
20.01
21.13
25.49
22.98
18.45
17.33
19.63
22.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
31.92
25.87
28.96
46.01
0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
-0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.41
0.20
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.14
0.10
(DEMAND CARDS PREPARED BY RRB 16)
-------
A7-42
APPENDIX 7 - TABLE 6 (CONTINUED)
INPUT DECK TO LP-MOSS PROGRAM--CASE 1980F
4
1 2 345 6 1 8
12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
FX 1980F
LS 1980F
LS 1980F
FX 1980F
LS 1980F
LS 1980F
LS 1980F
US 1980F
FR 1980F
UB 1980F
US 1980F
US 1980F
US 1980F
US 1980F
US 1980F
US 1980F
US 1980F
US 1980F
US 1980F
ENDATA
MOVE
PUNCH
DATA
ENDATA
BCDOUT
MOVE
-DATA
BOUNDS
MINIMIZE
REPORT
ENDATA
LPSOLUTION
(ALANK CARDS FOR PUNCHING)
END
-TAMPA
1TAMPA
2TAMPA
-ROTT'DM
1ROTT'DM
2ROTT'DM
3ROTT'DM
6ROTT'DM
COST
*TUCSON
SORLEANS
SCOATMEX
SARUBA
SCALGARY
*SUDBURY
SCHICAGO
SNEWARK
SMEMPHIS
$FRISCO
PRINTER
1980F
1980F
1980F
COST
CARD
2.97
1.00
0.00
1.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.20
4.50
0.50
1.10
8.00
0.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
(SUPPLY CARDS PREPARED BY RRB 16)
-------
A7-43
APPEND~ 7 - TABLE 7
SAMPLE OUTPUT FROM LP-MOSS
OUTPUT CARDS FROM LP-MOSS PROGRAM--CASE 1980F 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1234~678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456189012345678901234567890
SCHIIINEWLL 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 -2.870
SCHICAGOEQ 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 22.080
'"NEWARK EQ 0 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.000 -19.209
SCHI-NORLL 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 -3.060
=NORFOLKEQ 0 0.410 0.410 0.410 0.000 -19.020
SCHI-MEMLL 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 -22.080
zMEMPHISB* 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
SCHIcTAMLL 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 -3.280
-TAMPA EO 0 2.970 2.970 2.91C 0.000 -18.800
SCHI-ROTB* 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 0.000
=ROTT ' DMEO 0 1.600 1.600 1.600 0.000 -22.080
$ORL.1BOSLL 4 0.000 *********** 0.000 23.660 -4.199
SORLEANSB* 0 3.180 4.500 0.000 0.000 0.000
1BOSTON B* 0 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 0.000
=BOSTON EO 0 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.000 -19.460
SORL1NEWLL 4 0.000 *********** 0.000 22.990 -3.780
1NEWARK B* 0 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 0.000
SORL1NORB* 4 0 -199 *********** 0.000 22.479 0.000
1NORFOLKLL 0 0.200 *********** 0.200 0.0::>0 -3.460
$ORL=CHIB* 3 0.010 *********** 0.000 21.210 0.000
=CHICAGOEQ 0 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.000 -21.210
$ORL=MEMLL 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 19.049 -19.049
SORL=OMALL 3 0.000 ***********. 0.000 21.510 -21.510
=OMAHA B* 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
SORLl T AMB* 4 2.910 *********** 0.000 18.800 0.000
ITAMPA B* 0 2.970 *********** 1.000 0.000 0.000
SORL1ROTLL 4 0.000 *********** 0.000 23.400 -1.319
1ROTT ' DMB* 0 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 0.000
$COA2BOSLL 4 0.000 *********** 0.000 23.040 -3.579
SCOATMEXB* 0 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.000
2BOSTON B* 0 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 0.000
$COAztIEWLL. 4 0.000 *********** 0.000 22.170 -3.560
2NEWAI"K B* 0 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 0.000
SCOA2NORLL 4 0.000 *********** 0.000 22.559 -3.540
2NORFOLKB* 0 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 0.000
SCOA2ROTLL 4 0.000 *********** 0.000 26.670 -4.Se9
2ROTT ' DMB* 0 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 0.000
SCOA2TAMLL 4 0.000 *********** 0.000 21.619 -2.819
2TAMPA B* 0 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 0.000
[.. SARU=BOSB* 3 0.010 *********** 0.000 19.280 0.000
SARUBA UL 0 1.100 1.100 0.000 0.000 -0.180
SARU=NEWB* 3 0.010 *********** 0.000 19.029 0.000
SARU-NORB* 3 0.210 *********** 0.000 18.839 0.000
SARU-TAMLL 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 18.649 -0.030
SARU-ROTB* 3 0.869 *********** 0.000 21.900 0.000
$CALc:BOSLL 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 20.?60 -0.799
SCALGARYB* 0 1.010 8.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
SCAL=NEWLL 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 20.110 -0.900
SCAL=NORLL 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 20.010 -0.990
$CAL=MEMLL 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 25.490 -25.490
SCAL=SEAB* 3 0.199 *********** 0.000 18.450 0.000
=SEATTL.EEQ 0 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.000 -18.449
SCAL=l.ANB* 3 0.140 *********** 0.000 17.330 0.000
=LANG.CAEQ 0 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.000 -17.330
SCAL3ROTB* 4 0.730 *********** 0.000 22.080 0.000
-------
A 7-44
APPENDIX 7 - TABLE 7 (CONTINUED)
OUTPUT CARDS FROM lP-MOSS PROGRAM--CASE 1980F 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567B9012345678901234567890
3ROTT I DMB* 0 0.730 *********** 0.000 0.000 0.000
5CAlr:TAMll 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 19.630 -0.830
5CAl3CHILl 4 0.000 *********** 0.000 21.729 -0.519
3CHICAGOB* 0 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 0.000
SCAl3()MALL 4 0.000 *********** 0.000 22.979 -22.geO
30MAH", B* 0 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 0.000
*SU06NEWB* 4 0.000 *********** 0.000 25.870 0.000
*SUDBURVLl 0 0.000 0.900 0.000 0.000 -6.660
6NEWARK B* 0 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000
*TUCSLANLL 4 0.000 *********** 0.000 31.920 -14.590
*TUCSON fI* 0 0.000 0.200 0.000 0.000 0.000
5LANG.CAB* 0 0.000 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000
*SUD6CHILL 4 0.000 *********** 0.000 28.960 -1.089
6CHICAGOB* 0 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000
*SUD6ROTLL 4 0.000 *********** 0.000 46.010 -17.270
6ROTT I DMB* 0 0.000 0.150 0.000 0.000 0.000
SNEW=NORLL 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 -3.060
SNEWARK EO 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 22.080
5NEW-ROTS* 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 0.000
5MEM=TAMlL 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 -3.280
5MEMPHISEO 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 22.080
SMEM=ROTS* 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 0.000
SFRI-SEAS* 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 0.000
$FRISCO EQ 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 18.449
COST B* 0 106.171 *********** *********** -1.000 1.000
-------
A7-45
APPENDIX 7 - TABLE 8
EXECUTION OECK FOR PROGRAM RRB07--CASE 1980F 1
1 2 3. 4 5 6 7 8
1231+5678901231+5678901231+5678901231+~678901231+5678901231+56789012345~78901234567890
II XEQ RRB07 1+
*FILES(5.MFC80)
*FILES(2.MFP80)
*FILES(:3.MFG80)
*F I LES (1+ .t~FN80)
06
SCHI-NEWLL 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 -2.870
SCH IC~.GOEO 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 22.080
-NEWAkK EQ 0 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.000 -19.209
SCHI-NORLL 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 -3.060
=NORFOLKEQ 0 0.410 0.410 0.410 0.000 -19.020
SCHl=MEMLL 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 -~2.080
-MEMPHISB* 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
SCHI=TAM~L 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 -3.?80
"TAMPA EQ 0 2.910 2.910 2.970 0.000 -18.800
SCHI=ROTB* 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 0.000
=ROTT' OMEO 0 1.600 1.600 1.600 0.000 -22.080
SORL1BOSLL 1+ 0.000 *********** 0.000 23.660 -4.199
SORLEANSB* 0 3.180 4.500 0.000 0.000 0.000
1BOSTON B* 0 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 0.000
IIBOSTON EO 0 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.000 -19.460
SORL1NEWLL 1+ 0.000 *********** 0.000 22.990 -3.780
1NEWARK B* 0 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 0.000
SORL1NORS* 4 0.199 *********** 0.000 22.479 0.000
1NORFOLKLL 0 0.200 *********** 0.200 0.000 -3.460
SORL-CHIB* 3 0.010 *********** 0.000 21.210 0.000
=CHICAGOEQ 0 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.000 -21.210
SORLz:MEMLL 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 19.049 -19.049
SORL=OMALL 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 21.510 -21.510
=OMAHA B* 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
SORL1TAMB* 4 2.970 *********** 0.000 18.800 0.000
ITAMPA B* 0 2.970 *********** 1.000 0.000 0.000
SORL1ROTLL 1+ 0.000 *********** 0.000 23.4f)O -1-319
1ROTT' OMB* 0 0.000 *********** 0.000 O.OJ(I 0.000
SCOA2BOSLL 4 0.000 *********** 0.000 23.040 -3.579
SCOATMEXB* 0 0.000 0.500 0.000 0.000 0.000
2BOSTON B* 0 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 0.000
SCOA2NEWLL 4 0.000 *********** 0.000 22.110 -3.560
2NEWARK B* 0 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 0.000
SCOA2NORLL 4 0.000 *********** 0.000 22.559 -3.540
2NORFOLKB* 0 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 0.000
SCOA2ROTLL 4 0.000 *********** 0.000 26.670 -4.589
ZROTT' DMB* 0 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 0.000
$COA2TAMLL 4 0.000 *********** 0.000 21.619 -2.819
2TAMPA B* 0 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 0.000
SARU=ROSB* 3 0.010 *********** 0.000 19.280 0.000
SARUBA UL 0 1.100 1.100 0.000 0.000 -0.18C
SARU=,,,EWB* 3 0.010 *********** 0.000 19.029 0.000
SARU-NORB* 3 0.210 *********** 0.000 18.839 0.000
SARU=TAMLL :3 0.000 *********** 0.000 18.649 -0.030
SARU"ROTB* 3 0.869 *********** 0.000 21.900 0.000
SCALIIBOSLL 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 20.760 -0.799
SCALGARVB* 0 1.070 8.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
SCAL=NEWLL 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 20.)10 -0.900
SCALIINORLL 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 20.010 -0.990
-------
A7-46
APPENDIX 7 - TABLE 8 (CONTINUED)
EXECUTION DECK FOR PROGRAM RRB07--CASE 1980F 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890
SCAL=MEMLL 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 25.490 -25.490
SCAL=SEAB* 3 0.199 *********** 0.000 18.450 0.000
=SEATTLEEQ 0 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.000 -18.449
SCAL=LANB* 3 0.140 *********** 0.000 17.330 0.000
=LANG.CAEQ 0 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.000 -17.330
SCAL3ROTB* 4 0.730 *********** 0.000 22.0~0 0.000
3ROTT' DMB* 0 0.730 *********** 0.000 0.0..)0 0.000
SCAL=TAMLL 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 19.630 -0.830
SCAL3CHILL 4 0.000 *********** 0.000 21.729 -0.519
3CHICAGOB* 0 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 0.000
SCAL30MALL 4 0.000 *********** 0.000 22.979 -22.980
30MAHA B* 0 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 0.000
*SUD6NEWB* 4 0.000 *********** 0.000 75.870 0.000
*SUDBURYLL 0 0.000 0.900 0.000 0.000 -6.660
6NEWARK B* 0 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000
*TUC5LANLL 4 0.000 *********** 0.000 31.920 -14.590
*TUCSON B* 0 0.000 0.200 0.000 0.000 0.000
5LANG.CAB* 0 0.000 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000
*SUD6CHILL 4 0.000 *********** 0.000 28.960 -1.089
6CH IC,.~.GOB* 0 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000
*SUD61~OTLL 4 0.000 *********** 0.000 46.010 -17.270
6ROTT . DMB* 0 0.000 0.150 0.000 0.000 0.000
SNEW=NORLL 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 -3.060
$NEWARK EQ 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 22.080
SNEW=ROTB* 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 0.000
$MEM=TAMLL 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 -3.?80
SMEMPHISEQ 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ?2.080
SMEM=ROTB* 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 0.000
SFRI=SEAB* 3 0.000 *********** 0.000 0.000 0.000
$FRISCO EQ 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 18.449
COST B* 0 106.171 *********** *********** -1.000 1.000
CASE--1980F 10/28/71 1980
-------
A7-47
PROP.LE~ NA~~-CASE--19S0F 1017.8/71
APPENDIX 7
YEAR-1980'
TABLE 9
~
DATA OUTPUT FOR~AT&
DEMAND RFG10N
*...** ***.it.*
SUPPLY RFGION
..--....--.-.....
TRANSACTION(~~ LONG TONS)
TOTAL DE~AND(~M LONG TONS)
DELIV~RFD vALUF($/TON)
CALCULATED TqADING PRICE($/TO~)
COST C~ANGE REOUIRED TO CAUSE
ACTIvITy TO BECO„E ACTIVE($/jONI
TOTAL COST T~IS PROP.LF~
106.171( $ ~ILLIONS)
;F.~At\~ -........-.............-...-...-.-. SUPPLY RFGIO~S.*~****..*~****..*.***~***********.*.**
QEr.IC':S
$CHICAGO $OQLoA"IS $COAT~D \AQ',JElA $CALGARV *~UDflUqy *r'..tCS\)N !NEW ARK $!-\Er:p!-I15 $FRISCO
'..F\'ARK ('\.()C -.itit..- ~**.*.... ~.nl 0.00 -*-..-. -.-.-.- ....... **..-... ....*_..
D.Ol ,0.00 -.--... .__it._- 19.03 7.0.11 ...*it*" -.-..-.- .-....- ....-.- -*._...
lC1.?l -,.~"t .----.- ...-..- -0.00 -0.90 *.**.*. -.-..-. -_.itit.- .*.ifo*.,n .-.....,.
'.ORFOLK 0.00 -........ -._it_-. 0.;> 1 o.or. -.-...- 0.00 .-.*-.- .---...
0.41 0.00 ..-.*.--- _._il..'. 19.84 20.~1 -.-..-. ..---*- O.CO .....--- ..-....
19.07. -3.06 4.*..." *..**.- -:.:'0 -0',99 ....***. *--w*.*"' -3.0~ .*...*.
"'EMP~IS 0.00 0.00 -*****. .**~.*~ 0.00 ..**.*. ****...*~ -****** .*..... .........-
0.00 n.o" 19."I~ .*_._.* 1t~1t....*** ;>~.49 Jt.~**.* ******* .**"'...... ***."*,",,,,, .......*
0.00 -?;>.OS -19.C5 ***..*** .........** -2,'.49 <.....* ifo* * * ***....* *......**-" ***it*-* .::*****.
TA~PA c.ao *****.fI (1.~C ~.~a ..***-* ...****.~* ******* '.00 ..*-.-.
7..97 o.oe **._*** tt-".***** 1~.6, 19,63 .4**.-*. ****~~.* .......*.... 0.00 *..*--..*
lS.BO -3.2 P -._-*** ***fL*** -0.03 -0.P3 ******* *****ir* *"!**.** -3.28 ....*****
QOTT1DM 0.00 ****~** ***....*. o.S" ..*i~'.i~1! ..*.~*....* ~.:;0 ::;.O~ .*.......*t,
1./>0 0.0" *-****. *-*.at--*. ?1.90 .*...**- ."'"-**.. ..-**** 0.00 0.00 **...-.-
22.(\8 -O,O~ -_..*-* ~**.**. -'j.:JC .*r.::-*** ft.-**** -!':--****** -O~OO -?OC ...*.*.
lROSTON ...**.. O.OC ***..** *...'1-**** *"...**. ******* ****-n.*.a- ...**.,.... .**..**oft
0.00 _..*... 7.3.56 **iti!-*** *",,!jo**~" ._***** *****"* *****..- **.*..-- ******~ f.-*"**.~
0.00 ..*..*. -4.19 .****_... **.......*... -**.*...... *****11-* ...***** ***"'*** *Ifo***** f".*_.*-
"OS TON ..*....* **...** *-**-** O.~l ::,. 10 ******. *Jt**fI-.f't .****~* ..,.... ***-r. k*****'"
0.01 --***_. *.**..* -ft****. ,9.?B 20.;>6 ****.** *****-I!-* -:1-*..~ .~-....*. '''.***~f: ...........,...*
19."6 ............ .......** ..*...... -~.r.O' -O.~9 -..-*.-. **.._-t<-* ***:1-1HH:- .:I-~{t*** ...***11-*
)rI,EWARi<. .*.*.-. 0.00 .**--.** ***....** tI-*"'~*.*. ft-*****- ..*..... ****.** .*~...*** *******
0.00 --..... 22.99 ****-** **-!t**** ...-!t.'t**** -ft"***** ******* '*.**1:!-ifo.47 .****.. *~'1-*.:t*** *,'1-***** **~**** ******f~ ******1.. ******* -."fI.***
~.46 *.***.* -0.00 **.**** .It*."....*",. ...IHHI.*** *ff--!~ *-1: ifo* ****fI..* ****f!-*" *****+* .....~**
CH !CAGO *...*..* 0.01 ****..... **.ft... ~r..~Ht*** *ltr.-*t!-** *****_. *****-t:.f!- :t*~f( f:~.f( *""'*f(*1'!
0.01 ****-** 21.21 *.**.** **ft"""':... ****'**«. ******* *****-r.... ***""~*i~ .**ft*** *-*..*.
21.7.1 -*.**ft. -D.ClO ..**.** *****-t:r. *****"*fi ***i~*** *ft*.,....*- *****""'* ."*ft**. ...*.**
Ol'AHA .*.**.* 0.00 ***it*** **.if-*** I'~**"'** ...**it.* !I-.*fIofl-** **","*i'** ~**r.*t'-.. ..**---**.
0.00 .*..... 7.1.51 ..*ft*** ******. ****ft*- ******* *...*..*** *****Uft **i.,:t*** ,.It*n***
0.00 ._***** -21.,1 -**'"'*.., **..-** ******1 .-***o!I-fl* ~i~***_* *iI--t!-n-*.... * :t-'f'ol **« -**....
lTA"IPA _.it*.** ?97 ...***. ******* ~.f!-*.** .ft***** ~-!'o.*""** ******* *~**"-«. **~.,.**'"
O.r.O ***"*4!"* lo.eo ....*..... *11,****"" ***'*.*. .*~**** *.***** ~*****. ******* **"'......*-
0.00 .*****. -o.('~ ******* ***--** *ft""*.*'" *~*t'*** *.'""**~* ****...** ...**** *~**i':f!o*
1 ROn I D'1 *.*._** 0.00 *.*.*.. .*.ft*** ****,,"*J! ft_***** ***"'.1>-* ~**.**„ It**n-**« 1t***t::*11
0.00 -****** 23.4C *****.* **"'-n-fHf-. ***..** tI: II r. *-!HI" ****-\1.** tHIiH. f. *.. ~ !t*tI:*iI* *******
a.oo ..*...* -1.31 *.**'fII** .,..****** I! .~#fH.ftf'- Ittt"'-II-ft-t::t::: *;}~qtil-t! * *~**-r..t::: Itft-*~*** 1I-t!-~'**f!-fI
-------
A7-48
APPENlJIX 7
TABLE ~ (CONTINUED)
7BOSTO.~ ****.** *******' O.OCl ****.,.** ****-IHt* **~**** **!':-**t'..t'. r~r~.r,~*~.* ->:.r,.*~*** ******~
0.00 ******* ******f.. 23.04 ***'*oft.** ***-*-* '* :t."'-:!,': r. r, .. *o/!-.....r,-t!:.. ****.r,**
0.0(\ *****... .****** -3.58 ******* ..***~ 1-1: ~ ';.'~ j; r.- ~.. of. *~***~ ~:,r. IH". It:l
0.00 ******* ******* ******* *""***** 22.08 .)I-.ft"HHf..... ...** ** 'ti'!- "-*~HHI". I: .~ ~ >:- t!- -1::: r."!H1- r. ..*
0.00 ****'*** ******* ******* ****... ,-0.00 ******fI- -,!-**".t:« f." r..~.r, 11-« r..-r.1.fI--t:.t' "'***«"1$
30QCAGO ******* ******* **_.fI.*** ******* 0.00 ******.. „.'~HHHI..eI-'" I: ... -If- ~ r. .~!- ( !' ~ -11-'" * It-.c: IH~**.r, r.::
0.00 ******* ******* **-**** -fI..***** 21.72 *~***** 1-***.f!-'!~ ~*~.~ ,,:.>!-* tlJ!"""I-!'I-lifIo 1t~""**I1-~
0.00 .*****11 *****"'- ***..*. ***.....** -0..51 *t!'fI*J:** *****... -:! "''I! ~, !I:t.u .****** .~****lIfI-
30""AHA *.***** .""..**** ******* ~..***** 0.00 ""........*' 11'*'*** ": "" ':" ~ ~ t. -, :-; ,., ~. ':"'" ,.,.:: ~ >: r.n-t\'*.r,n-~
0.00 *******' *-***** *-***** ******* 22.97 ,.****** ""!-.~ "'.....~... * :: " ~","....,. * ... :: ~ - ';~ :t ~~.I:. .. ~ ~ I( :t-
0.00 .****** ******. ******* ******* -22.98 "'..**",)(- -4'!-***.")f:f ~ ,.. ~ if' . ~ -:1 11 {f:1 :t :1 . ~ ;~ II ~ "'11 II I!
6NE-WAR K ******- *-4'!-.**** ******* ******* ******4- Q.oa .fO.~~***...* **~~~~.#~}.... :1 t! .:' .. :!- ~} '~ :: -:< f.' ~I ,""~".:t
o.()l ******* ******- *-***** -*..fI*** ***.*--** 25.A7 ******* ~;*!! *~. ".:!- ,. .... I-if"" r, *" 1:::
0.00 ***.*** *****fI. "i-****** *****-* *****.* -0.00 "****fllI* *'HH. r.:1r. :: .. ': ~ :: :: :' ': r. '" It.;l''' :'
5LANG.CA .****** **It-**** ~;.****** ... ~*.>:.~.... !I :"- -If 11 ~ *.11- ~ ...,,:,.. ~ ** :).::>:; -!< ..... r. r, , >! - :' -'": " ~" >: :' ... .~ ~ " .:
0010 ******* *""***** .....*...* )- {':o ,.. ~ :- It * ': ....„. *.,,"** '. '! ~ .,. :t * f!- 31.97 "'**:'!- tI~! ~ :t.,":-' .. :< ~ ,. of- -II ,~~
0.00 ******* *****.* .....-.1 ...-.-. :tf!-***'. ~ ,.*r. : "!-!: II:. -1:,:1::: r. ~. ,i, (, .. 't ~
0.01 .4***** ******* ft****** ******* .'****** 28.96 ~****':1'~i *JHtf};!-~~ "HI ~H~:: 'r.:< :: ::.. !t *. ~..
6ROTT' D\~ ******* ******* iI-***.** 1**11-*** ~It.**** 0.00 *****lfl!' ~-*..., 1. :: , ~ .. :! .~ ': :: ::~: :: ",".;t :~.r, :! ,'<
0015 ******* ******~ ***""*** ~****.:t* ***..** 46.01 .':t*****~ .it {\ i4.n.:: .:!o'.~ *.:t*.~ ~.\';.:~. ~'HHI :O,'{IIti\
0.00 .****** *.*.... -*****. ****..* ******* -17.?'7 1-****It* *****.u4 It-.;t II-'~ If..; II **...]1 If
TOTALS " ""
5ALf5 0.00 3018 0.0'1 1.10 1.07 0.00 0.00 O.O:J ~.J: I..'.',j..
SUPPLY 0.00 4.~O 0.5n 1810 8.00 0.90 0.2<1 a.c~ C.CG G.::
COST FOC ******* :7.0(1 20.C1C' 15.0(1 5.0C 13.70 0.01 0.00 :. C~, ~.G:-
PR OF IT ***-*** O.~O *-*-.*-* 0.18 0.00 *,.**-** **-***... ;~***.II*.1t 4****** ..~******
"\ F T -C. ~C ~ ******* 17. ()Q ******* 15018 5.00 ****_.* *~***** ':' ~:t* tt:: f! **!t**
-------
\
,/
APPENDIX 7
TABLE 10
OTHER OUTPUT FILES
1980 REGIONAL CALCULATED VALUE
10/4/71
A A C !) E F G
BOSTON 25.46 ***** 22.43 ***** 20.93 19.46 22.46
1BOSTON 3.20 ***** 4.23 ***** 4.2~ 0.00 0.00
2AOSTON 0.00 ***** 0.00 ***** 0.00 0.00 0.00
NEWARK 25.21 ***** 22.18 ***** 20.68 19.21 22.21
1NEWARK 2.78 ***** 3.80 ***** 3.80 0.00 0.00
2NEWARK 0.02 ***** 0.76 ***** 1.59 0.00 0.00
6NEWARK 0.00 ***** 0.00 ***** 0.00 0.00 0.00 >
NORFOLK 25.02 21.99 20.49 19.02 22.02 '-J
***** ***** I
./>-
1NORFOLK 2.46 ***** 3.49 ** *** 3.49 3.45 0.00 \0
2NORFOLK 0.00 ***** 0.75 ** *** 1.56 0.00 0.00
CHICAGO 26.21 ***** 24.21 ***** 22.71 21.21 24.21
3CHICAGO 1.51 ***** 2.01 ***** 2.51 0.00 0.51
6CHICAGO 0.00 ***** o.on ***** 0.0r. 0.00 o.on
M EMPH I S 24.05 ***** 22.05 ***** 20.55 0.00 22.05
OMAHA 26.51 ***** 24.51 ***** 23.01 0.00 24.51
30MAHA 2.47 ***** 2.97 ***** 0.00 0.00 0.00
SEATTLE 24.45 ***** 22.95 ***** 21.95 1A.45 21.45
LANG.CA 23.33 ***** 21.8~ ***** 20.83 17.33 20.33
5LANG.CA 0.00 ***** 0.00 ***** 0.00 0.00 0.00
TAMPA 23.80 ***** 21.80 ***** 20.30 19.80 21.80
1TAMPA 0.00 ***** 0.00 ***** 0.00 0.00 0.00
ROTT'DM 28.08 ***** 25.05 ***** 23.55 22.08 25.08
lROTT'DM 0.32 ***** 1.35 ***** 1.35 0.00 0.00
2ROTT'DM 1.05 ***** 1.79 ***** 2.52 0.00 0.0(1
3ROTT'DM 0.00 ***** 1.53 ***** 2.03 0.00 0.0(')
6ROTT'OM 0.00 ***** 0.00 ***** 0.00 0.00 0.00
-------
APPENDIX 7
TABLE 11
OTHER OUTPUT FILES
1980 CALCULATFD FXTQA-REGIONAL S~L~S
10/4171
A R C [) ~ F G
....
$ORLEANS 5.26 ***** 4.58 ***** ,.65 3.18 3.06
)-
SCOATMEX 0.50 ***** 0.50 ***** 0.30 0.00 0.00 -..J
I
$ARU8A 1.10 ***** 1.10 ***** 1.10 1.10 1 el a VI
o
$CALGARY 1.87 ***** 1.16 ***** 0.84 1.07 1.73
*TUCSON 0.00 ***** 0.00 ***** 0.00 0.00 0.00
*suDAURv 0.00 ***** 0.00 ***** 0.00 a.GO :).00
$CHICAGO ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 0.:)0 *****
-------
APPENDIX 7
TABLE 12
OTHER OUTPUT FILES
1980 CALCULAT~D ~ET PACK
10/4171
A R C D E" F G >
.....,
$ORLEANS 22.00 ***** 20.00 ***** 18.50 17.08 2C.OO I
I.n
$COATMEX 22.46 ***** 20.18 ***** 19.50 ***** *"'-*** f-'
$ARLJRA ?l.le ***** l8.1? ***** 16.65 15.1R 1e.lp
$CALGARY 11.00 ***** 9.50 ***** 8.50 5.08 8.00
*TUCSON ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ':!-*i~* * *-10"'**
*SUD~URY ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****
$CHICAGO ***** ***** ***** ***** *-1:-*** *-1>-*** *****
-------
I LP INPUT PROGRAMS
I
I
I
I
I
L-
SUPPLY
FILE
-------,
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
APPENDIX 7
FIGURE I
COMPUTER CALCULATION
----
------
--
DEMAND
FILE
TRANSPORTATION
COST FILE
ACID
EQUIVALENCY
VALUE FILE
FOB
COST FILE
----
~P CALCULATION PROGRAM --
I
I
I
I
L____------
-----------l
I
I
I
LP SOLUTION I
CARDS
-----------_J
-------
I LP OUTPUT OPERATIONAL
I PROGRAMS
I
I
L___---
PROGRAM: LP- MOSS
--
-----
---------
--
-
LP OUTPUT
MATRIX
SALES
FILE
NET- BACK
FILE
VALUE
FILE
--
---
----
--
--
---
>
-..J
I
\J1
N
-...,
I
I
I
-~
-
-------
APPENDIX 8
TEST ON HISTORICAL DATA
A.8.l.
Introduction
Before making a large number of computer calculations based on
projections of sulfur supply and demand, it was considered nece~sary to:
.
Obtain complete familiarity with the application of the LP
program (Appendix 7).
.
Demonstrate that the LP program would give reasonable results
when applied to historical data.
A.8.2.
Basis and Input Data
For test purposes, the Model was simplified from that described
in Section 3, e.g. less geographical detail was provided. However, all
of the essential elements were included.
The production costs had the following basis:
(1)
u.S. Frasch production is represented by low cost, medium
cost, and high cost elements all of which are permitted to
"trade" in the model. In addition, the stockpile of sulfur
in the hands of the U.S. Frasch producers is divided into
two parts:
(a)
Stockpile-l which simulates increments or decrements
in production.
I
I
I
[
I
(b)
Stockpile-2 which simulates the stock
for normal busiqess, including stocks
terminals, etc.
level needed
held in liquid
(2)
Mexican Frasch sulfur is assumed to be equivalent to U.S. low
cost production because the Mexican deposits were developed
by U.S. companies (who would have had no incentive for
developing high cost Frasch domes in Mexico).
(3)
Western Canadian sulfur, recovered from sour natural gas,
is assumed to be offered to the market at operating cost.
This is estimated to average about$6/LT. The latter figure
corresponds to the lowest "ex \olOrks" price at which Canadian
sulfur is o££ered.*
-----
* "Canadian.Chemical Processing," p. 20, April 1971.
-------
(4)
A8-2
The stockpile pricing hypothesis is as follows:
(a)
U.S. Frasch producers have had two ways of correcting
supply/demand imbalances:
Change
Excess Supply
Excess Demand
Production
Price
Reduce
Reduce
Increase
Increase
(b)
Production increases or decreases are assumed to affect
"Frasch high cost" first.
(c)
Under conditions of tight supply, Stockpile-2 (which
normally does not "trade") is permitted to offer
sulfur at parity with production from gypsum ($40/LT).
Stockpile-l can trade at (''Frasch high cost" + $l/LT).
(d)
As supply loosens, we first reach the point at which
Stockpile-l does not trade (because it is the current
highest cost supplier except fat Stockpile-2) and then
the point at which "Frasch high cost" does not trade
(i.e., Stockpi1e-1 volume builds). At this point,
Stockpi1e-1 is a11mved to trade at ["Frasch high cost" -
$l/LT], and the notional trading price for Stockpile-2
is reduced to ["Frasca high cost" + $l/LT].
(e)
The long range implication of reducing the trading price
of Stockpile-1 below "Frasch high cost" is that the
latter production will be shut do~.
(£)
If Stockpile-l still does not trade at ['''Frasch high
cost" - $l/LT], its permitted trading price is reduced
further. For a technical reason (avoidance' of "degen-
eracy" in the LP program) Stockpi1e-l is not allowed
to trade at "Frasch medium cost" but, in the event of
continuing oversupply (i.e., rising Stockpile-l level),
would drop price from ["Frasch medium cost" + $l/LT]
to ["Frasch medium cost" - $l/LT].
The full range of the above hypothetical price movements occurred
during the period 1960-1970.
Table 1 records price changes for elemental sulfur from 1960 to
May, 1971 (on a current dollar basis). Prices were stable during the
period 1960 to 1964. An uptrend began in 1965 but did not get into high
gear until 1967.
-------
A8-3
The top part of the table records the average domestic prices
for each year from 1960 to 1967. l~e lower part of the table records
prices over shorter time intervals starting in September 1967. It will
be seen that U.S. export prices moved up ahead of domestic prices,
reflecting the dampening effect of long term contract sales on domestic
prices. By the end of 1967, the varying pricing bases reached parity.
Some further increases in prices occurred during 1968 topping out at
about $42/LT. A small downward adjustment was made in 1969, reflecting
a reversal in the stockpile, from a decline in 1968 to a build-up of
stocks in 1969. By September 1969, world sulfur prices were in chaos
and the U.S. export posting was withdrawn. Domestic posted prices
continued for a short time at $40/LT, held up by long term contracts.
By February 1970, U.S. Frasch producers re-estab1ished an
export posting about $20/LT below that of June 1969. The new $21-22/
LT export price is comparable to the Canadian price of $12-13/LT F.O.R.
Calgary. However, the latter was still in a downtrend reflecting growing
stocks of sulfur recovered from sour natural gas. In consequence, Sulexco
switched from a U.S. Gulf to a Rotterdam posting of $27/LT in June 1970,
in effect lowering export prices by $1-2/LT. A further price reduction
was made by March 1971 in order to meet Canadian competition. The
rather wjde rffi1ge of $23.50-26.00/LT ex Rotterdam terminal probably
reflects, in part, the abnormally high transportation rates (affecting
Canadian exporters) that applied during 1970 (but have subsequently declined
to less than normal).
Starting in March, 1971, U.S. Frasch S producers began to post
domestic prices on two bases: (a) delivered Chicago and (b) ex Tampa
terminal. There is some inconsistency in the present pricing structure in
that the ex Rotterdam price is equivalent to an F.O.B. Gulf price of about
$19/LT. The latter would be equivalent to slightly lower domestic prices
than the postings quoted for Tampa and Chicago. However, the discrepancy
amounts to less than $2/LT. Such a differential has existed in the past
during periods of excess supply, and is attributable to the marketing
strength of the U.S. Frasch S producers in the Tampa/Bartow area.*
Because of price stability from 1960 through 1964, it was
decided to omit computer calculations for the years 1961 through 1963.
Simple review of the input data showed that the prices calculated for
these years would be the same as for 1960.
Input data for supply and demand are given in Tables 2 and 3.
Minimum F. O. B. Trading Prices, based on estimates of production costs
(on a weighted average basis for the three different categories of U. S.
Frasch sulfur) are listed in Table 4. Minimum delivered prices for 1960,
incorporating estimated transportation and other delivery costs, are recorded
in Table 5. Similar calculations were made for the other years, 1965-1970.
-----
*U. S. Frasch sulfur must be competitive with Canadian sulfur at Rotterdam
and Chicago, but the Canadian exporters have no terminals at Tampa, and
thus cannot compete on equal terms.
-------
A8-4
A.8.3.
Output Da ta
The results of the computer calculations are shown in Tables 6
and 7. The former lists the netback to each supplier and the quantity of
sulfur sold. The latter records the market prices calculated by the com-
puter for each of the demand regions. The data for the U. S. Gulf coast
have been plotted in Figure 1 for comparison with actual prices quoted
during the test period. In this case, the calculated prices have been
plotted with a one year displacement for a reason discussed below.
It will be seen that both U.S. domestic and U.S. export
prices are plotted in Figure 1. Since early in 1968, the spread between
these two price series has been less than $2/LT. However in 1967, and
many earlier years, the spread waS greater. Export prices have
tended to be more volatile than domestic prices. Large spreads in
price were possible because of the extent to which U.S. Frasch producers
used to dominate international trade in elemental sulfur. This is no
longer the case because of the rise of Western Canadian exports of
recovered sulfur. Because of its "free trade" assumption, the Model
does not distinguish between U.S. export and domestic prices. The error
in this assumption, unless duties are placed on sulfur imports, is
judged not to exceed $2/LT.
A.8.4.
Discussion
The calculated values matched the historical price levels,
but anticipated major price changes by about one year. There are two
inter-related explanations for this anticipation of price changes:
(a)
A considerable amount of U.S. Frasch sulfur is sold on
a long term contract basis. During periods of supply/
demand imbalance, which bring about changes to spot
prices in world markets, the long term contracts delay
and dampen price movements in the U.S. markets supplied
by the Frasch producers.
(b)
Pricing policy for Frasch sulfur reflects what has
occurred during the previous year, whereas the Model
calculates values based on supply/demand conditions
in the current year.
No modification
adjustment of one year to
Figure 1).
of the Model is needed to make a simple
the time/value relationship (as was done in
Although the calculations of value tracked historical price
movements, it is important to recognize that the Model is not a short
range price-prediction tool. This is because substantially different
types of data are required for predicting prices a few weeks or months
ahead than for making long range projections.
-------
A8-5
It should also be pointed out that some of the rather small
amounts of Frasch high cost production have been used in captive operations.
This is a partial explanation of why such production has continued while
the Model suggests that it would be curtailed. It is estimated that less
than 2% of total production is now in the high cost category and, at this
level,- does not affect the computer price calculations.
-------
A8-6
APPENDIX 8
Table 1
Historical Movements of U.S. Frasch Sulfur Prices
Bright Sulfur, Domestic, Bulk, $/LT
Cars, F.O.B. Mines* Gulf, F.O.B. Vessels *~
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
24.50
26.50
26.75
34.25
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.50
28.25
34.25
* Mean of high and low prices quoted during year
~ For U.S. and Canadian destinations.
Gulf, F.O.B. Vessels Mexican Sulfur
for Export F.O.B. Coatzocoalcos
9/25/67 33.50 39.00 33.50 35.00
12/25/67 39.00 39.00 39.00 38.00
3/25/68 42.00 41.00 42.00
6/24/68 42.00 41.00 . 42.00
9/30/68 42.00 41.00 42.00
12/30/68 42.00 41.00 42.00
2/3/69 40.00 41.00 40.00
3/31/69 40.00 41.00 40.00
6/30/69 40.00 41.00 40.00 W. Canadian Sulfur
9/29/69 40.00 no price quoted 40.00 F .0 . R . Albert a, for
12/29/70 --------------no prices quoted --------- delivery to U. S.
1/26/70 " " "
2/23/70 NPQ 21-22 NPQ 12-13
3/30/70 " " " "
ex Rotterdam terminal
6/29/70 27 11-12
9/28/70 27 10-12
12/28/70 del. Chicago 27 ex Tampa terminal 10-12
2/1/71 NPQ 27 NPQ 9-10
3/1/71 26.25-27.25 23.50-26.00 27.00 9-10
3/29/71 26.25-27.25 23.50-26.00 25.00 9-10
5/3/71 26.25-27.25 23.50-26.00 25.00 9-10
-------
Note:
".
APPENDIX 8
Table 2
Sulfur Supply Data for Historical Test of N. Am. Model (106 LT of S)
Supplier* 1960 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970E
Fras ch - low ** 3.76 5.34 6.21 6.13 5.89 5.64 6.15
- medium ** 0.66 0.44 0.56 0.59 1. 31 1.16 0.89
- high ** 0.52 0.34 0.26 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.16
Stockpile - 1 *** 1. 75 2.03 1.23 0.50 0.01 0.59 1. 26
- 2 *** 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 1. 95 2.20 2.20
>
Mexico 0.91 1. 33 1.15 1.23 1.23 0.99 0.72 00
I
Canada 0.13 0.75 0.75 0.80 0.87 1.07 1.40 "
,,<
**
***
Restricted to suppliers active in the North American Model
"Low", "Medium", "High" refer to estimated production costs
The stockpile of U.S. Frasch producers is divided into two parts.
One part simulates the level of stocks required for normal business
operations. The model allows this part of the stockpile to trade
(i.e. to be drawn down) but only at a relatively high price. The other
part of the stockpile simulates the mechanism by which Frasch producers
have been able to maintain, or restore, a balance between supply and demand.
For example, during periods of rising stocks and falling prices, the
value of the second stockpile is reduced progressively. The lowered
price makes U. S. Frasch sulfur more competitive while, eventually,
inducing reduced production of higher cost Frasch sulfur.
Complete data for 1970 were not available at the time the computer tests were made
and were partially estimated.
-------
APPENDIX 8
Table 3
Sulfur Demand Data for Historical Test of N. Am. Model
(Millions of Long Tons of S Equivalent)
Demand Region* 1960 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 E
U.S. - East Coast 1.20 1. 39 1.48 1.56 1.58 1.46 1.52
- Florida 0.72 1.56 2.19 2.37 2.15 2.11 2.23
- Gulf Coast 0.26 0.38 0.66 0.63 0.58 0.64 0.72
- Hidwest 1.64 2.01 2.13 2.14 1.99 2.02 2.09
- West Coast 0.24 0.39 0.45 0.46 0.41 0.42 0.44
W. Europe 1.09 1.81 1.58 1.59 1.47 1.49 1. 36
U.S. Exports 1.00 1.46 1.14 1.01 0.63 0.45 0.38
* Restricted to regions active in the North American Model
Notes:
(1)
For the historical test, all U. S. recovered S values
have been netted out of the individual U. S. demand
regions.
(2)
Complete data for 1970 were not available at the time
the computer tests were made, and were partially estimated.
>
00
I
00
-------
APPENDIX 8
Table 4
Minimum F.O.B. Trading Prices* Calculated for Each Supplier
Active in the Historicn1 Test of the N. Am. Model
(Dollars Per LT of Elemental S)
Supp lier 1960 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970
Frasch - LOI. 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
- Nedium 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
- High 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
.
Stockpile - 1 26 26 26 26 26 21 19
- 2 40 40 40 40 40 26 26 :>
00
I
15 15. \0
Mexico 15 15 15 15 15
Ca na da 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
.;(
The "Minimum F .O.B. Trading Prices" are es'timates of breakeven production costs except in the
case of the Frasch stock~i1es, where prices reflect a revaluation of inventory based on a
combination of price and stock trends.
-------
APPENDIX 8
Table 5
Minimum Delivered Trading Prices* from Each Supplier
To Each Demand Region Active in the 1960 Test
Of the N. Am. Model (Dollars Per LT of Elemental S)
U.S. Frasch Producers
Low Med. High Stockpile 1 Stockpile 2 Mexico
U.S. - East Coast 22.20 27.20 32.20 33.20 47.20 17.91
- Florida 18.89 23.89 28.89 29.89 43.89 17.49
- Gulf Coast 16.00 21.00 26.00 27.00 41. 00 17.34
- Midwest 25.35 30.35 35.35 36.35 50.35 24.65
- West Coast 29.90 34.90 39.90 40.90 54.90 18.66
W. Europe 19.49 24.49 29.49 30.49 44.49 19.52
U.S. Exports 15.00 20.00 25.00 26.00 40.00
*
The minimum delivered trading price is the minimum F.O.B. trading price (Table 4) plus all
transportation and terminalling costs to delivery point.
Ca na da
20.00
12.95
>
00
I
I-'
o
18.78
-------
APPENDIX 8
Table 6
Netback to Suppliers Active in the N. Am. Model
(Dollars Per LT of Elemental S)
Supp lier 1960 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970
-
Frasch - Lm. 26.00 26.00 26.00 40.00 20.00 20.00 19.00
- Hedium 26.00 26.00 26.00 40.00 20.00 20.00 No Sales
- High 26.00 26.00 26.00 40.00 No sales No sa les No Sales
Stockpile - 1 26.00 26.00 26.00 40.00 No sa les No sales 19.00
- 2 No sa les No sa les No sales 40.00 No sa les No sales No Sales
Nexico 30.29 30.29 30.29 44.29 24.29 22'.65 2 1 . 65 >
Canada 27.00 22.35 22.35 36.35 16.35 19.70 7.73 00
I
......
......
. Sa les Vo lumes, Million LT
Frasch - Low 3.76 5.34 6.21 6.13 5.89 5.64 6.15
- Medium 0.66 0.44 0.56 0.59 0.82 0.89 Nil
- High 0.52 0.34 0.26 0.35 Nil Nil Nil
. Stockpile - 1 0; 17 0.80 0.70 0.50 Nil Nil 0.47
- 2 Nil Nil Nil 0.16 Nil Nil Nil
Nexico 0.91 1.33 1.15 1.23 1.23 0.99 0.72
Ca na da 0.13 0.75 0.75 0.80 0.87 1.07 1.40
-------
APPENDIX 8
Table 7
Market Price Calculated By Computer in N. Am. Model
(Dollars Per 1T of Elemental $)
Demand Region 1960 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970
- -
U.S. - East Coast 33.20 33.20 33.20 47.20 27 .20 24.98 23.98
- Florida 29.89 29.89 29.89 43.89 23.89 22.13 21.13
- Gulf Coast 27.00 27 .00 27.00 41. 00 21.00 20.50 19.50
- Hid~"cs t 36.35 36.35 36.35 50.35 30.35 30.40 ::>0.73
- j{est Coast 29.30 29.30 29.30 43.30 23.30 27.45 17.58 :>
- E. St. Louis 24.46 23.70 co
I
w. Europe 30.49 30.49 30.49 44.49 24.49 25.49 24.49 I--'
N
U.S. Exports 26.00 26.00 26.00 40.00 20.00 20.00 19.00
-------
Ap Jen< ix 8
Figure 1
COMPARISON OF HI STORICAL PRICE TRENDS WITH COMPUTER CALCULATED PRICES
44
a:: 42
::>
l.J.. 40
-I
::> 38
(/) 36
-I 34
«
t- 32
z
w 30
~ 28
w
-I 26
w
l.J.. 24
o 22
t- 20
-I
a:: 18
w 16
a.. 14
(/)
a:: 12
« 10
-I
-I 8
o
a
1965
COMPUTER
- U.S. GULF
1966
1967 1968 1969
(AVERAGE FOR YEAR)
1970
\
\
\
\
\
~
4XPORT
- W. CANADA
~~~
....~
-~-
...--.
»
(XI
I
I-'
W
. U.S. Bright Sulfur, Gulf F.O .B. Vessels for Domestic Delivery
... U.S. Bright Sulfur, Gulf F.O.B. Vessels for Export
/). U.S. Bright Sulfur, Estimated Gulf F.O.B. Price for Export
. U.S. Bright Sulfur, Estimated Gulf F.O.B. Price for Domestic Delivery
't" W. Canadian Sulfur, for Alberta for Export to U.S.
. Computer Calculated Prices, Plotted with One Year Displacement, for Deliveries
F.O.B. U.S. Gulf Coast
-------
APPENDIX 9
DELPHI FORECAST
Many of the factors affecting long-range projections are not
forecastable in a rigorous way. Current trends may be extrapolated but,
if this is done for any appreciable period of time, there is a chance that
trend reversals will occur and that the simple type of extrapolation will
be invalid. Changes in raw materials sources and technology may well
produce trend reversals. However, there is also another factor that will
always be of importance in long range projection of business conditions,
namely the pace of general economic development. Historical data suggests
what the range of possibilities will be, but actual projections are matters
of judgment and, thus, of personal bias. Accordingly, the judgment of
independent experts waS solicited in the form of a Delphi forecast. The
'~rac1es'l were drawn from the first rank of Japanese industry, universities
and official positions.
The first questionnaire is reproduced in Table 1.
questions cover:
Its seventeen
.
economic activtty
growth in GNP and population
possibility of duties or quotas for sulfur imports
.
S02 emission control
W. Germany
J a pa n
.
Technological change
nuclear energy
new applications
for S; changes in S usage
The second questionnaire is reproduced in Table 2. The arithmetic
averages of the participants' responses to both questionnair~s is
included in the table. It is also noted whether convergence of views
occurred after the oracles reviewed the summarized (but anonymous) results
of the first questionnaire. Convergence was obtained in almost every case.
Two questions, Nos. 6 and 8, that appeared in the first questionnaire
were eliminated from the second because a sufficient number of the oracles
did not feel qualified to answer them. Two questions, Nos. 16 and 17, were
rephrased in order to obtain additional information on expected new uses
and technological changes involving sulfur. Question No. 18 was added to
the second questionnaire for the same purpose.
follows.
Inferences that may be drawn from the Delphi forecast are as
The question numbers correspond to those in Table 2.
-------
(1-3)
(9-10)
(11-12)
(13-15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
A9-2
Rates of G.N.P. growth are projected to decline (as has been
assumed in our own forecasts). The average ~ for the period
1985-2000 is projected to be about 3/4 of that from 1970 to 1985.
Declining rates of real economic growth imply parallel declines in
the ~ of increased demand for fossil fuels, copper, industrial
sulfuric acid, etc. In turn, this implies a declining rate of
increase for both sulfur recovery and sulfur demand. However, the
impact on the latter will eventually be relatively less since it
is supported by fertilizer sulfur demand.
S02 emission controls on fossil fuel combustion are expected to
be more stringent in Japan than in W. Germany by 1985. Controls
are expected to be tightened further by the year 2000 in both
countries.
The percentage of S recovered in useful form is expected to be
essentially the same (70-80%) in both countries.
Growth in nuclear generation of electricity is projected to be
extremely rapid in W. Germany, Japan, and the U. S. It is sus-
pected that the Delphi oracles are reflecting concern for continuing
economic availability of imported fossil fuels and, thus, are
projecting the need to develop nuclear power as quickly as possible.
If this occurs, the effect will be to lower the potential for
recovered S relative to the case in which a higher proportion of
electricity would be generated with fossil fuels.
~ applications for sulfur or sulfuric acid might account for as
much as 15% of total demand by the year 2000. Almost all of this
demand is expected to be in construction materials of various kinds.
Some changes in S demand in existing applications are foreseen.
The demand for ammonium sulfate is expected to decrease. This is
pertinent (and unfavorable) to systems that would recover AS
from utility stack gases or smelters.
Large scale utilization of by-product gypsum is projected as
quite probable in Japan. Logistics and industry structure are
entirely different in the U. S. Nevertheless, the matter deserves
serious consideration. Clearly, if waste gypsum could be converted
into a useful product (probably a building material) it would not
be a potential pollutant.
A few additional points may be made:
. Nuclear power is expected to develop rapidly. For industrialized
countries, half of the energy input to electricity generation is expected to
be supplied by atomic power at various times during the 1990's. However,
the implication is that, at the turn of the century, fossil fuels will
still be supplying much of the energy input to electricity generation (and
-------
A9-3
essentially all of energy input in non-electricity sectors). The further
implication is that (the potential for) recovery of sulfur from fossil
fuels will be maintained at least through the year 2000. This is a very
important point because, theoretically, the ubiquitous use or nuclear
power could cause declining use of fossil fuels and, hence, remove the
need for abatement sulfur controls. The implication of what the Japanese
oracles are projecting is that this theoretical situation will not be
achieved until after the year 2000 (and perhaps much later).
. Whereas most of the current demand for sulfur is in the form
of acid, "new uses" are likely to be for elemental S in construction
materials.
. New uses for S are very unlikely to exceed 15% of total demand
by the year 2000; 10% is more likely.
. Japan now has a stockpile of elemental S, recovered from
petroleum, of about 1 million tons. In spite of this oversupply, and
prospects for its continuance, Japanese production of sulfuric acid from
pyrites is expected to decline slowly because the workers' jobs are
protec ted.
. The Japanese economic boom is subsiding.
has fallen below 10%/yr.
The expansion rate
There are no major differences between the judgments made by the
Japanese oracles and those made by the contractor. However, the Delphi
forecast can be seen to have provided additional information and insights.
The views concerning declining rates of economic development, the timetable
for nuclear power, the rather limited prospects for developing new uses
for sulfur, and the expectation of being able to utilize waste gypsum are
believed to be the most important findings of the Delphi forecast.
-------
APPENDIX 9
TA BLE 1
SULFUR MODEL--DELPHI QUESTIONNAIRE NO.1
Question
Answer
(A)
Economic Activity
For the countries and time periods specified, what do you expect will be
the average, annual, compound, percentage growth in real GNP? (in
constant dollars or equivalent)
(1) EEC (European Economic Community)
(2) Japan
( 3) U . S .A .
% Per Year
1970-1985 1985-2000
What do you expect the population will be?
( 4) U . S .A .
(5) World Total
Millions in Mid-Year
1985 2000
>
\0
I
.j:-
What percentage probability do you estimate for the imposition of
either a quota or a duty on sulfur imports, before 1995?
( 6) EEC
(7) Japan
(8) U.S .A.
% Probability
Duty Quota
(B)
SO, Emission Control
For the countries specified, what percentage of the s'Jlfur present
in the fossil fuels consumed during the specified ye,'irs do you expect
will be removed either by processing of the fuel befo're combustion or
by removal of sulfur oxides from combustion gases?
, (9) German Federa 1 Republic
(10) Japan
% of S Removed
ill1
1Q.Q.Q
-------
APPENDIX 9
TABLE 1 (cont'd)
Question
Answer
What percentage of the sulfur that is removed (see questions 9 and 10) do
you expect to be recovered in a useful form? (e.g., as elemental S,
sulfuric acid, ammonium sulfate, etc., but not as calcium sulfate)
(11) German Federal Republic
(12) Japan
% in Useful Form
~ 1QQQ.
(C)
Technolo~ical Chan~e
For the
and 50%
countries specified, in what years do you expect that 25%
of electricity will be generated by nuclear :?ower1
(13) German Federal Republic
(14) Japan
( 15) U . S .A .
25%
50%
Can you suggest any ~ applications for sulfur, or :;ulfuric acid,.
that might account for at least 2% of ~ demand for S by the
year 20001
>
\0
I
U1
Nature of Application
( 16)
Sulfur, in acid and other forms, is used in a wide ~Iriety of
applications in the U.s. and other countries. Considering these
exist ing, commercia 1 app lications, are there any in \1hich a change
in technolo~y either in mode of sulfur usage, or. in alternate ways
of accomplishing the same result, may increase or de(:rease the
total demand for S by at least 2% by the year 2000?
( 17)
Nature of Chan~e
NarES:
.
Please answer all of the questions if possible.
country or area only, will also be appreciated.
HowevE!J~, more 1 imi ted a nswe rs, e. g ., f or one
.
Although your answers will become part of the feedback in the next questionnaire, these and
subsequent answers will not be attributed to you persor~lly.
.
If you wish to make any comment whatever, please do so.
-------
APPENDIX 9
TA BLE 2
SUMMARIZED RESULTS OF DELPHI QUESTIONNAIRES
(A)
Economic Activity
.
~~at do you expect will be the average, annual, compound percentage growth in real GNP?
% Per Year
1970-1985 1985-2000
Convergence From 1st Round
(1)
(2)
(3)
EEC
Japan
U. S.A.
4.9 (5.l)
8.3 (8.5)
3.6 (3.6)
3.6 (3.6)
6.0 (5.4)
2.8 (2.9)
No change
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
.
What do you expect the population will be?
Millions in Mid-Year
1985 2000
>
1.0
I
0'\
(4 )
(5 )
U. S.A.
World
260 (250)
4810 (4718)
312 (300)
6503 (6109)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
.
What percentage probability do you estimate for the removal of the current import license requirements.
for sulfur into Japan by 1985 (assuming that a measure of protection will be retained by continuance
of import duties)?
% Probability For Removal
Of Import License Requirement
(7)
79
Yes
Note:
First Round results are shown in parentheses.
-------
APPENDIX 9
TABLE 2 (cont' d)
(B)
502 Emission Control
.
h~at percentage of the sulfur present in the fossil fuels consumed during the specified years do you
expect will be removed either by processing the fuel before combustion or by removal of sulfur oxides
from combustion gases?
%of 5 Removed
19~5 2000 Convergence From 1st Round
(9) German Fed. Republic 39 (32) 64 (50) Yes Yes
(10) Japan 52 (55) 71 (70) Yes Yes
o
\fuat percentage of sulfur that is removed (see Questions 9 and 10) do you expect to be recovered in a
useful form, e.g., as acid or elemental S but E£! as CaS04?
% in Useful Form
1985 2000
:»
\0
I
-....J
(ll)
(12)
German Fed. Republic
Japan
70 (70)
78 (77)
75 (74)
81 (81)
No Change
Yes
Yes
Yes
(C)
Technological Change
.
In what years do you expect 25% and 50% of electricity will be generated by nuclear power?
25%
50%
(13)
(14)
(15)
German Fed. Republic
Japan
U.S.A.
1982 (1985)
1985 (1986)
1981 (1981)
1997 (3000)
1996 (1998)
1993 (1992)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Note:
First Round results are shown in parenthesis.
-------
(C)
APPENDIX 9
TABLE 2 (cant 'd)
Technological Change (Cont'd)
.
The following have been sugge~ted as new applications for sulfur or sulfuric acid that might account
for at least 2% of total demand for S by the year 2000. What % of total demand would you expect?
(16)
% of Total Demand
% of Total Demand
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Fillers for plastics
S-reinforced concrete
Synthetic board
Architectural materials
Road pavements (S + asphalt)
2
2
1
2
3
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
Batteries
S-coated urea
Soil stabilizer
Cheap polymer
Up to 1
Up to 1
Up to 1
~
\0
,
00
Changes in technology or mode of usage may increase or decrease the total demand for sulfur (in Japan)
by at least 2% by the year 2000. What % of total demand would you expect to be contributed by the
following?
.
(17)
% of Tot~l Demand
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Ammonium sulfate
Sulfuric acid for treating metal ores
Sulfuric acid for processing titanium dioxide
Cheap polymers
Fertilizers (Except AS)
3
1
1.5
Up to 1
10
.
wnat percentage probability do you estimate for large scale utilization of by-product calcium sulfate
in Japan?
(18)
% Probabili ty
57
-------
APPENDIX 10
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES
Throughout the
footnotes to the text or
not repeated here unless
the specific citation.
report individual references have been made in
tables. These references to specific points are
the parent document is of general interest beyond
The single journal of broadest application to the U.S. and world-
wide sulfur industries is the British Sulphur Corporation's "Sulphur", published
bimonthly. . .. .
A.lO.l
no)
(12)
Economic Projections
(1)
"The U.S. Economy in 1980: a Preview of BLS Projections", Monthly
Labor Review, 1970.
(2 )
"Consumer Spending in the Next 10 Years", National Planning
Association, Center for Economic Projections, Washington, D.C.,
December, 1969.
(3)
"The Outlook for Economic Growth", O.E.C.D., May, 1970.
(4)
"Japan's Economy in 1975", Japan Economic Research Center, Tokyo,
March, 1970.
(5)
"The Present Problem of Inflation", O.E.C.D., report by the
Secretary-General, November 19, 1970.
(6)
"Inflation, the Present Problem", O.E.C.D., December, 1970.
(7)
"Economic Recovery to Build Foundation for Vigorous Growth",
22nd annual electrical industry forecast, Electrical World,
September 15, 1971.
(8)
"Resources in America's Future"; Landsberg, Fischman and Fisher,
RFF, 1963.
(9 )
"The Year 2000"; Kahn and Wiener, Hudson Institute, 1967.
(ll)
"Some Surprise-free Economic Proj ections: A Quantitati ve ~
Scenario", Kahn, Weiss and Wiener, Hudson Institute,. 1970.
"Technological ;Forecasting and Long-Range Planning"; Robert U. Ayres,
McGray-Hill, 1969.
"Energy, the Economy, and the Environment", David C. White, M. I. T.
Technology Review, October/November, 1971.
-------
A.IO.2
(9)
A.IO.3
AlO-2
Energy Projections
(1)
"Energy in the United States", Landsberg and Schurr, RFF, 1960.
(2)
"World Energy Supplies", Statistical Papers Series J., United Nations.
(3)
"An Energy Model for the United States, Featuring Energy Balances
for the Years 1947 to 1965 and Projections and Forecasts to the
Years 1980 and 2000", U. S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular
No. 8384, July, 1968.
(4)
"Outlook for Energy in the United States", Chase Manhattan Bank,
October, 1968.
(5 )
"World Oil Statistics", Institute of Petroleum Review, October, 1970.
(6)
(7)
"World Energy Prospects: an Appraisal", Albert Parker.
"Survey of World Energy Resources", World Energy Conference,
1968.
(8)
"Heat Rejection Requirements of the U.S.", Jaske, Fletcher and
Wise, Chemical Engineering Progress, November, 1970.
"Fuels Management in an Environmental Age", Mills, Johnson
and Perry, Environmental Science and Technology, January, 1971.
(10)
"Bibliography and Digest of U.S. Electric and Total Energy
Forecasts, 1970-2050", Statistical Committee, Edison Electric
Institute.
(ll)
"Systems Study of Nitrogen Oxide Control Methods for Stationary
Sources", prepared under NAPCA Contract No. PH-22-68-55,
Esso Research and Engineering Co., November, 1969.
(12)
"The Nation's Water Resources", U.S. Water Resources Council,
Washington, D.C., 1968.
Sulfur, Sulfur Content and Sulfuric Acid
(1)
"The Economy, Energy, and the Environment", Environmental Policy
Division, Legislative Reference Service, Library of Congress,
September, 1970.
(2)
"Mineral Facts and Problems", 1970 edition, U.S. Bureau of Mines.
(3)
"Scientific American", May, 1970.
-------
(4)
(5)
(6 )
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(ll)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
Al 0- 3
"Chemical Week", February 10, 1971.
"Sulfur, a Basic Industry Study", First Manhattan Co., May, 1968.
"The Study of the Evolution of the World Sulfur Industry from
1965 to 1975", Battelle Memorial Institute, 1967.
"Control of Sulfur Oxide Emissions in Copper, Lead and Zinc
Smelting", U.S. Bureau of Mines Information Circular No. 8527,
1971.
"Control of Sulfur Oxide Emissions from Prima,ry C~pper, Lead and
Zin'c Smelters, a Critical Review", K. T. Semrau" Journal of
the Air Pollution Control Association, April, 1971.
"S02 from Smelters: 3 Processes form an Overview of Recovery
Costs", Argenbright and Preble, Environmental Science and
Technology, July, 1970.
"502 from Smelters: Byproduct Markets a Powerful Lure", Ferguson,
Semrau and Monti, Enviromental Science and Technology, July, 1970.
"The Impact of Air Pollution Abatement on The Copper Industry",
Fluor Utah, April 20, 1971.
"Sulfur and 502 Developments", CEP Technical Manual, American
Institute of Cnemical Engineers, 1971.
"Man's Impact on the Global Environment", report of the study of
critical envir.onmental problems (SCEP), Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, 1970.
"1971 Directory of Chemical Producers -- U.S.A.", Stanford
Research Institute.
"The Oil Import Question", Cabinet Task Force on Oil Import
Control, February, 1970.
"Future Energy Outlook", 53rd annual meeting of the American
Association of Petroleum Geologists, Colorado School of Mines,
1969.
"Estimated World Fertilizer Production Capacity as Related to
Future Needs", 3rd issue, Tennessee Valley Authority, 1971.
-------
A.lO.4
AlO-4
Costs and Economics
(1)
"Economics of the Mineral Industries" American Institute of
Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, 1964.
(2)
"The Economics of the Sulphur Industry", Jared E. Hazleton,
RFF 1970.
(3)
"Phosphatic Fertilizers, Properties and Processes", the Sulphur
Institute, 1964.
(4)
"World Sulfur Outlook into the Late 1970's", M.C. Manderson,
American Chemical Society Annual Convention, Chicago, September,
1970.
(5)
"Transport Economics", monthly comment by Bureau of Transport
Economics and Statistics, Interstate Commerce Commission.
(6)
"The Economics of Clean Air", Senate Document No. 92-6,
March, 1971.
-------
. ,-
~SS~
Unclassified
Securitv Cl8ssification-Thi s paee
DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA. R & D
(Sacurlty c/a..lflc.llon of 1I,/a. body of .b..r.cr .nd Inda./n, _no/..'- mu.' N an tared ..han the o..r." re_,t la d...lfladl
1. OllliCOINA TINCO ACTIVITY (Colpore'a .ulhor) a.. IIIEPOIilT .II:CUIilITY CLA"'~ICATION
Esso Research and Engineering Company Unclassified
Government Research Laboratory, P.O. Box 8 211. GROUP
Linden, New Jersey 07036 N/A
3. REPOIilT TITLE
Long Range Sulfur Supply and Demand Model
.. OESCRIPTIVE NOTII:S (""'pa of 'eport .nd Indu.'va d.,aa)
Final
8. AU THOIIIIl! (",at n....a, ...Iddfa Inlll." '.al n.....)
Michael H. Farmer
Rene R. Bertrand
8. REPOIII T OA TE 7.. TOTAL NO. O~ PACOI:S rll. NO. OF IIIE~'
November 1971
... CONTRACT 0111 COAANT NO. N. OIll'G'NATOIII.' IIIEPORT NU,,",ERI'/
EHSD 71-13 NEG. 268 GRU .1GM. 71
II. PIIIO.JEC T NO. (GKU)
c. .11. OTHEIII IIIII:POIilT NOI., (An, olfl., nl8tNN lfI.t -, lIa ...,,.ad
Ut/a report)
d.
10. 018TIII,aUTION STATEMENT
.,. SUPPLEMENTAIilY NOTES 12. Sponsoring ActiVity
Office of Air Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
13. AaSTIilACT
Sulfur demand, supply and price are projected to the year 2020. The
projections are for use by the Office of Air Programs (O.A.P.) of the Environmental
Protection Agency (E.P.A.) in establishing R&D priorities for recovery of abatement
sulfur in marketable and non-marketable forms.
The projections are made via a computer model, and permit estimation of
the value of abatement sulfur at various times during the forecast period and for
various sources and/or quantities of sulfur recovered in useful forms. The model
includes the simulation of different abatement schedules and also of additional
demand such as might be created by a national stockpile of elemental sulfur. The
factors affecting the relative value of sulfur in acid and elemental form are
analyzed. The foreign situation is also considered because of its impact on
domestic supply/demand/price relationships.
The future supply' of sulfur will depend increasingly on recovery from
fossil fuels. ,Netbacks will depend on delivery costs to points of net demand
and on whether acid or elemental sulfur is recovered.
ESSO
1473
Unclassified
-------
14. LINK II. LINK. LINK C
K I!V WO"D8
"OLI! WT "OLI! WT "OLI! WT
Sulfur
Sulfuric Acid
Supply and Demand Model
Natural Gas
Petroleum
Coal
Smelters
Fertilizer Demand
Economic Projections
Population Projections
Delphi Forecast
Pyrite
Frasch Sulfur
Recovered Sulfur
Transportation Costs
Unclassified
Security Cla..UicaUon
Unclassified
------- |