EPA
United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of
Research and
Development
Energy,
Minerals and
Industry
EPA-600/7-77-072d
July 1977
ENERGY FROM THE WEST:
A PROGRESS REPORT OF
A TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
OF WESTERN ENERGY
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
VOLUME IV APPENDICES
Interagency
Energy-Environment
Research and Development
Program Report
-------
REPORTING
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
€nergy from the West
A Progress Report of a
Technology Assessment of
Western Energy Resource Development
Volume IV Appendices
AWBERC LIBRARY
U.3. EPA
26 W. MARTIN ILI1HER KING DR.
CINCINNATI, OHIO. 45268
By
Science and Public Policy Program
University of Oklahoma
Irvin L. White
Michael A. Chartock
R. Leon Leonard
Steven C. Ballard
Martha W. Gilliland
Radian Corporation
F. Scott LaGrone
C. Patrick Bartosh
David B. Cabe
B. Russ Eppright
David C. Grossman
Timothy A. Hall
Edward J. Malecki
Edward B. Rappa'port
Rodney K. Freed
Gary D. Miller
Julia C. Lacy
Tommy D. Raye
Joe D. Stuart
M. Lee Wilson
Contract Number 68-01-1916
Prepared for:
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Project Officer
Steven E. Plotkin
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Energy,
Minerals and Industry, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that
the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
The production of electricity and fossil fuels inevitably
creates adverse impacts on Man and his environment. The nature
of these impacts must be thoroughly understood if balanced
judgements concerning future energy development in the United
States are to be made. The Office of Energy, Minerals and
Industry (OEMI), in its role as coordinator of the Federal
Energy/Environment Research and Development Program, is
responsible for producing the information on health and
ecological effects - and methods for mitigating the adverse
effects - that is critical to developing the Nation's environ-
mental and energy policy. OEMI's Integrated Assessment Program
combines the results of research projects within the Energy/
Environment Program with research on the socioeconomic and
political/institutional aspects of energy development, and
conducts policy - oriented studies to identify the tradeoffs
among alternative energy technologies, development patterns, and
impact mitigation measures.
The Integrated Assessment Program has utilized the
methodology of Technology Assessment (TA) in fulfilling its
mission. The Program is currently sponsoring a number of TA's
which explore the impact of future energy development on both
a nationwide and a regional scale. For instance, the Program
is conducting national assessments of future development of the
electric utility industry and of advanced coal technologies
(such as fluidized bed combustion). Also, the Program is
conducting assessments concerned with multiple-resource-develop-
ment in three "energy resource areas":
o Western coal states
o Lower Ohio River Basin
o Appalachia
This report describes the results of the first phase of
the Western assessment. This phase assessed the impacts
associated with three levels of energy development in the West.
The concluding phase of the assessment will attempt to identify
and evaluate ways of mitigating the adverse impacts and
enhancing the benefits of future development.
ill
-------
The report is divided into an executive summary and four
volumes:
I Summary Report
II Detailed Analyses and Supporting
Materials
III Preliminary Policy Analysis
IV Appendices
Stephen^
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Energy, Minerals, and Industry
-------
ABSTRACT
This is a progress report of a three year technology assessment of
the development of six energy resources (coal, geothermal, natural gas,
oil, oil shale, and uranium) in eight western states (Arizona, Colorado,
Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming) during
the period from the present to the year 2000. Volume I describes the
purpose and conduct of the study, summarizes the results of the analyses
conducted during the first year, and outlines plans for the remainder of
the project. In Volume II, more detailed analytical results are presented.
Six chapters report on the analysis of the likely impacts of deploying
typical energy resource development technologies at sites representative
of the kinds of conditions likely to be encountered in the eight-state
study area. A seventh chapter focuses on the impacts likely to occur if
western energy resources are developed at three different levels from the
present to the year 2000. The two chapters in Volume III describe the
political and institutional context of policymaking for western energy
resource development and present a more detailed discussion of selected
problems and issues. The Fourth Volume presents two appendices, on air
quality modeling and energy transportation costs.
v
-------
READER'S GUIDE
This report is divided into four volumes. In addition,
an executive summary provides a brief description of the major
research results of this western assessment.
Readers interested in a general description of the assess-
ment results should read Volume I. Chapters I and II describe
the context and methodological framework of the assessment.
Chapter 3 provides a summary description of the impact analysis,
e.g., water and air impacts, population changes, etc. Chapter
4 summarizes some policy implications of these results,
although the assessment is still in the early stages of policy
analysis at this time. Chapter 5 briefly describes what the
reader can expect from the second phase of the project.
Readers interested in particular geographical areas might
be interested in one or more of the six site-specific chapters
(Chapters 6-11) of Volume II which describe in detail results
pertaining to the following areas: Kaiparowits/Escalante,
Utah; Navajo/Farmington, New Mexico; Rifle, Colorado; Gillette,
Wyoming; Colstrip, Montana; and Beulah, North Dakota. Readers
interested in site-specific air, water, socio-economic and
ecological impacts will find these discussed in subsections
2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively, of each chapter in this volume.
Chapter 12 in volume II describes the results of the regional
analyses. This chapter should be particularly valuable to
readers interested in transportation, health, noise and
aesthetic impacts, which are not discussed in the site-specific
chapters, and subjects (such as water availability) which tend
to be regional rather than site-specific in nature.
Volume III represents a first step in the identification,
evaluation and comparison of alternative policies and
implementation strategies. Chapter 13 presents a general over-
view of the energy policy system. Chapter 14 identifies and
defines some of the principal problems and issues that public
policymakers will probably be called on to resolve. The
categories of problems and issues discussed are: water
availability and quality, reclamation, air quality, growth
management, housing, community facilities and services, and
Indians.
VI
-------
Volume IV provides two technical appendices:
o a discussion of alternative approaches to modeling
air quality in areas with complex terrain
o cost comparisons of unit trains, slurry pipelines and
EHV transmission lines
-------
APPENDIX A
TECHNICAL NOTE
AN INVESTIGATION OF COMPLEX
TERRAIN MODELING APPROACHES
USING THE STEADY-STATE
GAUSSIAN DISPERSION MODEL
(Prepared by Radian Corporation
Austin, Texas, September 3, 1976)
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. INVESTIGATION RESULTS 3
III. CONCLUSIONS 14
IV. REFERENCES 16
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
The development and application of atmospheric dispersion
models which accurately treat the interaction of elevated
plumes with complex terrain is an area of increasing impor-
tance. Emerging areas of concern such as the development of
energy resources in areas of irregular and elevated terrain
(e.g., the Rocky Mountain-Great Basin Region) require an
accurate treatment of plume/terrain interaction.
It is recognized that a number of problems are encountered
in applying steady-state Gaussian dispersion models to areas of
elevated, rugged terrain, which are not encountered in flat
terrain modeling. It is further recognized that modeling
treatments suitable for one site might not be suitable for
another site because of the great degree of variability in
the topography and local dispersion meteorology among sites.
These modeling concerns include but are not limited to:
1. the effects of increased surface roughness on
rates of diffusion,
2. the potential for impaction of elevated plumes
against elevated terrain and the effects of
atmospheric stability on this potential for
impaction,
3. the effects of gently-sloping terrain on
ground-level pollutant concentrations,
4. the treatment of ground-level reflection
of dispersion plumes in areas of complex
terrain,
5. the effects of local drainage flows on the
potential for impaction of low-level releases
against elevated terrain,
6. the relative accuracy of finite-difference
type models versus steady-state Gaussian
models for complex terrain modeling.
-------
As part of the modeling effort for the Technology Assess-
ment (T.A.) of Western Energy Resources Development, Radian has
examined some of these modeling concerns and has found certain
complex terrain modeling options for steady-state Gaussian dis-
persion equations to be more satisfactory than others for
specific applications. In these examinations of complex ter-
rain/dispersion interactions an extensive literature search
was conducted. Where possible, dispersion predictions were
made using different model treatments and were compared to
available measured data in an attempt to establish the valid-
ity of the different treatments. In the following section,
some of the previously mentioned areas of modeling concern are
examined. Conclusions drawn from the literature search and
the results of model treatment verification exercises are
described.
-2-
-------
SECTION II
INVESTIGATION RESULTS
A number of researchers conclude that the roughness of the
ground surface at complex terrain sites enhances both horizon-
tal and vertical diffusion due to the generation of greater
turbulence as the air passes over the surface. After review-
ing a number of diffusion experiments in areas of complex
terrain, Bruce Egan of Environmental Research and Technology
states1 :
"A pervasive conclusion of the various experiments
is that the rates of dilution of plumes in complex
terrain are larger than those which would be pre-
dicted over level terrain for the atmospheric
stability classifications indicated by the meteo-
rological observations."
The measure of the degree of turbulence generated by the
wind passing over the rough terrain is reflected in the disper-
sion coefficients or "sigmas" in the Gaussian dispersion equa-
tion. Two sets of sigmas were examined to determine which set
would be most applicable to the complex terrain regions under
examination in the T.A.
The first set of sigmas was developed as a result of a
diffusion investigation conducted at Colstrip, Montana by the
Department of Earth Sciences at Montana State University . The
purpose of this study was to estimate the effects of rugged
terrain on the dispersion of a plume from an elevated source.
A silver iodide plume released continuously from an effective
height of 500 feet above the general terrain was selected as
the tracer.
Egan, B.A., "Turbulent Diffusion in Complex Terrain",
Lectures on Air Pollution and Environmental Impact Analysis,
American Meteorological Society, September 29-October 3, 1975,
Heimbach, J. A., A. B. Super, and J. T. McPartland, "Disper-
sion from an Elevated Source over Colstrip, Montana", Section
26, Field Monitoring Programs, 68th Annual Meeting of the Air
Pollution Control Association, Boston, Massachusetts, June,
1975.
-3-
-------
Although values of ay and a were derived from data taken
in a region of rugged terrain, these dispersion coefficients
were not selected for use by Radian in the atmospheric model-
ing effort of the T.A. Log-log plots of vertical dispersion
coefficients as a function of downwind distance show that the
values of az increase in much the same manner as Turner's sig-
mas out to a distance of about 2-3 Km. Beyond this point, the
value of az "levels off" with distance. Since maximum pollutant
concentrations from large elevated sources normally occur at
distances greater than 2-3 Km from the source, the accuracy of
the "Colstrip" sigmas in the "leveled off" region is of primary
interest. However, the Colstrip concentration data used to
produce the curves of az versus downwind distance do not justi-
fy the "leveling off" of the curves. In addition, the "Col-
strip" vertical diffusion coefficients (az's) for Stability
Classes A, B, C and D are lower than corresponding values of
Turner's dispersion coefficients beyond a transition region of
about .8-8 Km. The lower values at these distances do not re-
flect the phenomenon of increased turbulence over rugged ter-
rain which the "Colstrip" vertical sigmas would be expected to
depict. For these reasons the "Colstrip" dispersion coeffi-
cients were not selected.
Dispersion coefficients described by Turner are the most
widely used and accepted dispersion coefficients for atmospheric
dispersion equations. These sigmas were originally developed by
Gifford3 from diffusion experiments conducted by Hay and Pas-
quill1* over gently rolling, open terrain.
The accuracy of the Turner dispersion coefficients for
areas of complex, rugged terrain was tested by comparing them
to crosswind plume standard deviations measured in the vicin-
ity of the Navajo Generating Station in extreme Northern Ari-
zona. During 1974 and 1975, a full-scale dispersion study was
conducted by Rockwell International and its subcontractors at
this power plant to determine the need for sulfur dioxide re-
moval. As part of this study, the horizontal crosswind stan-
dard deviation of S02 concentration (ay) was measured on sever-
al days at different downwind distances from the source. A
total of 18 values of uy measured on six days were compared to
corresponding values of Turner's'horizontal, crosswind disper-
sion coefficients (ay) for the same downwind distance and sta-
bility category (Table II-1). This comparison showed that the
measured a 's were, on the average, only 8.5% greater than the
3 Gifford, F. A., Jr., "Use of Routine Meteorological Observa-
tions from Estimating Atmospheric Dispersion", Nuclear
Safety, 2(4): 47-51, 1961.
Pasquill, F., Atmospheric Diffusion, D. Van Nostrand Co.,
Ltd., London, 1962.
-------
TABLE II-l
COMPARISON OF OBSERVED AND THEORETICAL PLUME HORIZONTAL
CROSSWIND STANDARD DEVIATIONS (a ) - NAVAJO POWER PLANT
Date
10-16
11-24
12-2
12-10
1-5
1-29
Time
1131 MST
1120
1242
0842
0907
1134
1210
1301
0907
1025
1114
0845
1017
1113
1222
0925
1207
1018
Downwind Dist.
24
16
6
10
24
3
8
27
3
19
24
3
8
14
28
3
3
27
Observed a
y
1025m
1190
280
165
970
155
390
635
250
470
1125
140
435
425
460
330
145
410
Turner ' s
Theroretical a *
y
880
620
260
410
880
140
340
980
140
730
880
140
340
550
1000
140
140
980
Colstrip
Theoretical a ^
y
1000
700
290
550
1000
240
470
1010
240
860
1000
240
476
650
1100
240
240
1100
*For E Stability.
-5-
-------
PASQUILL STABILITIES
A. B. C. AND D
2.15 ffz
VERTICAL PLUME
BOUNDR1ES
FIGURE 11-1. NOAA MODEL PLUME/TERRAIN INTERACTION FOR
UNSTABLE AND NUETRAL CONDITIONS
-------
PASQUILL STABILITIES
E AND F
1
-------
values given by Turner. They were, however, 22% lower on the
average, than corresponding values obtained from the Colstrip
study.
Based on the limited results of this analysis, it appears
that Turner's dispersion coefficients may, in some instances,
be suitable for making dispersion estimates in areas of rugged
terrain, although they may slightly underpredict the horizontal
crosswind plume spread. For this reason, and because of their
general acceptability and applicability to flat terrain model-
ing, Turner's dispersion coefficients were selected for general
use in the air impact analysis of the T.A.
There are several modeling approaches .for treating the
interaction of dispersing plumes with elevated terrain. Three
steady-state Gaussian models which attempt to account for this
phenomenon were examined: the NOAA Model5, the EPA VALLEY
Model6, and Model PSDM7.
In the NOAA Model, the plume is assumed to remain at a
fixed height above the terrain for neutral and unstable stabil-
ity categories. During stable conditions, the plume centerline
is assumed to remain at a fixed height above the source. When
the terrain height exceeds the level of the plume centerline,
the centerline concentration is then assumed to apply (Figures
II-l and II-2) .
The EPA VALLEY Model assumes that the plume centerline re-
mains at a fixed height above the terrain for neutral and un-
stable categories. During stable conditions, the plume center-
line is assumed to remain at a fixed height above the source;
however, the plume centerline must always be >_10 meters above
the level of the terrain. If the receptor height is greater
than 10m above the plume centerline, calculated concentrations
for the receptor height are reduced linearly, such that for a
receptor 400m above plume centerline, the receptor concentra-
tion is 0. The model doesn't look back along the plume to de-
termine whether or not it has encountered terrain. Hence, it
treats receptors on leeward slopes in the same manner as on
windward slopes (Figure II-3).
Van der Hoven, Isaac, et al., Southwest Energy Study,
Appendix E - Meteorology, NOAA, March, 1972.
Burt, Edward W., Description of_ Terrain Model C8M3D, D. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Personal Coinnmnlcation,
August 14, 1975.
Environmental Research and Technology, Description of
Gaussian Dispersion and Flume Rise Models, November"T9, 1974,
-------
r
NEUTRAL AND
UNSTABLE CONDITIONS
0 %
STABLE CONDITIONS
FIGURE 11-3. EPA VALLEY MODEL PLUME/
TERRAIN INTERACTION
-------
The PSDM, developed by Environmental Research and Techno-
logy, accounts for terrain interaction by permitting the plume
to be lifted one-half of the difference between the height of
the receptor (the point on the ground for which the concentra-
tion is being computed) and the height of the stack base, with
the additional restriction that the plume shall always be at
least half of its calculated equilibrium height above the
ground. This terrain treatment applies for all stability
categories (Figure II-4).
Each of these three models assume that reflections occur
at the level of the elevated receptor plume. INTERA Environ-
mental Consultants8 compared measured tracer concentrations to
predictions made using the INTERA (non-Gaussian) and the EPA
VALLEY and the NOAA models for the region of complex terrain
of Huntington Canyon, Utah. As a result of this study, it was
concluded that the EPA VALLEY and NOAA models tended, in
general, to overpredict the measured concentrations in the
Huntington Canyon area.
In an attempt to further verify the validity of these
models, Radian compared measurements made in the vicinity of
the Navajo Generating Station9 with NOAA model predictions.
Measured ground-level pollutant concentrations resulting from
impaction of the Navajo plume during stable dispersion condi-
tions against a cliff located approximately 20-25 Km from the
plant were compared to NOAA model predictions. This compari-
son showed that the model estimates were about a factor of two
too high.
Radian suspected that the tendency for these models to
overpredict concentrations in areas of complex terrain was a
result of the reflection assumption incorporated in the' models.
In an attempt to overcome this problem, the NOAA model terrain
treatment was modified such that ground-level reflections were
calculated to occur at the plant grade or the elevation of the
base of the emission source in contrast to the original NOAA
model assumption of reflections from the elevated terrain sur-
face. It was believed that this model treatment would more
accurately account for the physical process of the reflection
8 Lantz, R. B., and G. F. Hoffnagle, "A Comparison of Plume
Dispersion Calculations with Tracer Measurements at Hunt-
ington Canyon, Utah", presented at 68th Annual Meeting of
the Air Pollution Control Association, June 15-20, 1975,
Boston, Massachusetts.
9 Navajo Generating Station, Sulfur Dioxide Field Monitoring
Program, Vols. I, II, III, and IV, Air Monitoring Center -
Rockwell Int., Meteorology Research, Inc., System'Applica-
tions , Inc., September, 1976.
-10-
-------
h
Ah
is physical stack height
is plume rise
is effective stack height (physical stack height plus plume rise)
is terrain height above stack base elevation
is plume centerline height above stack base elevation
Figure II-4
PSDM Model Plume/Terrain
Interaction
-------
of the lower portion of the plume from an elevated terrain sur-
face, because it would recognize that pollutants reaching
ground-level during stable dispersion conditions would not
continue to travel uphill in the direction of the overlying
plume centerline. Instead, these ground-level pollutants
would become entrained into existing stable drainage flows and
separated from the main body of the plume. By incorporating
this terrain treatment, reflections are treated in the manner
described by Turner10 for flat terrain situations, but the con-
centrations from reflected pollutants are minimized during
periods of stable plume dispersion in elevated terrain. In
addition, the minimum 10m separation distance between the plume
centerline and the receptor as used in the EPA VALLEY model was
used by Radian in the T.A. air impact assessment.
Model predictions using this terrain treatment were com-
pared to measured concentrations along the tops of cliffs in
the vicinity of the Navajo Generating Station for periods of
plume impingement. For these periods, model predictions showed
very good agreement with measured values for both peak and one-
hour averaging periods; that is, model predictions were within
±16 percent of measured values.
Examination of Navajo field study data supported the as-
sumption in the NOAA and EPA models that in cases of plume dis-
persion over elevated terrain, stable plumes generally disperse
at a constant level above the plant grade or base elevation of
the source. The plume configuration assumptions incorporated
into model PSDM were not supported. Plume observations indi-
cated that this common assumption of the NOAA and EPA VALLEY
models applies to both abrupt and gentle changes in terrain
features beneath the dispersing plume. Therefore, this assump-
tion, in addition to the modified reflection assumption, was
incorporated into the dispersion models exercised for the T.A.
The accuracy of the terrain model treatment for situations
of plume dispersion over gentle upward sloping terrain was
tested by comparing model predictions to measured concentrations
in the Navajo Generating Station area. On the day examined, the
plume was traveling over terrain that sloped upward at a rate of
about 26m per Km. At the elevated end of this gentle slope
(approximately 22 Km from the plant), and at a level approxi-
mately 580m above plant grade, a peak concentration of 238 \ig/m3
was monitored. At this time, the plume centerline was in the
vicinity of the monitor. Although the plume centerline was at
ground level at this distance, the horizontal separation between
the plume and the monitor was not known.
10 Turner, D. Bruce, Workbook of Atmospheric Dispersion
Estimates, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Air Programs, Publication No. AP-26.
-12-
-------
Model predictions for the downwind distance and receptor
height corresponding to this monitor show a peak plume center-
line concentration of 452 yg/m3. However, examination of these
predicted results show that at horizontal distances of one stan-
dard deviation either side of the plume centerline, the pre-
dicted concentration drops to 273 yg/m3, or approximately the
peak value measured at the monitor. Since the horizontal loca-
tion of the plume centerline with respect to the monitor was
not precisely observed in the Navajo study, the predicted
value may be accurate. Assumption of flat terrain beneath the
plume results in a predicted value of almost zero and the as-
sumption of reflections from a plane at the level of the re-
ceptor results in predicted concentrations almost twice the
452 yg/m3 level.
-13-
-------
SECTION III
CONCLUSIONS
The following general conclusions can be drawn from this
investigation of complex terrain modeling.
Pasquill-Gifford dispersion coefficients may
accurately describe the plume spread in some
complex terrain situations.
Observations show that elevated plume center-
lines generally parallel the underlying terrain
surface during unstable and neutral conditions.
Plumes may impact abruptly-rising elevated ter-
rain during stable conditions.
During stable conditions the effective height
of the plume above gently upward-sloping ter-
rain may be decreased. As a result, measured
concentrations at downwind (uphill) receptors
may be higher than flat terrain modeling re-
sults would indicate.
Concentration predictions for plume impaction
on abruptly-rising terrain may be too high if
the NOAA and EPA VALLEY models are used.
Concentration predictions for plume impaction
on abruptly-rising and gently sloping terrain
are close to measured values for the complex
terrain situations examined, if Radian's
Gaussian dispersion model, modified to minimize
the effect of ground-level reflections, is used.
The findings resulting from this literature
search and from these comparisons of model pre-
dictions and measured data do not negate the use
of alternate complex terrain modeling approaches
for other combinations of terrain, local meteoro-
logy, and plant configurations. Furthermore, al-
though the terrain modeling approach selected for
use by Radian in the T.A. provides accurate
-14-
-------
predictions for the test cases examined, it
may not be valid for use in certain other
situations.
-15-
-------
SECTION IV
REFERENCES
Listed below are a number of recent articles treating the
subject of complex terrain modeling. These references were not
sited in this Technical Note.
Atmospheric Dispersion of_ Airborne Effluents from The Roan
Plateau, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories,
October 1973.
Bander, T. J. and M. A. Wolf, Transport and Diffusion of
Airborne Pollutants Emanating from A Proposed Shale
Oil Production Plant, Battelle Northwest Laboratories,
Richland, Washington.
Final Report on Parachute Valley Diffusion Experiments,
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories^Richland,
Washington.
Hovind, Einar, et al., "The Influence of Rough Mountainous
Terrain Upon Plume Dispersion from an Elevated Source",
Symposium on Atmospheric Diffusion and Air Pollution,
American Meteorological Society, Santa Barbara,
California, 1974.
Hoydish, Walter D., "A New Procedure for Calculating Dispersion
in Complex Topographies", Section 17, Atmospheric Measure-
ments, 68th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control
Association, Boston, Massachusetts, June 1975.
Lantz, R. B., G. F. Hoffnagle, V. A. Mirabella, "Comparison of
Several Models with Ambient Sulfur Dioxide Measurements
Near the Navajo Generating Station", Section 34, Meteoro-
logy III, 69th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control
Association, Portland, Oregon, 1976.
Leahey, Douglas M., "A Study of Air Flow Over Irregular Ter-
rain", Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 8, 1974.
Lin, Jung-Tai, et al., "Laboratory. Simulation of Plume Disper-
sion in a Stably Stratified Flow Over a Complex Terrain",
67th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Associa-
tion, Denver, Colorado, June 1974.
-16-
-------
MacCready, Paul, "Diffusion and Turbulence Aloft Over Complex
Terrain", Symposium on Atmospheric Diffusion and Air
Pollution, American Meteorology Society, Santa Barbara,
California, 1974.
Markee, E. H. and A. P. Richter, Climatology of_ the National
Reactor Testing Station, ESSA-ARFRO, NRTS, Idaho Falls,
Idaho, 1966.
Smith, T. B., J. A. Anderson, C. S. Burton, and J. Shapiro,
"Significant Meteorological and Diffusion Conditions
Producing Ground-Level Impact at Navajo Generating
Station", Section 34, Meteorology III, 69th Annual
Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association,
Portland, Oregon, 1976.
Start, G. E., C. R. Dickson, et al., "Diffusion in a Canyon
within Rough Mountainous Terrain", Journal o_f Applied
Meteorology, April 1975.
Start, G. E., et al., "Effluent Dilutions Over Mountainous
Terrain", Symposium on Atmospheric Diffusion and Air
Pollution, American Meteorological Society, Santa
Barbara, California, 1974.
-17-
-------
APPENDIX B
ROUTE SPECIFIC COST COMPARISONS: UNIT TRAINS, COAL
SLURRY PIPELINES AND EXTRA HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION
by
Michael Rieber* and Shao Lee Soo*
with
L. Ballard, T. Leung, H. Perez-Bianco and D. D. Soo
prepared for
Science and Public Policy Program, University of Oklahoma
(Subcontract No. 158-376)
in support of
Technology Assessment of Western Energy Resource Development
(Transportation)
Environmental Protection Agency Contract 68-01-1916
Center for Advanced Computation project 46-26-17-350
(Draft Final Beport March 1976)
May 1976
* The authors are, respectively, Research Professor, Center for
Advanced Computation and Professor of Mechanical Engineering,
College of Engineering, the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Ghanpaign. Unit train estimates are updated and revised from
J. A. Ferguson, "Unit Train Transportation of Coal," The Coal
Future; Economic and Technological Analysis of_ Initiatives and
Innovations to Secure Fuel Supply Independence, CAC Document
No. 163, Appendix E.
-------
DISCLAIMER
The work performed in this study is the responsibility of
the authors. The views, findings, recommendations and
opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Science and
Public Policy Program of the University of Oklahoma, or
the University of Illinois.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Problem Statement 1
1.2 Unit Trains 3
1.3 Coal Slurry Pipelines 10
1.4 Extra High Voltage (EHV) Electric Transmission 20
1.5 Right of Way Costs 21
References 24
SECTION II: UNIT TRAINS 27
2.1 General 27
2.2 Capital Costs .27
2.3 Operating Costs 32
2.4 Cost Analyses and Results 36
2.5 Additional Considerations 48
2.5.1 Unit Train Characteristics 48
2.5.2 Car Requirements 48
2.5.3 Track Upgrading 52
2.5.4 The Steel Interface 53
2.5.5 Labor Requirements 55
2.5.6 Environment 55
References 57
Appendix - Computer Printout - Unit Trains:
Costs and Resources for Unit Train
Transportation (follows) 57
SECTION III: COAL SLURRY PIPELINES 59
3.1 General 59
3.2 Capital Cost Elements 61
3.3 Operating Costs 69
3.4 Cost Analysis and Results 69
References 84
Appendix - Computer Printout - Costs and
Resources for Slurry Pipelines (follows) 85
-------
SECTION IV: EXTRA HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION 87
4.1 Introduction 87
4.2 Extra High Voltage Transmission - AC-DC Comparison 87
4.3 The EHV Cost Mods* *•**»• 92
4.4 Results 94
References 105
Appendix A - EHV Transmission Safety and Environment (follows) 106
Appendix B - EHV Transmission - Comparative Data (follows) 106
SECTION V: CONCLUSIONS 107
5.1 General 107
5.2 Slurry Pipeline and Unit Train 108
5.3 Comparative Studies 110
Appendix A - Comparative Data - Coal Slurry Pipelines
and Unit Trains: Bechtel and Stanford Research
Institute (follows) 113
Appendix B - Comparative Data - EBASCO and Bechtel (follows) 113
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 Route Analysis 4
2.1
(a)-(c) Unit Costs at Various Capacities - Unit Trains 41
2.2 Unit Cost - Unit Trains 44
2.3 Employment - Unit Train Operation 45
2.4 Resource Contnitment 47
3.1 Unit Cost - Slurry Pipelines 76a
4.1 Electric Transmission Routes 88
4.2 Estimated Unit Cost of EHV Transmission of 3000 MWe 95
5.1
(a)-(c) Unit Costs at Various Capacities - Unit
Train and Slurry Pipelines 111-113
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.1 Parameters for Coal Transport System 5
1.2 Onshore Pipeline Right of Way and Damage Costs 23
2.1 Unit Train Routes 30
2.2 Sample Route and Capacity Specification 33
2.3 Sample Detail of Labor Requirements 34
2.4 Sample Detail of Supplies 35
2.5 Basic Items - Costs and Resources 37
2.6 Estimated Car Requirements 51
3.1 Coal Slurry Pipeline Routes 62
3.2 Itemized Capital Costs of Black Mesa and
Wyoming-Arkansas Coal Slurry Pipelines 64
3.3 Coal Slurry Pipeline 70
3.4 Manpower Required for Operation of Energy Facilities 71
3.5 Major Items Required for Operation and
Maintenance of Energy Facilities 72
3.6 Basic Items - Costs and Resources 74
3.7 Summary of Selected Commercial Slurry Pipelines 78
3.8 Changes in Costs per 1000-Mile Pipeline Designed
for 5 mph Flow at 5 nph and 3.5 mph Compared
to One Designed for 3.5 mph 82
4.1 High-voltage direct-current power transmission
projects in commission and planned 89
4.2 Estimated Investment Costs of 765 kv AC Double
Circuit Transmission Line 96
4.3 Estimated Investment — 1000 Mile EHV
Transmission of 3000 MW 97
4.4 Cost Analysis of 765 kv AC Transmission System 98
4.5 Cost Analysis of ±600 kv DC Transmission System 99
4.6 Estimating Assumptions 100
4.7 EHV Source to Load Transmission System Specifications 102
4.8 Route Specific Costs 103
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Problem Statement
The comparative economics of three modes of coal-
energy transport are studied. These include: unit trains,
coal slurry pipelines and extra high voltage (EHV) transmission
from mine mouth generating plants. The basis for comparison is
cost rather than price. To facilitate the use of the data,
costs are presented on the following bases: cents/ton-mile,
dollars/ton, cents/MMBtu transported, and cents/MMBtu-mile.
For each mode of transport, a generalized statement
of components, component costs and parameters is presented.
From this, route specific analyses are developed. These are
based on the movement of 25 million tons of coal per year
except for electric transmission which is based on an input of
3000 MW. It should be noted, however, that 25 million tons
per year may imply a possible input of almost 5000 MW at the
supply end. The following routes are analyzed:
(1) Farmington, New Mexico to Los Angeles, California
a. Unit trains.
b. Coal slurry pipeline.
c. EHV transmission (3000 MW)
(2) Gillete, Wyoming to Chicago, Illinois
a. Unit trains.
b. Coal slurry pipeline.
c. EHV transmission (3000 MW)
(3) Gillete, Wyoming to Houston, Texas
a. Unit trains.
b. Coal slurry pipeline.
(4) Colstrip, Montana to Houston, Texas
a. Unit train.
- 1 -
-------
- 2 -
(5) Colstrip, Montana to Seattle, Washington
a. Unit trains.
b. Coal slurry pipeline.
(6) Electric transmission, EHV transmission (3000_MW)
a. Kaiparowits, Utah to Los Angeles, California.
b. Beulah, North Dakota to Chicago, Illinois.
c. Colstrip, Montana to Chicago, Illinois.
Coal transport from Gillette, Wyoming to New York
City via unit trains has been excluded from the detailed
analysis. This is based on a number of factors. First, the
state of the tracks east of Chicago are considerably more
deteriorated than those further west. The cost of rebuilding
to accomodate the shipments would be very much higher than our
estimates for western roads. While rehabilitation would
affect all rail transport, the cost basis would be added to the
unit train movement east of Chicago. Therefore, the western
roads cite a lack of cooperation in rate making and joint ship-
ment possibilities as one moves east. The problem appears to
be who would get what part of the joint rate and how high would
it be. Second, the population density moving east rapidly
increases. There is little room for the rerouting of right of
way to avoid noise and surface traffic problems. This may
render the exercise improbable. Rail traffic densities in the
east only exacerbate the problem. A general cost estimate for
this route has been provided assuming a route through northern
Indiana and Ohio, the northwest corner of Pennsylvania,
southern New York to a point east of the Appalachians, then
southeast through Pennsylvania and east across New Jersey to
New York City. An alternative would be from about Buffalo to
the Hudson River and then south on the east bank to New York
City.
Because Case 5 anticipates coal export as well as
local usage, no provision for evaporating or dumping coal
slurry water after dewatering has been made. Therefore, the
-------
analysis includes the costs of returning the water to the
point of origin. This reduces the water requirement, after
the first line fill, to make-up water. The specific routes
and transport modes are shown in Figure 1.1. An abbreviated
parameter format is presented in Table 1.1.
The remainder of this introduction is devoted to the
background of each mode. This will provide an understanding
of the system under consideration, the current controversies,
and the non-cost items which have been included.
1.2 Unit Trains
A unit train is a single purpose dedicated, inte-
grated train for hauling one commodity, in this case coal. It
is composed of special purpose cars which haul continuously
from mine to consumer. Due to different definitions of the
term "unit train," it is difficult to say exactly what percen-
tage of rail coal moves by this method; estimates for 1972
vary from one-third to one-half of total coal rail traffic [1].
Given current technology and forecast consumer demand, unit
trains will become even more important for hauling projected
high volume coal shipments.
Unit trains were first used in 1957, when the Reserve
Mining Company transported iron ore over a 50-mile private
section of track to a processing plant at Silver Bay, Minnesota
[2]. Utilization of the unit train for carrying coal first
became prominent in the mid-1960's. The unit coal train con-
cept was refined in the late 1960's. Further improvements
have been made since then. From the very beginning, its
successful initiation has almost always depended upon close
cooperation between the mining company, the railroad, and an
electric utility company. Typically, long term contracts,
sometimes of ten years or more, are made so that large capital
investments for equipment can be justified. This includes the
-------
Figure 1.1
Route Analysis
i
*>.
J
-------
Table 1.1 Parameters for Coal Transport System
Supply Point
Transport Facility Receiving Point
Primary Parameters
Tons/Day
Common to All:
1. Mine
2. Loader
3. Storage
4. Labor
Tons/Day and Distance
1. Terrain
2. Labor
3. Power and Fuel
Tons/Day
1. Utilization
2. Labor
Railroad;
5. Loading Facility
6. Supplies
(Speed)
4. Rails
5 . Locomotives
6 . Cars
7. Stations
3. Unloading Facility
4. Storage
5. Pulverizing in
Power Plants
Slurry Pipeline:
5. Slurry Preparation
Mills
Storage Tanks
Agitators
6. Pumping
7. Water Supply
8 . Supplies
(Flow Velocity)
4 . Pipeline
5. Pumping Stations
6 . Supplies
Stirred Storage
Separation Facility
to Centrifuge
Coal and Water,
Water Disposal
EHV Transmission;
5. Voltage Step-up
6. Rectification
4. Transmission
Lines and Towers
3. Voltage Condition-
ing and Distribution
-------
— 6 —
unit train itself as well as coal handling facilities at both
ends of the haul. It should be noted, however, that the long
terra contracts do not extend to unit train rates. These must
be set annually. Early operations were typified by railroad
owned coal cars and locomotives, primarily because they
already owned the equipment. When freight cars specifically
suited to coal hauling and larger locomotives became the rule
rather than the exception, it often became preferrable for
the utility companies to own their own trains, both as part of
their investment and to insure continuity of delivery in times
of car shortages. However, all train crews and most maintenance
are provided by the railroads. Traditionally, mining companies
have been more hesitant to assume unit train ownership, probably
because they have less to gain than either the utility companies
or the railroads. However, the associated contracts do provide
a guaranteed scheduled outlet for the mine's coal which may
lower costs. Furthermore unit trains often lower the delivered
cost of coal sufficiently to encourage increased coal usage.
For the railroads, unit trains provide better equipment and
plant utilization than do other rail modes. For the coal
burning utility companies, they lower fuel expenditures and
establish a stable fuel supply [1]. Schedule receipts also
lower inventory costs. Lowering transport costs, by increasing
the net-back at the mine, increases economically recoverable
coal reserves; mines may go deeper, recovery percentages may
increase and the time before mine closure may be effectively
prolonged.
A unit train operation involves much more than merely
the locomotive and hopper cars to haul the coal. Successful
operation is dependent upon concentrated usage of equipment
so that the train spends as much time as possible on the road.
To do this, high rate loading and unloading facilities as well
as significant storage capability must be installed to supple-
-------
- 7 -
ment the train. These improved coal handling facilities
must be included in the total economic and technological
analysis of the unit train. The increased costs due to this
additional equipment and handling are, however, less than
those incurred in the movement of similar but fragmented
tonnages picked up and delivered to and from several locations
in multiple car lots. This follows from the increased effi-
ciency and load factor associated with a unit train. With
one cargo, one origin, one destination, often no stopping even
for loading or unloading, and no yard time or train make-up
time, instead of averaging 60 miles per day, these trains may
average over 800 miles per day. However, this is highly
dependent upon track conditions.
The cost of building and/or maintaining a railroad
must also be factored into unit train costs. Because of
declining revenues (due to the loss of other revenue producing
freight haulage) and the diversification of some railroads,
many roads have spent a minimum on track and right of way
maintenance and the building of new mileage. In general, but
not specifically, deterioration becomes worse moving west to
east. Some sections of track allow speeds of only ten miles
per hour, definitely hampering the efficiency of a unit
train on a tight time schedule and reducing total utilization.
Rail and tie replacements are presently at below average
depreciation rates so that track conditions are deteriorating
or, at best, staying the same. Eventually, either a new
effort must be made to develop labor saving methods of track
construction and maintenance or a totally new concept of
track, tie and roadbed design must be initiated.
In the past, railroads appear to have set rates
(prices) which did not have a unique relationship to the
underlying cost estimates. In a 1963 report to the Secretary
of Commerce [3], this was expressed as follows:
-------
- 8 -
"Pricing must depend upon knowledge of cost and
components of cost. Until sufficient cost data
are available, rates quoted by the railroads
cannot accomplish their purpose of effective
competition at a profitable price. The rail-
roads have never instituted cost-finding
procedures as a reference for pricing services.
Although several different sets of books have
been kept traditionally to meet the separate
requirements of the ICC, the IRS, the various
state reporting criteria and for responsibility
accounting, none of the bookkeeping operations
offers a basis for costing service."
To some extent this has changed since 1963, but with respect
to unit train operations, pricing of the service still retains
a strong element of charging what the market will bear based
on estimates of the cost of service of competing lines or
transport modes, if any. Estimation of the economic cost of
services not only provides a calculation of resource alloca-
tion, but it can provide an open examination of the rate
basis.
Probably the major catalyst to the formation of unit
trains and the corresponding reduction of railroad rates on
these one-commodity trains was incipient competition from a
coal slurry pipeline in the east north central region, and,
on the East coast, the reduction of crude and residual oil
prices in the late 1950's and early 1960's. Some large coal
users had felt an urgent need to reduce transportation costs
and had financed the construction of a coal slurry pipeline
in Ohio [4]. This pipeline posed a severe threat to the
railroads as their largest volume commodity was coal and the
proposed slurry rates were far lower than their single car
-------
- 9 -
coal shipment rates. A 1962 Department of Interior publi-
cation, "Report to the Panel on Civilian Technology on Coal
Slurry Pipelines" [5], predicted the impact of slurry pipe-
lines:
"Since coal traffic is so important to the
earnings of the railroads, especially in the
East, we believe that they can ill afford to
watch even a single new pipeline built without
making every effort to minimize their own costs
and adjust their own services in such a way as
to meet the competition effectively, before the
traffic is lost."
After a very short period of thought and a re-evaluation of
their techniques and profits, the railroads, in cooperation
with the electric utilities and coal mines, initiated the
unit train concept. Driven by the instinct for survival,
the railroads undercut the delivered coal price of the slurry
pipeline and put it out of business in a few years. The
Ohio slurry line was shut down. It was later proposed that
it be reopened for the purpose of moving garbage from
Cleveland. Currently, the only successful coal slurry line
in the United States is the 273 mile Black Mesa line in the
Southwest. It is by far the longest coal slurry, or any
slurry, line in the world. One reason for its selection
over unit train transportation was that the alternative was
the construction of a 150-mile section of new track over
rough terrain to serve the mine-to-powerplant route [6].
The unit train concept is not without its disadvan-
tages, even when the track is already there. The trains are
noisy, occupy significant track mileage and create hazards
on level crossings. Rerouting and building new track to
-------
- 10 -
avoid cities and towns may become a necessity if any signi-
ficant increase in their use occurs. Double tracking will
serve to alleviate the traffic problem. Bridging and under-
passes should eliminate the hazards. It may also become
necessary to fence a signficant number of miles. These
solutions are feasible but costly.
1.3 Coal Slurry Pipelines
The growing energy problem has resulted in research
and development into new methods of utilizing current energy
resources more efficiently- Among the recent energy trans-
portation systems under study is the coal slurry pipeline.
In the past, this method has had little support or publicity
from either public or governmental agencies. Now, it is being
acclaimed as one of the major energy breakthroughs. The
actual success of this method, however, has not been entirely
validated.
The idea of the coal slurry process was patented in
1891 [9]. Initially, the coal is mined and then sent by
truck or conveyor to the slurrification plant. There, the
coal is screened to remove oversize chunks. Subsequently,
it is sent to a bin where it is crushed to a fine powder of
sufficiently small particle size so that it can be suspended
in water. Next the powdered coal is blown into a mixer where
it is combined with a quantity of fresh water until a desired
consistency is obtained. The slurry is then stored in tanks
or delivered directly to electric power plant by pipeline.
On arrival, the coal slurry is pushed through a centrifuge
which is rotated at high speeds. There, the coal particles
are separated from most of the water leaving 25 percent total
moisture. Further dewatering by thermal drying (using very
high temperatures), more filtration, and direct evaporation
-------
- 11 -
in open air storage tanks [7] has been suggested, but is
deemed unnecessary in power plant applications. (Twenty-five
percent moisture means an average of 2 percent heat loss.)
The most important aspect of the entire coal slurry
process is the pipeline. The first coal slurry pipeline was
built in 1914 to bring coal to London, England [9]. Since
then, the United States has built approximately 381 miles of
pipeline, with a capacity of almost 6 million tons of coal
per year [8]. This includes the 273 mile pipeline, built in
1972 by the Southern Pacific Transportation Co., which runs
from the Black Mesa coal fields in Arizona to the Mohave
power plant below the Davis Dam on the Colorado River. The
1036 mile pipeline planned by Energy Transportation Systems,
Inc., (ETSI) to deliver 25 million tons of coal per year from
the coal fields near Gillette, Wyoming, in part to Middle
South Utilities' power plants in White Bluff, Arkansas and in
part to whichever other utilities are willing to enter into
long term contracts, is the furthest advanced among several
long distance coal slurry pipeline proposals. It is this
recently proposed slurry pipeline which has suddenly erupted
into a major controversy- Involved are railroads, ETSI,
environmentalists, Congressmen, state legislatures, economists
and engineers.
Both the Black Mesa and the proposed Wyoming to
Arkansas pipeline basically involve the same mechanism.
Along the Black Mesa pipeline there are four electrically
powered pumping stations located 65 miles apart. Coal slurry
is pumped through a pipeline 18 inches in diameter at about
3.5 miles per hour. This speed is slow enough to prevent
erosion of the pipes from coal particles but fast enough so
that the coal will not settle out of suspension in the pipeline.
It takes three days for a particle of coal to travel the
entire 273 miles.
-------
- 12 -
At maximum capacity, the pipeline contains 46,000
tons of coal [6]. A fresh water pump is situated at each
station in case there is a breakdown and flushing of the
line is necessary- There are also additional fresh water
storage ponds and an emergency dump pond at each pump
station.
The Wyoming to Arkansas line is based on a similar
scheme. The pipe is 38 inches in diameter. The entire pipe-
line will be below ground except for the 10 pumping stations
located 100 miles apart and for river crossings, ravines and
difficult terrain. It is a 12 day 9 hour trip for a particle
of coal. At maximum capacity the pipeline contains 855,000
tons of coal [7]. All other characteristics are generally
similar to those of the Black Mesa line. The pipeline route
was chosen to provide as much downhill grade as possible, a
factor which eases the strain on the pumps and reduces cost.
The route from the Black Mesa mine to Davis Dam has an over-
all decent of 1,592 feet. The Wyoming to Arkansas route has
a similar, but milder decent [8].
Over particular routes, the coal slurry pipeline
has several advantages over other forms of coal transportation,
For example, the Black Mesa coal mines are located 120 miles
north of the nearest railroad. Davis Dam is located 30 miles
north of the nearest railroad. Had the coal been shipped by
rail, the total distance would have amounted to 400 miles,
including 150 miles of new rail facility [6], or 127 miles
more than the pipeline. It is important to note that the
*
distance advantage here is of the order of 2:3. Water needs
for the Black Mesa pipeline appear adequate; the underground
wells are regularly replenished. However, there has been no
environmental impact statement. In addition, the coal slurry
provides almost 15 percent of the cooling water required by
the Mohave power plant [8]. Overall, the pipeline is
located in an ideal environment.
-------
- 13 -
Some coal officials have observed this pipeline
and are convinced that coal slurry lines are more beneficial
than railroads as a method of transporting coal. Carl E. Bagge,
president of the National Coal Association says:
"The railroads already have a hopper car shortage
and we anticipate that coal production will be up
by 17.5 million tons next year." [9]
The seemingly ideal conditions that exist for the
Black Mesa pipeline are in many respects not reproducible on
the Wyoming to Arkansas pipeline. One of the primary concerns
in Wyoming and South Dakota is the coal slurry water require-
ment. The entire slurry pipeline would require 10,000 gallons
of water per minute, excluding additional water for emergency
purposes which might be tapped at the head' and/or along the
route. This would have to be tapped from the Madison forma-
tion, an underground reservoir which extends into Wyoming,
Montana, and North and South Dakota or transported about 200
miles from the river. ETSI claims that the water would be
replenished by seepage from snows and streams [11]. Neverthe-
less, their assurances do not convince everyone. U.S.
Congressman Teno Roncalio has stated:
"Wyoming can't afford to export its water."
U.S. Senator William C. Rector has expressed a similar view:
"The idea of taking our precious water table, which
we really know very little about, and sending it to
Arkansas is a very bad concept." [10]
Roy H. Guess, an advisor to the Wyoming legislature has said
that he is not opposed to the slurry concept, but he doesn't
-------
- 14 -
want Wyoming water used. Opposition is also coming from
local municipalities which obtain their water only from the
reservoir. Additional opposition comes from farmers, who
claim that the water is needed for agricultural purposes and
from a coalition of western governors who do not want their
share of the water reservoir taken. Despite this political
opposition, ETSI already has been provided with a go ahead.
In 1974, the Wyoming House of Representatives granted it
permits to test drill for water. Now, however, some of the
Representatives are trying to get the permits revoked [11].
ETSI has claimed that they would install a return
line to recycle the water used after dewatering the slurry-
However, a return line would have to move the water on an
uphill grade, causing the pumps to consume a large amount of
power. In turn, this would increase costs by 30 percent and
make the entire project much less attractive.
The advent of any new industrial concept invariably
brings with it the cries of the environmentalists. The case
of the coal slurry pipeline from Wyoming to Arkansas is no
exception. At this point in time, however, the environmentalists
are undecided as to whether the slurry pipeline is good or bad.
ETSI claims it would be the "least environmentally damaging
system to bring Wyoming coal to Arkansas" [11]. However, many
oppose the pipeline (as they would a rail extension), contending
that it would stimulate increasingly massive strip mining of
Wyoming land. Still others prefer the idea of a "clean,"
invisible pipeline to noisy trains and the ubiquitous railroad
tracks.
The greatest objection to the Wyoming-Arkansas slurry
pipeline comes from the railroad companies. Their counter-
arguments include the increased job opportunities they provide
and the favorable comparative costs of railroad improvement.
To build the line, ETSI is seeking the right of eminent domain
-------
- 15 -
in order to permit it to dig beneath 49 sets of railroad tracks
owned by the Burlington Northern, the principal railroad company
competing in the proposed ETSI area, and other companies. Con-
gressional action is expected in the coming year. Ironically.-
the railroads have also used this right, at the state level,
during their expansion. The orginal western development, how-
ever, was based on what were, in effect, land grants.
The railroads have much at stake in the pipeline
dispute. The possible effect on transport prices is obvious.
If the line is developed, railroad rates for coal transport
must be dropped if they are to remain competitive. Even more
important to the railroads, however, is that coal traffic
constitutes their most important source of future expansion
and present stability. Coal movement currently constitutes
about 25 percent of total freight business. For specific
railroads, the percentage is significantly higher. Given
their fixed costs, the loss of coal traffic might require
higher charges on their remaining business if they are to
remain solvent. In many traffic categories this will prove
impossible as shippers employ alternate modes including trucks
and barges. The resultant increase in these modes will bring
their own problems: highway and waterway congestion, air and
water pollution, additional road building, the construction of
more dams and locks, and the loss of transport flexibility as
well as the defense related strength that the railroads
represent. It may be cogently argued that much of this could
be, and could have been, avoided if the railroads instead of
raising prices to compensate for lost revenues lowered them to
compete for lost business. Aside from the cash flow problem,
which is teleologically local, the reality of the current
situation is that railroads do not think this way unless
forced to do so in the extremis of major competition. In this
they are supported by the weight of past ICC decisions and the
National Transportation Act.
-------
- 16 -
Executives of the Burlington Northern have claimed
that the slurry pipeline would cost their company nearly
$225 million in lost revenue each year [11]. They claim that
by granting ETSI the right of eminent domain, and thus the
ability to build the line without seeking eminent domain on a
state by state basis, Congress would accelerate the destruction
of the already economically troubled railroad industry [13].
Second, that the proposed pipeline would supply a basically
fixed amount of coal to only a few chosen contract customers
on a take or pay basis whereas the railroads are common carriers,
required by law to serve all customers [13] . While the pipelines
would, under regulation, be required to serve new entrants, by
prorating capacity if necessary, the railroads fear that the
contract provisions will foreclose them from a significant
segment of the market for the contract period. Third, it is
claimed that the pipeline would threaten the needed improvements
on existing lines. The improvements could be justified only by
the anticipation of continued and increasing large coal ship-
ments [13] .
The railroads offer few alternatives although they
have not, as yet, joined the eastern roads in rate increases.
In response to the Bagge statement (cited above), they argue
that there is no longer the hopper car shortage that existed
in the past. Furthermore, they are sure that they will have
the capacity to increase coal shipments from the current level
of 16 million tons per year to the anticipated 140-150 million
tons required within the necessary time period. But they
suggest that this can only be done if the pipeline does not
divert steel from the railroads [10] and if the cream of the
coal shipments is not skimmed by exclusive contracts.
The steel requirement for the slurry line is not insig-
nificant. Up to a million tons of steel would be required for
a 1000 mile 25 million ton per year pipeline. The steel would
-------
- 17 -
not be recycled. A typical unit train requires 30,000 tons of
steel. To ship a similar amount of coal 1000 miles by unit
train would require about 500,000 tons of steel, most of which
can be recycled.
There are still a number of uncertainties connected
with pipeline efficiency. For example, the Black Mesa line
must always operate at its full 64,000 ton capacity. The
operating speed cannot fall below 3 miles per hour. Its
design speed is 3.5 mph. If the load falls below 65 percent
of capacity, it is claimed that the entire pipeline operation
becomes uneconomic [6]. (Reducing capacity to this level can
be accomplished by reducing line flow to 3 mph and increasing
water use to 63 percent of volume. Unit costs increase by
about 50 percent. If 75 percent capacity is assumed, unit
cost increases are about 20 percent.) As this definition of
economic rests on a rail price comparison rather than engineer-
ing efficiency it is possible that, with lower rail rates, the
range of permissible throughput decrease is much less (say
only 75 percent of capacity) before the line becomes uneconomic
or pipeline tariffs must be raised.
The possibility of pipeline breakage and power outage
is another matter of concern. In the event of pipeline break-
age, all the slurry behind the break point would have to be
dumped (the coal slurry itself is virtually unstoppable; it
might be said that it has the consistency of a "black tooth-
paste"). Suction created by pumps downstream of the break
point might not be able to pull the remaining slurry through,
depending on where the break is located. A power failure at
any one of the pump stations would result in the dumping of
all the slurry immediately ahead of the disabled pump station.
Actually, each station would have an emergency dumping pond.
However, any slurry dumped into these ponds could not be
easily reclaimed and subsequently reintroduced into the pipeline,
-------
- 18 -
These ponds would be completely useless for pipeline breaks
between pumping stations. Any attempt to stop the slurry
could result in a massive plugging of the line [12].
Perhaps the greatest hurdle facing the slurry pipe-
line is its cost. It has been reported that the initial cost
is $750 million (in 1974 dollars) or $1034 million in 1975
dollars. (This estimate may be low as the index for U.S.
pipeline construction from 1972 through 1974 has risen by 58
points, 221 to 279 with 1947 = 100. The high of the construc-
tion cost trend range for 36 inch pipe including right of way,
labor, materials, etc., has increased an average of 94 percent
between 1974 and 1975.) Operation and maintenance charges
would amount to $180.6 million annually (also in 1975 dollars).
This may be compared to the $298 million (1975 dollars)
required to upgrade existing railroads to handle the same
tonnage of coal shipments [12]. Depreciation charges against
a unit train are estimated at 8.6 percent of operating cost
while those of the pipeline are 27.4 percent [12]. This points
up a significant financial problem. To operate, a pipeline
must be in place. The major costs are front ended. Any sub-
sequent operating problems or decrease in coal supply or
demand affects the highly capital intensive pipeline far more
than it does the railroads. For insurance, this would have
to be factored into the anticipated pipeline tariff.
It has been estimated that to pulverize, slurry,
and ship the coal by pipeline would cost 1.1 cents/ton-mile
compared to 0.8 cents/ton-mile by rail [14]. Additionally,
the railroads haul a wide variety of freight and have sub-
statial flexibility in throughput. With respect to coal
r-
alone, crushing, grinding and beneficiation could be done at
the consuming end, avoiding water problems, and, as the opera-
tion can be tailored, serving a wide range of customers. It
-------
- 19 -
is more likely that preliminary crushing to 2x0" or larger
size followed by washing would be accomplished before loading.
Upon delivery by unit trains, this would be pulverized to
230 mesh size. By comparison, the pulverized coal shipped
by slurry pipelines, [19] would be crushed to a 20 mesh size
and washed before loading. However, as washing must be done
at larger coal size, this requires a two stage crushing
process. After drying at the receiving end the moisture con-
tent leaves it in the form of a damp clay which must be
pulverized to achieve particle size for boilers. It is not
suitable at this size for present coal gasification plants.
The logical question is why the promoters are
interested in its construction. One answer, of course, is
that they sincerely believe that the pipeline will prove to be
the low cost operation. Another answer is provided by eastern
U.S. railroad history in the first third of the 1800's. It
will be recalled that railroads then were built by construction
companies backed by promoters who sold railroad bonds and
stocks (often with the full faith and credit of the states
involved) to individuals and investment houses here and abroad
as well as to the cities and towns through which the railroad
was to pass. The construction companies were paid as the work
progressed, the promoters earned commissions on the securities
sold. By and large these early roads went bankrupt as did
those who operated on them. Nine states defaulted on their
full faith and credit obligations after a vain appeal to the
federal government which invoked a form of state's rights.
An engineering-construction company is not an obvious candidate
to sink a very large sum of money into a project with a payout
period of 30 years and a rate of return governed by a regula-
tory agency. They can do better than that. A well known
investment house is an even more unlikely candidate. A
probable scenario if the line is built is the almost immediate
-------
- 20 -
divestiture of the Bechtel-Lehman Brothers interest in ETSI
by the issuance of public shares. Both then will have capi-
talized their investment. And, history may repeat itself.
The pipeline is relatively capital intensive, the
railroads are relatively labor intensive. The latter may
change with different work rules and with unit train operation,
the former cannot. The result is that the former may be a
victim of its fixed charges, throughput, and debt structure
and the latter to inflation. Aside from this, however, it
should be noted that in a less than full employment economy,
and one in which conservation is becoming more important, an
industry which is relatively labor intensive, which recycles
a portion of its fixed real capital input, and which is
flexible as to time of purchase and disposition of its equip-
ment, may not be all bad. When operating, the pipeline would
employ 245 people in the direct labor category; the railroad
1500. Railroad construction and maintenance can use people
who already live in the area and will continue to do so.
Pipeline construction is largely a specialists job. It
carries its own breed of migrant workers, creating boom town
conditions and problems along the route of the line with only
the boom town clean up after the line has been buried. It is
simply not clear where the labor advantage lies; much depends
upon the stance of the observer.
1.4 Extra High Voltage (EHV) Electric Transmission
An alternative method of coal transportation involves
the production of mine mouth electric power with subsequent
transmission of large blocks of power on a point to point
basis. Two methods are available: AC and DC transmission.
The former appears to be best suited for distances of less
than 500-600 miles and for systems in which the trunk line is
-------
- 21 -
tapped at intermediate points. For longer distances and
single origin-destination pairs, DC transmission appears to
be more economic.
This study is limited to 3000 Mw transmission
lines. Both AC and DC lines are compared. A general analysis
is presented for both followed by a route specific analysis of
five origin-destination pairs. The output in this part of the
study is considered more tentative than that for slurry pipe-
lines and unit trains because the cost data are more unreliable.
1.5 Right of Way Costs
Where a right of way has not already been established
(slurry pipelines, transmission lines, and new rail routes or
diversions), right of way costs are only speculative. Rail
routes involve the total alienation of land from other uses
although the corridor so provided might be used by other trans-
port modes. Pipelines and electric transmission do not alienate
land completely but rather require easements on property. In
electric transmission, about 90 percent of all rights of way
are easement purchases. The remainder include land in fee,
eminent domain condemnation, and leased land obtained from
other utilities or the government. The easement involves a
one time payment for a perpetual agreement and may include any
of a large number of special stipulations. The payment tends
to run about 100-150 percent of the current land value. Pro-
vision is usually made for damage payments if the easement
must be utilized to repair facilities. For electric trans-
mission, danger tree rights are also obtained. Payments are
usually at cord wood or pulp wood prices.
Widths of right of way vary considerably. However,
the basic need for both a slurry line and a transmission line
include safe width and provision for a construction road.
Where a line can be built along an existing roadway, costs are
suitably reduced.
-------
- 22 -
In this study, nominal right of way costs are used,,
however, an indication of the variation is given in Table 1.2.
While the table is specific for crude oil and product pipe-
lines it should be sufficiently indicative for both slurry
lines and EHV transmission. With respect to the latter,
however, it may be noted that a 765 kvAC line corridor may
be from 225-250 feet wide while a ±600 kvDC corridor may be
only 175-200 feet. Problems of electrical discharge may
suggest a right of way of 300 feet for both.
-------
Table 1.2
ONSHORE PIPELINE RIGHT OF WAY AND DAMAGE COSTS
(dollars/mile)
Region
North East
(Pa, Mass, NJ)
South East & Central
(La, Ark, Miss, Term)
Mid-Atlantic
(WVa, Ky)
E. North Central
(Ohio, 111, Ind)
Central
(Okla, Neb, Kan)
South Central
(Tex, NMex)
North Tier (East)
(Wise)
Mountain
(Mont, NDak, Colo, Wyo)
West Coast
(Wash, Ore)
High Low Average Range
58275 8028 25660 8028-58275
11667 6476 6542
5702 5006 5465
23889 3828 14753
4884 1399 3123
1910 1727 1818
11137 11137 11137
1995 1489 1742
21735 14121 17928
1621-16211
2039- 7974
250-33509
1188- 9200
793- 3027
11137
634- 4017
14121-21735
New Individual Projects ($/mi)
W.Va. - 6168
La. - 25700
Okla. - 800
Iowa - 4087
Mich. - 111. - Ind. - 50,633
B.C. - Calif. - 8340
Source: Oil and Gas Journal, August 18, 1975.
- 23 -
-------
REFERENCES
Section I
1. National Petroleum Council, Coal Task Group, Other
Energy Resources Subcommittee, U.S. Energy Outlook
(Coal Availability), for the U.S. Department of the
Interior, 1973.
2. Jensen, H. M. (Commonwealth Edison Co.), "Unit Train
Coal Delivery," Combustion, Vol. 36, No. 1, July 1964,
pp. 23-28.
3. National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council,
Committee on Science and Technology in the Railroad
Industry, Science and Technology xn_ the Railroad Industry,
Report to Secretary of Commerce, August T9~6~3".
4. Stover, J. F. , The^ Life and Decline ojf the_ American
Railroad, Oxford University" Press, New York, 1970.
5. U.S. Department of the Interior, Report to the Panel on
Civilian Technology, Coal Slurry Pipelines, May 1, 1962,
Appendix III, p. 52.
6. Ellis, J. J. and P. Bacchetti, "Pipeline Transport of
Liquid Coal," Technology ami Use_ g_f Lignite, Bureau of
Mines, 1C 8543, 1972, pp. 15-30T
7. Wasp, E. J., "Procession Steps to Successful Slurry
Pipeline Systems," Chemical Engineering, 79,
February 7, 1972, pp. 58-62. ~~~
8. Wasp, E. J. and T. L. Thompson, "Slurry Pipelines...energy
movers of the future," The Oil and Gas Journal,
December 24, 1973, pp. 44-50.
9. "Fight Over Moving Coal by Pipeline," Business Week,
July 27, 1974, pp. 36-7. __ __
10. Aug, M., "Coal Slurry Pipeline Plant Threatens Rails Best
Hope for New Revenue," Washington Star, October 5, 1975,
p. 8. ~~~
11. Lichtenstein, G., "A Wyoming Coal Pipeline Starts New
Energy Clash," The New York Times, May 25, 1975, p. 34.
12. Rieber, Michael, S. L. Soo and J. Stukel, "The Coal Future:
Economic and Technological Analysis of Initiatives and
Innovations to Secure Fuel Supply Independence," NSF Grant
No, GI 35821(A)1, Center for Advanced Computation, The
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, CAC Document
No. 163, May 1975.
-------
13. "Flurry Over Slurry/' Forbes, 116, July 15, 1975, 44.
14. "Mine to Market Efficiency," Coal Age, 76, October 1971,
pp. 150-61.
- 25 -
-------
SECTION II
UNIT TRAINS
2.1 General.
The route specific analysis of unit trains is
principally a function of the terrain. For example, traffic
bottlenecks along routes to the west can be caused by winding
roads which reduce speed along the sections involved. As a
result, for a given rate of coal shipment, expressed in
millions of tons per year (MMTY), an increased number of
trains must be used. Alternatively, operational flexibility
can be purchased at a higher than route design cost. If
utilization decreases, rolling stock may be leased (at a
reduced rate); if it increases, additional stock may be
rented (at a premium). Increased shipments over time can
be accomplished with the same number of trains by upgrading
the road condition to accomodate higher train speeds. The
upgrading can be undertaken over an optimal time horizon
determined by a dynamic (rather than a static) analysis.
2.2 Capital Costs.
Traffic congestion along a double tracked railroad
is not a problem if the annual capacity is less than 70 MMTY.
Train spacing of one hour can be maintained assuming 105 car
trains carrying 10500 tons per train. The assumption of only
25 MMTY allows more than 2.5 hour spacing which permits ship-
ments of other commodities. We have assumed that even this
spacing calls for the building of by-passes around population
centers and the building of additional bridges and highway
crossings. On the western routes strengthening trestles and
- 27 -
-------
- 28 -
straightening some of the curves is needed to reduce the
bottlenecks. However, there are fewer towns to get around
and highways to cross than on the eastern routes. We have
used an average of 15 percent for new railroad to be built
for each route. This requires a new 300 ft. right of way
at an estimated average cost of $1000/mile. Land values may,
however, range from $300/acre in scrub areas with relatively
low population density to $2500/acre for central Illinois
farmland. Rerouting would avoid populated suburbs for the
same noise and traffic reasons that preclude the use of unit
trains through cities and towns.
Except for the facilities, distribution is not
considered an important cost factor in unit train operation.
The trains unload directly at the point of consumption.
However, we have assumed that at the gathering end the mines
may require an equivalent of 100 miles of upgraded railroad
plus fifty 125 ton trucks.
The proposed upgrading of the right of way includes
replacement, over a three year period, with 155 Ib/yd tracks
(132 Ib/yd track is currently used by the Burlington Northern)
and 6200 ties/mile. Subsequent replacement is indicated in
the replacement schedule. The steel is assumed to be carbon
steel of 0.69-0.82 percent carbon and below 0.04 percent
phosphorous (to prevent "cold" shortness) and below 0.5 percent
sulfur (to prevent "hot" shortness). This upgrading, although
charged to coal shipment alone in the present analysis, will
aid general shipments and by increasing unit train costs tends
to render our estimates and coal slurry comparisons conservative.
Replacement of all ties along a 1000 mile double tracked route
implies 47 million feet (total length) of No.5 wooden ties
(9"x7"x8.5'). These are placed on 21.5" centers. This amounts
to over one million trees per year over the three year period.
While wood ties are generally available, because of environ-
mental or other factors, they may be replaced in the long run
-------
- 29 -
by concrete ties which would be mass produced. About 800,000
tons of concrete would be needed per 1000 miles of double track.
The resiliency of concrete ties can be improved by using flyash
in the mix as in the building of airport runways. Detailed
costing, given in the previous analysis by Ferguson [1], has
been escalated for the present analysis. Here it may simply
be noted that the issue of concrete vs. wood ties is not closed.
Concrete ties are used on European and at least one southern
U.S. road, although for relatively light loads. The Canadian
National proposed to use them in the double tracking of some of
their sections. Even their failure in the Black Mesa operation
is inconclusive. There the cars used were 125 ton rather than
100 ton. Questions have been raised concerning their contact
with the roadbed and their initial condition. Finally, not all
of the concrete ties have been replaced. Wood ties have been
substituted on the curves.
The unit train routes specified in Sec. 1.1 are
detailed in Table 2.1 which shows for each route the miles of
new road needed, miles of road upgraded, plus an equivalent of
100 miles of upgraded gathering road. Bottlenecks occur when
sections of track do not permit the scheduled speeds on
upgraded track. It can be seen in Table 2.1 that the incentive
to maintain fast trains over a given route decreases as the
bottlenecks increase. This is of particular concern on the
westward routes. We have expressed the bottlenecks for the
30-60 mph (30 mph loaded and 60 mph empty return) and the
50-60 mph operation in terms of percentages of the total
distance which must be travelled at 10 mph and the corresponding
number of trains needed for the shipment of 25 MMTY of coal.
More trains increase capital costs while slower speeds increase
labor costs.
Locomotives are assumed to be 3000 hp diesel electric
costing $350,000 each. The hopper cars are 100 ton cars costing
$27,000 each. Both are in 1975 dollars. The estimates are
-------
Table 2.1
UNIT TRAIN ROUTES
Route*
New Road Upgraded
Miles Miles
(1) Farming-ton, NM to
Los Angeles, CA. 100 750
Coal: 11630 Btu/lb(dry)
8600 Btu/]±>(as
mined, 16.3% moisture)
(2) Gillette, WY to
Chicago, IL. 165 935
Coal: 10080 Btu/lb(dry)
7770-12780 Btu/lb (as
mined, 30.8% moisture)
(2a) Gillette, WY to Chicago
and on to New York. 300 1720
(3) Gillette, WY to
Houston, TX. 210 1190
Coal: 10080 Btu/lb (dry)
7770-12780 Btu/lb (as
mined, 30.8% moisture)
(4) Colstrip, MT to
Houston, TX 240 1360
Coal: 10550 Btu/lb (dry)
8600 Btu/lb (as
mined, 22.3% moisture)
(5) Colstrip, MT to
Seattle, WA. 158 892
Coal: 10550 Btu/lb (dry)
8600 Btu/lb (as
mined, 22.3% moisture)
JT^JLVt-^lJ-U.
Bottlenecks
0
10
20
0
10
20
0
10
20
0
10
20
0
10
20
0
10
20
30-60
18
24
30
22
29
36
39
52
65
28
36
44
31
41
50
21
28
34
50-60
14
21
28
17
25
34
29
44
58
21
31
42
23
35
47
16
24
32
*For each route 100 miles of upgraded gathering road has been added to give the
total distance.
- 30 -
-------
- 31 -
consistent with those provided by the Association of American
Railroads, the Burlington-Northern and the Chessie system.
The number of trains are estimated on the basis of 274 days
of operation per year with a 5 percent reserve. As an alter-
native, the railroads suggest a 10 percent car and 15 percent
locomotive reserve. The number of trains for each operation
may be compared with the national total (July 1, 1975) of
306 unit trains of which 191 or 62 percent carried coal.
Annual fixed charges are based on funding with 60
percent debt and 40 percent equity, assuming 9 percent interest
on debt and 15 percent on equity. During construction, com-
pensation by interest on uncommitted capital is available.
Depreciation for roadbed, right of way and structures is taken
over 30 years, the life of the project. However, average life
of cars may be taken at 15 years with minimal maintenance and
20 years with adequate scheduled maintenance. This implies
the scheduled purchase of new cars. Locomotives may be
expected to last the entire 30 year period, excluding obsoles-
cence. Depreciation is therefore taken over 20 years on cars
and locomotives and 30 years on other facilities. It is
assumed that additional rolling stock is purchased as necessary.
The gross difference in the treatment amounts to less than
2 percent of total costs.
If, for any reason, operations should fall below full
capacity, it would be possible to lease both cars and locomotives,
Alternatively, at over capacity, both may be leased for route
use. The former may result in as little as 50 percent capital
recovery, while the latter may result in a doubling of rolling
stock costs. Coupled with the debt burden on right of way,
which would be spread over a smaller revenue, unit costs would
be increased. We feel that our assumptions are too wide and
thus, for comparative purposes, conservative.
-------
- 32 -
A sample route and capacity specification for
Farmington to Los Angeles is shown in Tables 2.2-2.4. Here
the assumptions are full capacity, 30-60 mph speeds [2] and
no bottlenecks.
2.3 Operating Costs.
The operating costs may be summarized in terms of
fuel, labor and supplies.
The fuel is equivalent to No.2 fuel oil, although
it may be somewhat heavier. For comparison purposes, No.2
fuel oil contains 5.90 MMBtu/bbl, distillate fuel oil contains
5.96 MMBtu/bbl, and railroad diesel contains 6.06 MMBtu/bbl.
The heavier the grade, the more Btu's, the fewer the barrels
needed, and the lower is the degree of refinery severity
needed. It should be noted that the railroad-automotive
diesel range extends from about 5.6 MMBtu/bbl (44° API -
.806 sp.gr. - 7.08 bbls/ton) to almost 6.4 MMBtu/bbl (14° API -
.972 sp.gr. - 5.87 bbls/ton). We have assumed a price of
30 cents/gallon. Mid-continent spot prices for No.2 distillate
are currently 28.50-31.85 cents/gallon and for No.5 oil (Chicago,
one percent sulfur guarantee) are 29.76 cents/gallon. Spot prices
are higher than contract prices and heavier grades are cheaper
than lighter grades, hence, our estimate is high (conservative).
Fuel costs should be escalated at about 7 percent per annum.
Table 2.3 shows a sample detail of labor require-
ments for the case presented in Table 2.2. The basic procedure
in Ferguson was used for this and for the 1975 costing. It
compares closely with SRI and Burlington Northern trends.
Table 2.4 shows a sample detail of the supplies estimate for
the same case.
The average current (1975) cost, including capital,
can be accounted for by an assumed rate of 7 percent escalation
-------
Table 2.2
SAMPLE ROUTE AND CAPACITY SPECIFICATION
Route: Farmington, NM to Los Angeles, CA
(850 miles plus 100 miles gathering)
Facility Name: Coal Unit Train and Rail Line
Prijie Input: 25 million tons medium rank bituminous/year
Other Input: Electricity, diesel oil
Prime Output: 25 million tons medium rank bituminous/year
Other Output: Shipment - 30 mph loaded, 60 mph -empty (30-60)
DaysAear of Normal Operation: 274
Description and Size:
' 10,500 ton unit trains. (18 trains)
" 'Each train made up of 105 hopper cars each with a capacity
of 100 tons.
Coal storage area, feeders, conveyors, and loadout bin and
chute with loading capacity of 3,200 tons/hour.
' Round trip distance: 850 miles (100 mile gathering)
* Normal round trip cycle time: 48.5 hours.
* 5 3,000 hp diesel locomotives per train.
- 33 -
-------
Table 2.3
SAMPLE DETAIL OF LABOR REQUIREMENTS
Detail Labor
A. Nonmanual
1. Technical
Supervisors
& Managers ,60
(Executives,
foremen)
2. Nontechnical 15
(Drivers,
Dispatchers)
A.Total 75
B. Manual
1. Operating Labor
Engineers 109
Firemen, Breakmen,
Flagmen, Signalmen 540
Maintenance Labor
Electrician 60
Carpenters & masons 256
Blacksmith 24
Machinist 36
Laborer, cleaner 155
Other 350
B. Total
649
883
1532
- 34 -
-------
Table 2.4
SAMPLE DETAIL OF SUPPLIES
(Case in Table 2.2)
Detail - Supplies Million Dollars
Locomotive repair (98) 2.15
Car repair (1890) 1.80
Road and Shops and Machinery:
1. Road and Buildings:
Ties 0.62
Bridges, trestles 0.36
Building, Shops 0.20
Fence and Signals 0.05
1.23
2. Stationary 0.02
3. Chemicals and Track 0.41
4. Stone, glass, ballast 0.20
5. Metal Products:
Rail 0.20
Tools 0.01
0.84
6. Miscellaneous Supplies 0.20
7. Shop Machinery 0.15
8. Electrical Equipment 0.26
9. Roadway Machines 0.16
10. Signal and Interlock 0.30
11. Miscellaneous Repairs 0.04
12. Power, Light, Water 0.05
1.16
Total R&S&M 3.23
Total Supplies 7.18
- 35 -
-------
- 36 -
from the date of the original estimates. The confidence
level of the overall unit cost estimate is ±5 percent to
±10 percent.
2.4 Cost Analyses and Results.
Table 2.5 and notes show the basic items of costs
and resources for a specific route and for a given set of
operating parameters. Also included in the notes are the
cost base at over and under capacity.
The results of computations for specific routes
are given in the computer printouts included in the Appendix
to this section. A typical plot of curves is shown in
Figure 2.1 for various routes in dollars/ton at various
capacities and speeds of 30-60 and 50-60 mph. The analysis
shows that:
(1) Ten to twenty percent over capacity may give
a lower shipping cost than at full capacity
by increasing operating days to 328 per year
from 274 days per year. This means, however,
operation without reserve and cannot be
sustained over a long duration. Traffic
problems involving other commodities may also
be expected.
(2) With more than 10 percent of 10 mph bottlenecks
along the road, there is no incentive to operate
the road at 50 mph loaded rather than 30 mph
loaded for a shipment of 25 MMTY.
(3) As long as the road condition is upgraded to
sustain a 50-60 mph operation, an increase in
capacity can be achieved by leasing additional
-------
Table 2.5
Basic Items
Costs and Resources
(costs in million dollars)
25 MMTY - miles one way, HV Btu/lb
Route: ; -60; % bottlenecks; ±_ % Capacity
Actual tonnage: 25 MMTY(1 ± % Capacity)
CAPITAL COSTS:
Road
Gathering at mines, trucks & hoppers 15.5 (1)
New right of way (2)
New road (3)
Upgraded (4)
Equipment
Locomotives & cars _____ (5)
Loading & maintenance facilities _____ (6)
Total capital costs, sum (1) through (6) (7)
ANNUAL FIXED CHARGE ON DEBT:
Average rate base (8)
Debt retirement (9)
Federal Tax (10)
Depreciation (11)
Total annual fixed charge on
debt, sum of (9) (10) (11) (12)
OPERATING COSTS:
Fuel costs (13)
Labor costs (14)
Supplies costs _____ (15)
Total operating cost, sum of (13) (14) (15) (16)
Total annual cost, sum of (12) and (16) (17)
UNIT COSTS:
Dollars/ton = (17)/Actual MVEFY (18)
Cents/ton-mile = 100 • (18)/(miles one way) (19)
Cents/MMBtu = (18) 105/2 (HV) (20)
Cents/ftMBtu-mile = (20)/(miles one way) (21)
- 37 -
-------
Table 2.5 Continued
ENERGY REQUIREMENTS:
Locomotives hp (22)
Million bbl of fuel (23)
Steel required: cars (24)
locomotives (25)
rails (26)
Options: wood, ties, feet (27)
concrete, ties, tons (28)
EMPLOYMENT:
Railroad (29)
Capital per worker (30)
Related industries (31)
Notes:
(1) Based on 125 ton trucks at $300,000 each.
(2) 300' wide right of way to bypass cities or to straighten out curves.
(3) Include bypass of towns, crossing, bridges in eastward shipments;
less of these in westward routes but straightening of winding ways
and trestles will balance out costs.
(3), (4) Include 6200 ties per milep wood or concrete.
(9) 30 year amortization, 60% debt and 40% equity? 9% interest on debt
and 15% on equity. Inflation rate may be used for cost escalation.
During construction, compensation by interest on uncommitted
capital is expected.
(13) 30$ per gallon escalation at 7% per annum.
(14) 40% operating, 55% maintenance, for 30-60 miles per hour.
37% operating, 58% maintenance, for 50-60 mph operation.
5% administration.
(15) 45% on road, 30% on locomotives, 25% on cars for 30-60.
48% on road, 33% on locomotives, 20% on cars for 50-60.
Operating at reduced capacity of -20, -40, -60% include leasing out of
equipment, recover conservatively % of the capital cost and full cost of
maintenance and lay-off of 15, 30, and 45% of labor force.
Operating at over capacity:
4-20% work 328 days with same equipment, increase maintenance plus
overtime. This generally will lead to more economical operation
momentarily but without reserve.
+40% include renting of equipment at double of own cost plus overtime
on labor.
- 38 -
-------
- 39 -
locomotives alone. By increasing the number
of locomotives by 140 percent in the case of
10 percent bottlenecks at 10 mph, the freight
hauled can be increased to 117 percent with
the same number of days of operation, and to
140 percent by working 328 days/yr. No addi-
tional cars are needed. Thus, the increase in
capacity can be achieved by obtaining the best
cost balance between cars and locomotives or
for locomotives alone.
(4) The flexibility of rails is seen in that the
costs in dollars/ton vary over 15 percent
between the present 80 percent and 140 percent
capacity levels.
(5) Increasing capacity from 5 to 25 MMTY over a
1000-mile two-way route is readily achieved
in 3 years by scheduling such as:
No. of Poad Condition
Trains (Average) MMTY
First year 8 65 percent 10 mph,
the rest 40 mph 5
Second year 12 25 percent 10 mph,
the rest 40 mph 12
Third year 20 100 percent
average 40 mph 25
There is an optimum time schedule for upgrading
the road and simultaneously upgrading the fleet
of trains for a specific system. Such an optimum
can be determined in a future study. Such
scheduling prevents costs from increasing unevenly.
-------
- 40 -
The choice of 30-60 or 50-60 miles per hour is a
matter of balance of locomotive cost to car cost as well as
labor cost. For a 105 car unit train, the break even is at
a ratio of 1.53 in the number of trains at 30-60 mph to that
of 50-60 mph based on the costs of locomotives and cars only.
This ratio is rarely achieved, but the net saving in labor
decreases this ratio to 1.17. Figures 2.1(a) to (c) further
shows the effect of low speed bottlenecks, of say 10 mph. For
shipment to the west coast, it can be seen that 50-60 mph does
not have a great deal of cost advantage over a 30-60 mph rate.
Prominent in the cost of 50-60 mph operation is the
cost of locomotives. This suggests that there is nothing
sacred about 3000 hp or 3500 hp as a standard capacity for
locomotives. For unit trains, the preferred single locomotive
capacity would be at the 10,000 hp level and the number required
would be about two for 30-60 and four for 50-60 mph operation.
This is a desirable development toward the utilization of
higher speeds (50-60) achieving greater saving at such speeds.
Some trend can be seen in the unit costs, in cents/
ton-mile on various routes. Figure 2.2 shows that, because of
the inclusion of 15 percent new railroad line, this cost
increases with distance and the bottleneck percentage along
the road. The increase is prominent for distances over 1100
miles. This differs from the cost of the single upgrading mode
discussed in earlier studies [1-3], which showed that the
cost in cents/ton-mile is nearly constant for distances over
500 miles. Both Figure 2.1(b) and Figure 2.2 show that shipment
over a distance and route such as that from Wyoming to New York
is hardly practical.
In Figures 2.1 and 2.2, multipliers are included to
give unit costs in dollars/MMBtu (million Btu) and cents/MMBtu-
mile on a 'dry1 (D) as well as an 'as mined' (M) basis. Coal,
-------
10
FARMINGTON TO L.A. 850 MILES
30 - 60
50-60
.043 TO OBTAIN $/MMBTU (DRY)
OBTAIN $/MMBTU (AS MINED)
10 MPH BOTTLENECK
40
60
80 100
% CAPACITY
16
14
12
10 -
8 -
40
I I
GILLETTE, WY. TO HOUSTON 1400 MILES
30 - 60
x 50-60
xO.0496 TO OBTAIN $/MMBTU (DRY)
xO.064 TO OBTAIN $/MMBTU (AS MINED)
10 MPH BOTTLENECK
20*
10X
^ 0%
60
80 100
* CAPACITY
120 140
FIGURE 2.1(a) UNIT COSTS AT VARIOUS CAPACITIES - UNIT TRAIN
-------
24
30-60
--- 50 - 60
(DRY)
.0496 TO OBTAIN $/MMBTU
OBTAIN $/MMBTU (AS MINED)
22
10 MPH
BOTTLENECKS
20X
oc
o
60
80 100
% CAPACITY
120 140
FIGURE 2.1(b) UNIT COST AT VARIOUS CAPACITIES - UNIT TRAINS
-------
30 - 60
50 - 60
xO.0474 TO OBTAIN $/MMBTU (DRY)
\ xO.0582 TO OBTAIN $/MMBTU (AS MINED)
CO
8
10
8 -
5
CO
CO
X CAPACITY
FIGURE 2.1(c) UNIT COSTS AT VARIOUS CAPACITIES - UNIT TRAINS
-------
i I TON MILS
o
•
en
o
*
<3\
O
•
00
o
ro
o
o
o
CO
o
o
o
o
C/i
ro
8
o
FARMIN6TON TO L.A.
xO.043 TO */W8TU - MILE (DRY)
xo.058 TO t/vmn - MILE (AS MIMED)
COLSTRIP TO SEATTLE xO.0474 (D)
xO.0582 (M)
GILLETTE TO CHICAGO xO.0496 (D)
xO.064 (M)
GILLETTE TO HOUSTON xO.0496 (D)
xO.064 (M)
COLSTRIP TO HOUSTON xO.0474 (D)
xO.0582 (M)
COLSTRIP TO HOUSTON TO N.Y.C.
xO.0474 (D) xO.0582 (M)
-------
§
CD
c
•jo
m
rv>
CO
o
O
O
o
-o
m
C»
rs>
RR EMPLOYMENT
EMPLOYMENT
RELATED IND.
£
8
8
o
o
8
FAJWINGTON
COLSTRIP TO SEATTLE
GILLETTE TO CHICAGO
COLSTRIP TO HOUSTON
GILLETTE TO HOUSTON
-------
- 46 -
as mined, may contain up to 30 percent moisture, depending on
the particular mine. During above ground storage and shipment,
moisture may be lost by evaporation. It may also be gained by
exposure. Therefore both bases are given for comparison. Much
depends upon the moisture content of the coal prior to loading
onto the unit train.
Items included in the utilization of resources are
employment, fuels, and materials. Figure 2.3 shows the level
of employment for various modes of operation of unit trains
for shipping 25 MMTY over various routes and the employment in
related industries needed to sustain such an operation. Note
that if all routes under consideration are activated, the
increase in employment due to the unit train operation alone
would be over 30,000, not counting those required for upgrading
which would be at the 15,000 level, over a 3-year period. Other
data from the Appendix, on various resource commitments, are
shown in Figure 2.4. Of particular interest is timber consump-
tion if wooden ties are used in replacement. This amount to
the cutting of one million firs per year, over three years,
for each 1000 miles of double track road. If concrete ties
are used, there is a significant indirect fuel requirement.
Together with other uses, a round figure would be one million
tons of concrete per thousand miles of road, or three hundred
thousand tons of cement. The steel committed for complete
upgrading, especially the bulk of the rails, is subject to
recycling in the course of replacement. Full consideration of
resource needs confirms the previously mentioned desirability
of an overall time dependent supply analysis designed to avoid
shortages and uneven demand schedules.
-------
1.5
Ul
STEEL AT COMPLETE UPGRADING
1.0
to
o
0.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
4
3
2
1
0
OR CONCRETE
TIMBER
FUEL MILLION BBL PER YEAR
1 0 a:
1 • u uj
CO
co
o
0.5
800 1006
1296
1400
MILES
1600 1800
2000
FIGURE 2.4 RESOURCE COMMITMENT
-------
- 48 -
2.5 Additional Considerations.
2.5.1 Unit Train Characteristics. According to the
Assocation of American Railroads, based on a sample of 191 unit
coal trains operating on July 1, 1975, about 60 percent of
these trains operate under contracts of 10 years or longer. A
minimum annual tonnage requirement is specified for 80 percent
of the trains. As a whole, these trains carry about 168 MTY
of coal or about 73 billion ton miles. The average load is
877,000 T/Y/train; the highest being about 5.6 MTY. Average
yearly train mileage is estimated to be 90,000 miles/year with
235,000 the maximum. Individual car mileages are somewhat
lower due to out of service maintenance and repair time. The
average round trip distance may be estimated at 1226 miles
with a maximum of 2944 miles. An average of 86 cars makes up
a train with a maximum of 131. Most of the cars are designed
for 100 ton capacity. The average train payload is estimated
to be 8502 tons with a maximum of 13,100 tons. Excluding an
unknown number of spare cars to provide maintenance time, the
191 trains required 16,392 cars. Of these, 68 percent were
open top hopper cars and 32 percent were high side gondolas.
Hopper cars were 68 percent railroad and 32 percent owned or
leased by others. The gondola cars were 39 percent railroad
and 61 percent owned or leased by others. The railroad owned
hopper and gondola cars were, respectively, 93 and 100 percent
in dedicated service; all of the other leased and owned cars
were in dedicated service. However, only 19 percent of the
trains had dedicated power. Maximum operating speeds ranged
from 25-60 mph empty and 10-60 mph loaded.
2.5.2 Car Requirements. While the ownership data
would seem to imply that the less specialized cars are left
for non-railroad lessors and owners, the sheer numbers suggest
that, particularly as the number of unit coal trains have
-------
- 49 -
accelerated recently, car and steel shortages may be a problem
in future expansion.
The railroads have claimed that the shortage in hopper
cars beginning in 1973 was at least partly due to accelerated
scrapping schedules in 1972-3. At that time, due to a decline
in coal traffic, a reported 25-30,000 car surplus existed.
While of historic interest, this is not entirely germane. What
counts is the ability of the railroads to obtain sufficient
cars to haul anticipated coal. In this, hopper and gondola
cars compete with backlog orders of other cars. This is true
whether the cars are purchased (e.g., from Pullman-Standard
and/or Bethlehem Steel) or are built in the railroads' own work-
shops. Given a three year build-up period (from 1976), recession
or slow general growth (which slows orders for other cars), and
the more than 17,850 new hopper cars delivered between January
1974 and August 1975, it does not appear that car shortages will
be critical to coal development. Similarly, there does not
appear to be a potential shortage of locomotives. Both numbers
and horsepower have been increasing.
The total car situation, based on Association of
American Railroads data for December 1, 1975, was as follows:
Serviceable
Owned
328403
160132
Heavy Bad
Order
13542
13616
Total
341945
173748
Open Hopper
Gondola
Total 488535 27158 515693
Forecast needs for hopper and gondola cars have been
estimated by the American Railway Car Institute, "Long-Term
Freight Car Forecast, 1980/1985." Unfortunately, the estimates
are based primarily on GNP assumptions rather than estimates of
potential specific demand. For coal this is apt to lead to a
-------
- 50 -
low estimate. However, since the coal tonnage is supplied in
the estimates, a handle on car needs with respect to other
scenarios can be estimated. The study estimates that coal
carried on Class I railroads was 390.0 MMT in 1974 and will be
555 MMT and 655 MMT (net) per year in 1980 and. 1985, respectively.
Recent FEA estimates for 1980 and 1985 are 799 MMT and 1039 MMT,
respectively. The average capacity of hopper cars is expected
to rise from 78.5 tons in 1974 to 90.0 tons in 1980 and 95.4
tons in 1985. The respective figures for gondola cars are:
80.3 tons, 88.5 tons, and 95.8 tons. This growth reflects
primarily the scrapping of older smaller cars and replacement
with the 100 ton variety. It does indicate that progressively
more coal can be carried without proportionately lengthening
trains or increasing the number of cars.
The 1975 adjusted age distribution of open hopper
cars is reported to be 29 percent less than 10 years old,
39 percent 11-20 years old, 22 percent 21-30 years old, 9 per-
cent 31-40 years old and 1 percent over 40 years old. Gondola
cars show a similar distribution but with more cluster in the
21-30 year category. Thus, our cost estimates based on a
20-year retirement cycle is conservative (high cost) compared
to practice. Of the 357,000 hopper cars forming the basis for
the distribution, 82,000 are expected to be retired and/or
destroyed between 1975 and 1980. A total of 94,000 more will
be retired and destroyed from 1981-1985. Thus, of the
357,000 hopper cars, 49 percent will be permanently out of
service by 1985. For gondola cars, the similar comparison is
187,000 cars initially with a total of 105,000 or 56 percent
permanently out of service by 1985. To carry the same coal
traffic, however, it should again be pointed out that increasing
car size reduces the number of cars needed. Some forecast
results for both open hopper and open gondola cars (both
potential coal carriers) are provided in Table 2.6. Again it
-------
Table 2.6
Estimated Car Requirements
1974
1980
1985
H*
Tons Originated (10 )
Car Capacity (tons)
Load Factor (%)
Average Tons/Car
Serviceable Cars
Required (000)
Actual Fleet (000)
612.3
78,
96,
75.6
294
357
Fleet Required (12/31/80 and
12/31/85)(000)
New Car Demand 1975/80,
1981/85 (000)
New Car Demand per
year (000)
1980 and 1985 Forecasts
(GNP basis)
Lew (000)
Control (000)
High (000)
*Hopper cars
**Gondola cars
G**
197.9
80.3
82.3
66.1
150
187
H
780.1
90.0
95.0
85.5
326
383
18.2
H
224.4
88.5
85.5
75.7
143
169
891.0
95.4
95.0
90.6
333
392
5.5
20.6
237.6
95.8
90.8
87.0
120
141
383.4 168.5 392.2 141.5
109.3 33.1 103.1 27.5
5.5
Source:
Forecast, 1980/1985 (1973).
15.1 4.6 20.6
18.2 5.5 20.6
22.2 6.7 21.4
, Long-Term Freight
5.5
5.5
5.7
Car
- 51 -
-------
- 52 -
must be noted that these estimates are GNP based. Additionally,
they were developed in 1973. The above estimates were based
on assumptions concerning retirements, the age distribution of
the current fleet, load factors, size, utilization, prediction
of 555 MTY and 655 MTY of coal moved in 1980 and 1985 respectively,
and a mix of commodities which use gondolas and open hopper cars.
As noted above, FEA estimates of coal produced in 1980 and 1985
are 799 MTY and 1039 MTY, respectively. Not all will be moved
by rail. If we assume to be conservative (high) that 90 percent
will be moved by rail, then coal rail movements will be 30
percent more in 1980 and 43 percent more in 1985 than those
predictions which formed the basis for this estimate. If we
further assume that all other uses of gondola and hopper cars
are GNP based, that these were estimated correctly, and that
they constitute 37 percent of the use of both types of cars in
1980 and 52 percent in 1985, then the estimated total of these
cars used for coal in 1980 and 1985 based on the GNP estimates
will be 347,700 and 256,200. The reduced number in 1985 reflects
increased average car size, utilization and load factors.
Inflating the coal fleet proportionately to meet the FEA estimates,
suggest a fleet size for coal of 452,000 cars in 1980 and
366,400 in 1985. To this may be added 204,200 and 277,500 in
each year, used for other service. This results in a required
fleet estimate (gondolas and hoppers) of 20 percent more than
the tabled estimate. Because retirements can be delayed, this
need not be directly translated into new car demand forecasts.
\
2.5.3 Track Upgrading. In addition to car and loco-
motive requirements, resources will be required to upgrade and
maintain the railroads. These have been noted in previous
subsections. The diversity of railway track materials may
be found in the Steel Products Manual of these materials published
by the American Iron and Steel Institute (October 1975). The
-------
- 53 -
physica] condition of the railroads was the subject of a
recent (November 1975) study by U.S. Comptroller General,
"Information Available on Estimated Costs to Rehabilitate
the Nation's Railroad Track and a Summary of Federal Assistance
to the Industry," Report to the Subcommittee on Federal Spending
Practices, Efficiency, and Open Government, Committee on
Government Operations, U.S. Senate. After reviewing recent
studies by the Federal Railway Association, the Interstate
Commerce Commission, the Association of American Railroads,
and the U.S. Railway Association, it is concluded that, "No
comprehensive studies existed which objectively and quantita-
tively described the existing condition of track on a nation-
wide basis. None of the available cost estimates to repair
or replace deteriorated track provided a complete, reliable
assessment of the long-term financial resources that might be
required...". While the problem areas appear to be northeastern
and midwestern, in general, to be done properly, the analysis
must be on a system by system basis. To the extent that a
given movement covers more than one system, an evaluation of
condition must be made for all.
2.5.4 The Steel Interface. Between the forecast
demand for new cars and the necessity of rail upgrading, a
considerable burden will be placed on the steel industry. This
is the subject of a current General Accounting Office study.
The results should be available in 3-4 months. An earlier
study (March 1975) prepared by the Association of American
Railroads," Report on Steel in Relation to Railroad Needs,"
came to the following conclusions.
(1) Despite recent improvements in track and car
deliveries, shortages exist in forgings, castings,
plate and track materials.
-------
- 54 -
(2) Locomotive parts and wheels are in particularly
short supply.
(3) The five overage mills supplying track are
particularly critical,
(4) Lead time status in 1975 had risen by 67 percent
for freight car material (6.75 weeks normal
average), by 121 percent for maintenance of
right of way material (14.75 weeks normal average),
and 105 percent for miscellaneous items (5.44
weeks normal average). Only locomotive material,
4.4 week normal average, remained constant.
(5) At least part of the problem is steel industry
inputs. Another is erratic railroad demand.
(6) FEA Project Independence estimates of rail
industry steel requirements by 1985 are 10.7
million tons, or about one third of the total
amount needed for transportation alone. No
shortages of hopper cars or locomotives are
anticipated but particular parts may be in
short supply.
(7) Competition among suppliers is low. There are
two locomotive companies, three U.S. rail
producers (plus two more embargoed Canadian
producers), six domestic wheel sources, eighteen
car companies (in addition to the ten railroads
that build some of their own) and a large number
of producers of foundry products, car and loco-
motive parts, and producers of miscellany.
-------
- 55 -
The steel industry is not known for its speed,
adaptability, or as the cutting edge of technology. Given
the age of the industry, it is probable that environmental
regulations will tend to reduce overall output over the
short-term. While a slow growth in GNP would relieve some
of the competitive demand for steel, it would also reduce the
demand for railroad equipment, though not necessarily for coal
carrying equipment. In the short-term, critical shortages,
known in advance, could be handled by imports, though at a
higher price. Furthermore, aluminum sided cars could spread
the impact across two industries. These cars have been in
service since 1960. They have a higher initial cost and,
apparently, a shorter life. Against this must be placed their
saving in weight. This can be translated into fuel savings
which increase with distance, tons carried, and the increasing
price of diesel oil. For average runs, the weight saving is
on the order of 8-10 percent. Other savings can be achieved
through standardization of specifications, negotiation with
respect to standards and cooperative buying and demand forecasts.
2.5.5 Labor Requirements. Unit trains need not be
crewed at the same level as general freight. An early study [4]
pointed out the elimination of associated labor in yards,
switching, accounting and administration. In addition they
indicate potential crew change savings due to a reduction in
trip time. The possibility of crew reduction from five members
to total automation is also explored. Given the added costs
required for safety equipment, this last seems improbable except
on special, unimpeded, runs. However, a shift from 5 to 3 crew
members per train crew does not appear unwarranted.
2.5.6 Environment. Noise, route density, dirt, land
alienation, and aesthetics are the principal environmental
hazards. Excluding aesthetics, we have accounted for both noise
-------
- 56 -
and route density by assuming double tracking and route
diversion. This involves land alienation. The data are
provided in earlier subsections. The range of land values
may be inferred from Section I. It must be noted, however,
that railroad utilization is total, pipelines and transmission
lines have only easements. However, a railroad corridor
could be used for other transport modes.
-------
REFERENCES
Section II
1. Ferguson, A. J., "Unit Train Transportation of Coal,"
Appendix E of M. Rieber, S. L. Soo and J. Stukel, The
Coal Future, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
CAC Document No. 163, May 1975.
2. Soo, S. L. and L. Ballard, "Cost of Transportation of
Coal: Rail vs. Slurry Pipeline," in Appendix F of
M. Rieber, S. L. Soo and J. Stukel, The Coal Future,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, CAC Document
No. 163, May 1975.
3. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, "Unit
Train Transportation of Coal," 1C 8444 (1970).
4. Railway Systems and Management Association, Unit Train
Operations, January 1967.
- 57 -
-------
APPENDIX SECTION 2
UNIT TRAINS
COSTS AND RESOURCES FOR UNIT TRAIN TRANSPORTATION
-------
COSTS AND RESOURCES I-OK U/JIT THAIN TKANSPOKTATIUN
MILLION DOLLARS - 25 MMTY
ROUTE N i, FARMINGTON . LA
"-- SPEPO 3<",0 M/H
NUMBER OF TRAINS 18,0
850.0 MILES
CAPITAL COSTS-
ANNUAL FIXED
CHARGE ON Dt'HT
•OPERATING COSTS* UNIT COSTS
ENERGY
REQUIREMENTS
STtEL KEQUlRtO '- EMPLOYMENT
TRUCKS 15.5" AV, -PATE BASE 313.8" FUEL 14,5" j>/iu>« n.-j- uui-u. ei.j .*,,•...••
ROAMHfcO 516,1" UKHT RfENT. iH.9* [ABOR ,/6
FUEL REQUlREMfcNIS n.^9 Hf'6H
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 1333
-_60 ,
CH A_NGE_ _I N_ OPcR _AJ_ION_».S_Pe_EO_ 30.0-60, M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 19.?
TOTAL Af'MilAL COST 87±3
U^IT COST S/TON " " e,73
U'JIT COST f/TON -MILE l.'^3
FUEL Pt'JUIRtMENTS Pl,a& M(!R3
TOTAL, EMPLOYMENT 948
-------
20.0% CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 30.0-6U,
TOTAL OPERATING COST" 55.?
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 124.9
UNIT COST I/TOM 4.16
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE P.49
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1«33 MML'B"
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 2350
40,0% CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 30.0-63, JVj
TOTAL OPERATING COST 63.9
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 17 J, (* _
- UNIT COST I/TON 4.94 ~
UNIT COST r/TON -MILE tf.se
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1,61 MMUH
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT srs;? .
FULL CAPACITY OPERATION - SPEED 30,0 M/H LOADED,60 M/H UNLOADED
NUMBER OF TRAINS ?a,0
a» w> a «MiBiw«ia>CT««aBa0«» «"•> •»aowB»i«i»«Ba»«-«ftnc'»^"" «• •» ,„ ™ « B» a m «• v M •» w » TO~™ '•'«•«•*••«»<*<•
CAPITAL COSTS" ANNUAL FIXER "OPERATING COSTS' UNIT COSTS - ENERGY - STEEL KHuUIRED ~ EMPLOYMENT ;
CHARGE ON OEhT - - REQUIREMENTS ' ~
"w B twi«i«so«»«cWoi«> »t^^,»i«»»^i<"«»a^»o"«"™^™"«^^"»t*««a"i«»oia« •»"»« •»*••"•» ~^~i» w~v •w«^«M^wweooj"^^"''"^«*'«*"a=1«*""'"^''«"~'Bt^'<'*m"l'»"*t"^^^^—"*^""la^***o1*(B***e*^*^^'"*^"*"*™"*^"*'*
TRiiC\S 15 5" AV. 'RATF BAS^ j5?9.9° FIIFL 14.5 "S/TON 5.10~LOCO« 3780^0, HHP " C^I-'S /bhpi^.a T." KK 141'I
ROAPBto Sil:?- riti^T RMEMT, at^g- LARHP gajs -C/T-M Pi>a"FUEL MB. i.Is " LOCO I9i5?,o T.- CAP/WOHK e.^sa.
EQUIP. laali- FED, TAX 11.5- SUPPLY elb "I/MBTU 2l>a" " RAIL 4bt?5si..i T,- KEL INO. bo^;
" OEPPECIATION ?5.2" "
__„». «.»-«,.._ „„„_„„- = .-..-------•.••-•.»------o--------------«~-----'=»---'1--»"------"«"- = --------"'~'~---~~-""'""*'~"~*~™"'"°'
TOTAL 659,7 " TOTAL /_5_. 6 ^JTOTAL. 5_U9__^ ^ "__1DJAL 54950?.M T." TOTAL
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 127,4 " " COKCRETt 7fe55iP1H.0 T
" """ 4479099R.0 FT
TOTAL OPERAIlwb CCST
TOTAL A-.'MJAL COST '
UNIT COST S/TON
UNIT COST t/TON -MILE
FUEL REQUIREMENTS e.
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
45,9
CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPECD" 30,0-bd
TOTAL OPERATING COST
T OTA L~A N NI t A L "C 0 S T
COST S/TON
UNIT COST (/TON -MILE
FUEL REQUIREMENTS «,
^
34,0
1 V> d , Q~
7,10
B.63
MMBH
-------
-60.I9X CHANCE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 30.0*60. H/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TON
UNIT C03T--t/Tt)N-wf«IUf
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 0.16
TOTAU EMPLOYMENT 119*
23.6
"4.5
9.05
IN-ef»EHA.rK>* ,SPEED
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TON
U*IT COST I/TON «MI
FUEL REQUIREMENTS ly
-TtJTAtre*PtO -
65.1
t<4<*.7
CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPtED 30.0-60,
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL AK'NiUAl COST
UNIT COST S/TPM
UNIT TOST t/TQ»^ -NILE
FUEL HEOdlfitMt^TS 1 61 T-M
EMPLOYMENT
7».a
9?.if
5.53
T
u>
FULL CAPACITY OPERATION . SPEEO 30,0 ^/H LOAOEO>60 M/H HNLOA060
30.V
CAPiTAL COSTS; c*;^Lpf:l|«FnT ^PERAT^G COSTS;. UNITCOSTS : . „„«:««*„„
TRUCKS 15.5" AV. HATfc BASf
ROAOBfcO 516.1" filht o«FK.'T.
FUEL
LABOR
SUPPLY
t.5 "S/TON S.feS^LOCO. 472^055.0
' STtEL
a^^^^ae^osc
; C*RS
• PAH
- EMPLOYMENT
TOTAL 691.7 ~ TOTAL ~ 79.5 __.
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 1«0,7
* TOTAL 5/Si9l?^(B t.~ TOTAL"
T
FT
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
-Uf-'IT COST 5/TON
UNIT COST [/TON -MJLE
FUEL RECuWitNTS ^.
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
r.
6.i»
0.7%
-------
-40,0X CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 30.0-64), M/H
COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST
115.9
7.73
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE B.VI
FUEL- REQUIREMENTS—0T69-MMBB-
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 2031
-60,0X CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 30.0-60. M/H
-TOT A1r-OPE*ATTNG-CtrST ?
TOTAL ANNUAL COST U*
UNIT COST S/TON J»
UNIT COST t/TON -MILE 1.20
-FU EL~R£ QUIRE ME t*TS 0.46 Mffrtr-
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 1645
1.7
J7
20,0% CHANGE IN OPERATION ^PEED 3B,g-6g, M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 77,0
TOTAL ANNUAL COST l5fe,5
"J—UNIT COST'S/TON 5,2?-
UMT COST f/TON -MILE IS.61
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1,38 MMBB
IAL EMPLOYMENT
3646
H
CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 30,0-60, M/H
TO
13.8
TOTAL ANNUAL COST f-'U.o
UNIT COST S/TON 6.11
UNIT COST t/TON -MILE B.72
-FUEL—REQUIREMENTS—rr&r-WBRr-
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 4365
FULL CAPACITY OPERATION - SPEED 5^,0 M/H LOADED,60 M/H UNLOADED
NUMBER OF TRAINS 14.0
CHAHGC ON OtHT
--ENEKBY-
REQUIREMENTS
TRUCKS
tOUIP.
CKS _ 15.5- Ay RATE PASE 32?.9- Fl'EL ib±l "S/TON 4.59^LOCO. 5?9gCg.0HP ^
IP. IHji; FEO. .TAX ' * 111?; SUPPLY O 2I/MBTU 19«72Z * ' I
CARS
RAIL
T," RR
FiT~--C-AP-/HO«K 0.-
-------
CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPE€O-5»7fl"60, M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 33.7
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 106,1
UNIT C03T S/Ti-JN 5.31
UNIT COST t/T'JM -MILE a.62
FUEU REtHlTPEMEMS l.f"3 MMBB
"TOTAL"" EMPLOYMENT 1579
TOTAU OPERATING COST 26,5
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 97,6
UNIT COST S/TOM 6,51
"in IT COST" [/TOM--MICE:—0.77-
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 3,77 MMBB
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 1294
CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50,0-60, M/H
-60.0% CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50,0-6^,
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL" ANNUAL" COST"
UNIT COST I/TON
UNIT CrtST [/TON -MILE
FUFL REQUIHEMtNTS 0.51 MMBB
"TOTAL" EMPLOY nENI --------- "925T
,
8B."1~
8.81
1.5)4
H
U1
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TfJN
— UNIT -COST" 'I/TON-' "KILE
FUEL REMUlRtMfcNTS 1.54 iviMBB
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 22/8
51,0
124.9
a, 16
20,0X CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50.0-60, M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TON
iJMIT COST [/TON -MILE
FUEL RFriJlKF-MENTS 1,79
TOTAL EMPLOYMgNT
6t,2
173,7
1.96
-------
,-fi - My H-LOADED/60-M/H—ONLOADtO
NUMBER OF TRAINS 21.1
CAPITAL CnSTS"
TRUCKs
ROAl'btO
EOUIP.
TOTAL
T 5". 5—
516.1-
171. 2~
702,9 ~
M
ANNUAL FIXf-n
CHARGE ON DF.MT
«V^ — R-ATp-RASf
DEHT RMENT.
FEO. TAX
DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
TOTAL
"""351.4
4*. 6
1?.2
25.1
a0.9
ANNUAL
"OPERATING COSTS" UNIT COSTS " ENERGY " STEEL
" REQUIREMENTS
"- TO EL lf>
" LABOR 30
~ SUPPLY 6
" TOTAL
COST
53
134,
VI "J7TGN —
.9 ;C/T-M
.1 "
0
P*e>3"FUEL*MB. 1,^8 ~ LOCU
23.^4^ ^ RAIL
" TOTAL
" CONCRfc
" TIMHEH
HEfouiRfcO " EMPLOYMENT "
'J (V 1 9 1 2 T I " C A P / i'l f) R K 1 . 3 4 "
4b4/53,0 T." XEL INU, bjitt"
561119.2 I," TOTAL 2*>9r-
TE 76'it5^t5 ,0 T
4479U9S0.0 FT
-20,0% CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50.0-60, M/H
"TOTAL"" OPERA TING "COST a 4.K
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 122,6
UNIT COST S/TON 6,14
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE 0.7?
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 3,«fl3 MMPB
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 2196
CHANGE IN OPERATION ySPEEO 50.0-60. M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
--
34,9
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE 0.88
FUEL REQUIREMENTS B,77 MMBB
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 1799
-60.3% CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 5E,0-b0. M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST ?.1,t
TOTAL ANNUAL COST . SB,9
"UNIT COST S/TON " "VV69
UNIT COST (/TUN -MILE 1.16
FUEL REQUIREMENTS M,51 M.^bB
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 127B
20,05C CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50,0-60, M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST hft.8
TOTAL ANNUAL CCJST 1^7.7
UNIT COST 5/TON 4,
-------
qg.BX CHANGE IN OPERATION _., 5PEE_p_50ia-6eij_JV^L
TOTAL OPERATING COST G?,5
TOTAL ANNUAL COST ?f^,b
"UNIT COST 5/TON 5.81-
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE B.6B
FUEL REQUlRErttNTS i.79
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
FULL CAPACITY OPERATION - SPEED 50,PI M/H LQADEQ,60 M/H UNLOADED
NUMBER OF TRAINS aa.0 _
CAPITAL
TRUCKS
ROADBED
EOUIP,
COSTS"
52.8l3^
ANNUAL f-JXEn "OPERATING
CHARGE ON DEHT
Ay, «ATF BASE 3£-FUEL*
1 058400, 0HP
-
STtfc'L REQUIRED
CARS B B t1 B P , {?
LOCO ^3fr^S,t<
-
l|:
EMPLOYMENT
MR 2 7 a
CAP/wO
-------
- CHANGE— 1N"~OPERATION ^"SPEED 50-,0-6T).~M/H
TOTAL OPERATING cosr as.
TOTAL ANNUAL COST - I / Pi.
UNIT COST S/TON ^.6
UNIT COST f/TON -MILE. 0 . fe 7
FUEL REQUIREMENTS I.b4
TOTAL" EMPLOYMENT
40,0X CHANGE IN OPEPATION ,SPEED 50,0-60. M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST
-TQT»I-ANNUAU- COST
UNIT COST S/TUN fc.h7
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE tJ.78
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1,79 MM^tf
"TOTAL—EMPLOYMENT 497fl~
COSTS AND HESOURCfcS FOR UNITTRAIN
MILLION DOLLARS - 25 MMTY
ROUTE N ?, GILLETTE - CHICAGO 110M.B JULES °°
FULU-tAPACITY-OPEKATiON T SPEED 3Pi,Pi M/H LOAOEO,6!" M/H UNLOADED
NUMBER OK TRAINS 22,0
CAPITAL COSTS" ANNUAL FIXF.D "OPERATING COSTS" UNIT COSTS " ENERGY " STPEL KEQUIREO " EMPLOYMENT
CHARGE ON PEHT " " REQUIREMENTS " ~
" C«RS
. " L^CO
FED, TAX i?.fe* SUPPLY IB, a -C/MBTU 29:pir - RAIL 5»6b0?i,cj T.- HEL INO.
OEPRf-CIATION SS.4" * - -
-Rtt---b-— - — -i-T- ,-' ,
ROAPBfcO 594. S" DEPT RMENT. 4S.1" LABOR 34.1 "C/T-M 0.b3"FUEL MB, 1,49 " L^CO \Ti5t,. \e 1." CAP/WORK
EQUIP. H7j4- FED, TAX i?.fe* SUPPLY IB, a -C/MBTU 29:pir
" " *
TOTAL 737.7 " TOTAL 83.1" TOTAL 63,1 " " TOTAL h75356,H T." TOTAL
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 146.2 « - - cONCHtTE 9900H0.0 T
" TIMBER b7S700a0.S FT
-20,0X CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 30,0-60, M/H
-TOTAf OPERATING "COST 5?.-2~
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 133.9
UNIT COST J/TON fc.69
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE <5. M
FUEL REQUlREKfcNTS-"1,l9 nMO»-
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 2399
-------
_-40.0X CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 3E.3-60,
TOTAL OPERATING COST M.3
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 121,5
"UNIT COST S/TON- b". 18-
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE H.74
FUEL SEDUlREf.tNTS M.SB MMHH
TOTAL EMPLOYMtNT 197P
-60.0* CHANGE IN OPERATION ,5PEEO 30,0-60. M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 2^.7
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 1^7.5
-UNIT COST S/TON 1-CI-.75-
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE ti.^B
FUEL REQUIRtMtNTS P.bfc MMBH
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
vo
20.0X CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEEO 30,0-60, M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TON
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE
-f UEL-REBUTREMENTS- — ri
TOTAL EMPLOYMtNT
?,
5.4j
. "9
351
-------
FULL CAPACITY OPERATION - SPEED 30.0 M/H LOADED,6R M/H
N U M R E « OF TRAINS 29,?)
CAPITAL COSTS" ANNUAL f- I X E f J
CHAKfifc ON Hf-.HT
T R U t- K 5
ROADBED
EQUIP,
1 b . 5 ~ A V . R A T F RASE
5 9 4 , a ~ D b B T R M £ N T ,
154,7" FED, TAX
" DEPRECIATION
J8?
47
13
27
"OPERATING COSTS" UNIT COSTS *" ENERGY ~ STEEL K E (J U I R E 0 " EMPLOYMENT
- KEUUIRtMENTS " ~
•5-
13"
.0-
F U E L 18.6 "S/TON
LAHC1R 4b,0 ~t/T"'1
SUPPLY 1304 "C/MBTU 3
f>,63"LOCOs US675W,flMP " CAR,^ 4 M "j 51 , 0 T," WR
f.6a~FUEL MB. Ie49 " LOCO tJ ^ 1 4 ? , R T." CAP/wOPK
?72" "R^JL 5»flbfe)0,v5T,™KELINUa
H . ? b ~
TOTAL 765.3 " TOTAL 87,7" TOTAL 77.2
TOTAL 7^299?.P T,~ TOTAL
TOTAL
ANNUAL
COST 164,9 "*
* COfJCRfcTfc 99 V>
" TlilHt'R 5797yiK
HP, 3 FT
TOTAL OPERATING COST feu.fl
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 1^9.8
UNIT COST S/TON 7,49
"ON IT'COST" t/TON- -MILE tf.bB-
FUEL REUUTREMf-NTS 1.19 MM8B
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
CHANGE IN OPEKATION , SPEED 30,0»6H, M/H
OP-E-R ATI-CM—rSPEEt>-3«-,-8>i6r«T~tt/tt-
TOTAL OPERATING COST
'TOTAL ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TON
UNIT COST t/TON -MILE
FUEL REOUIREMENTS ^.
-TOTAL
G,S8
tl.t1?
NMHB
"60,P% CHANGE IN OPERATION PSPEEU sto,u-bv, M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 35,4
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 117.4
UNIT COST S/TON 11.74
"UMir COST (/TON .MILEi.ar"
FUEL REQUlRE^eNTS 0,60 MM6H
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT i7/
-------
4(9,0% CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 30.0-60, M/H
TOTAL OPERATIC COST 117.1
"TOTAL ANNUAL COST ' ~
UNIT COST S/TdM V.lfj
UNIT COST f/TOM -MII.E r'.'.*>5
FUEL REUUlRtNfcMTS ••-'•••••'••«•»«»••»<»"*"«•••——»•»»"•'•»-'•
CAPITAL COSTS" ANNUAL FIXF.D "OPERATING COSTS* UNIT COSTS ~ ENERGY ~ STEEL KtUUIRtD " EMPLOYMENT
OARGE Q,\ !>KHT * - - - KEoui&f-MtNTS ~ •-
• ••..•••••••••»•••»«•...••.,••••••.«•••»•»•«••••_«••••<».. •,_M_wapWBW»«IB«w*>w**.».»B<.HM>..,aln«.v«aB.PM«»>9»l»««W0wwVl».B»««l»..*>»a>«>B-«
TRUCKS 15.5" A v, RATF PASL 4 n i, 2 - FUFI 11,8 -S/TON 7,34'LUCo, 5^7110^, PI HP " CARS 113 4 M a, H i.~ RH
*OAPBtD 594. p" OEflT Rt'ENT. 49,^" LABOR bb.B "t/T-M d,67~FUEL MB. 1.49 " LOCO c?8f2fl.U T,~ CAP/WQKK
EQUIP. — 192.1" FEO TAX 13.9- SUPPLY—-Ife.6~ " t/MBTU- 36.42" " RAIL— 56650?!, 0-"T ,~--wEL—INO;r
" PLPRfcCIATION 2d.fc" - " -
VOTVMMMMKVBWHHvawvMMwaaMWniBvvMMwMWBmvMvaHvvwMvcvMWavvvWMWeawaMWMWBOi^nwwwMaatBnmMaicvMwAwMWBBMBWiHBivvwa^a^vMiaav'aBvnnAwvvvMM'awn
TOTAL 802.4-" TOTAL" - S?.3" TOTAL Vl.3 -* •* ---TOTAL J J0fe2fl ,&'1 .--TOT-At 0337'
OTBWWMOTwaaMHMvaBw^mvvMvWMWvivMMMBBWVMMKnnw.vaMvwBCBanKnw^wMmwMaMSHBtewnWWWB^MnwwwnwMMnnwMwnMowvvvwavvnMMWvBOMivvMMnVMaMuavMvW*
TOTAL 4 NNUAL COST 163,6 * "* "CONCKtTE. 99Pi«0yt»_T
• ^»i»w»^«»««i»«w«»«»»iwww"»«*«»a»™«»«»»*»»»«>»«» — o,»»«»)wi»«»»»«»*ii»«o«»l»»5Bi»w«tiim«a»*»"W»«*<»»'e»1»»«'«»«*>«"»»w«BO
__ -gl?,0% CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 3B.0-63, h/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 75,8
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 165.7
UNIT COST S/TON 8.39
UNIT COST [/TON -fllLE H./5
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1.19 MMBB
TOTAL _EMPLOYMENT 3674_
•flfi.aX CHANGE IN OPERATION fSPEEO 3B,e-6P. M/H
- TOTAL OPERATING COST frfl.4 ..--...
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 147.9
UMTT COST S/TON 9 . fj (S
U'lIT COST (/TON -MILE n.'M" _
' FUEL REQUIREMENTS 'B,9R MMBB " " """ " ~ - - - -- - -
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 3Plb
H
-------
CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 30,0-60.
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOT*L ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TON
UNIT COST r/TON -MII.F
~FUEtr~REOUIR-
TOTAU EMPLOYMENT
1P7, i
15.53
1.16
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TON
UMIT COST t/T'JN -MILF
20.g% CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 30,0-60,
FUEL REQUIHF.MfcNTS
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
1,79
115.1
2H7.4
b,9V
0.63
M^f)H
5453
TnTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TON
UNIT L'OST C/TON -MILt
'FUEL REQUIREMENTS- '
TOTAL
279,3
7.98
B.M
"
CHANGE IN OPERATION .SPEED 30,0-63. M/H
KJ
FULL CAPACITY OPERATION - SPEED 50.0 M/H LOADED,6» M/H UNLOADED
NUMOf-R 01- TRAINS 17.0
CAPITAL COSTS" ANNUAL FIXfD "OPERATING COSTS*' UNIT COSTS - ENF.KGY
. " CHARGE ON DF-9T " ... REQUIREMENTS
TRUCKS
RCAnEED
EQUIP,
15.5" AV. HATE BASE 37«,a" FUEL 20,9 "S/TON "5 « 61"LOCO . 642*>00,flHP
594.9" nEHT RiENT. 4h,fl~ T.APOR" 3?S4 ~"'l/T-W" W.53"F1JEt "M8". 1.6TS
138.6" FED. TAX i3,oi" SUPPLY 6,4 "t/MBTU 28, 8«"
" DEPRECIATION 26.3"
STEEL RErclJIRtO " EMPLOYMENT "
CARS biS50,P T.- RR 215h"
LOCO J?bb8.4 T." CAP/KOHK 0.35"1
RAIL ssesMP.p T." «EL IND, b?.s~
TOTAL
748,9 " TOTAL 85.7" TOTAL 59,6
- - -— TOTAL ANNUAL COST 145,3"
TOTAL 674608,4 T.~ TOTAL 2/38*
-• CONCRtTt 990P8irr"
• TTIi/ULTLt U. 7 CJ T nfkfAft (x
TIMBER b7S7G>i00B.B FT
OPERATING COST 49.3
'TOTAL ANNUAL COST 133.3
UNIT COST S/TON 6.67
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE 0.61
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1.33 MMBB
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT "~ 23ir
-------
-a<*,0X CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEEO 50,0-65), M/H
39.0
121.3
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TCN
UNIT-COST {/TON -MILE 0.74-
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1,00 MMUB
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 1896
E IN
TOTAL OPERATING COST 37.1
-TOTAL- ANNUAL COST 107.7-
UNIT COST S/TQN 10,77
UNIT COST t/TON -MILE 0.98
FUEL REQUIREMENTS '4.66 MMBR
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 13«<)-
TOTAL OPERATING COST 74.8
THTAL ANNUAL COST 16K.S
UNIT COST $/TON 5,35
UNIT COST t/TON -MILE • tf.«9
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1,99 MMBB
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 3377
20,0% CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50,0-60, M/H
H
U)
CHANGE IN OPERATION ,5PEED 5g,0"feB,
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TON
UNIT COST" [/TON -MILE
FUEL REGiJIHfc.MtNTS i?.
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
P9.9
22P,<1
6.3fJ
0.57-
FULL CAPACITY OPERATION - SPEED 5P.C! M/H LOADED,60 M/H UNLOADED
NUMBER OF TRAINS 25.0
CAPITAL
TRUCKS
ROADBED
EQUIP,
TOTAL
COSTS;
15.5-
5S4.8-
203.8^
814.1 -
M
ANNUAL FI
C H A R (; t DM
XEH
DEBT
AV. RATE BASE QV7 .
DEBT KMENT. 50.
FED, TAX 14.
DEPRECIATION 29.
TOTAL
TOTAL
93.
-
5;
1-
T
ANNUAL
OPERATING COSTS
FUEL
LABOR
SUPPLY
TOTAL
COST
47^6
9.3
UNIT COSTS ~ FNEHGY
KEHUIREMENTS
5/TON 6,P6"LOCO. 9fl5^C?,C;iHp
[/T-M d.ha-FUEL MR, 1.66
t/MUTU 3fl.ei.4-
77.6 "
171.5
-
-
-
_
STfcEL KEmilREt
CARS f 8 7 5 ^ . C!
L 0 C n 4'Hgf.t"
RAIL ^t5flb0?j,B
TOTAL 7151?
-------
CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50.0-60. M/H
OPERATING-COST- 64,tr-
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 155.9
UNIT COST S/TUM 7,79
UNIT COST I/TON -MILk H . 7 1
FUEL REQUIRFMENTS ' 1;33 MKijH-
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 3213
-40.0X CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50.0-60. M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 51.5
TOTAL ANNUAL COST !«».?
-UNIT COST S/TCN 9.35-
UNIT COST C/THN -MILE 2.65
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1.B0 KMBh
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 8634
CHANGE IN OPERATION ^PEEO 50.0-60.
TOTAL OPERATING COST 35.9
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 122.1
UNIT COST S/TON 12.?1"
UNIT C05T [/TUN -MILE 1,11
FUEL REQUIREMENTS Ift.bt} MMBB
TOTAL EMPLUVMENT Ifl7ti
OTA IT OPEPATIWG"COST SB.l
,OTAL ANNUAL COST 191.9
UNIT COST S/TDN b.fltf
UNIT COST r/TON -MILE 0.58
FUEL REQUIREMENTS i,9r"MMBB
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 47«6
CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50.0-60, M/H
40.0X CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50.0-60, M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 118.5
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 261.0
-UNIT-COST S/TON 7.46-
UNIT COST t/TON -MILE 21.68
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 2.32
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
-------
FULL CAPACITY OPERATION - SPEED 50,0 M/H LOAOfcD,60 M/H UNLOADED
NUMBER OF TRAINS 34.0
CAPITAL
TRUCKS
ROADBED
EQUIP.
COSTS" ANNUAL FIXED
CHARGE OMDEHT
15.5" AV RATE 'JASE
594.8" PEAT RMFMT.
277.?- FED. TAX
" " DEPRECIATION "
•
e I
i^LTC 1
UV.TX 1
id
^OPERATING COSTS" UNIT COSTS "
1 1 i i <
1 r-^5. =3
1 • • •
.3
FUEL
LA8DS
SUPPLY
20,9 "S/TON B.^'I-L
^4,7 "t/T-M 0.7^-f
12,7 "t/MBTU 39.88"
ENERGY - STEEL KEGfiJlRfcD
REOUlRfcMENTS
oco, i^dsaad.iiHP - CASS 1^7 1
UtL MB. 1,66 " LHCU 65]
" KAIL 5«8^
i lis JH T
300.0 T
- EMPLOYMENT -
," RH
- CAP/WORK
.- KEL IND,
431 3;
TOTAL 887.5 " TOTAL 102.7" TOTAL 96.3_*
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
" TOTAL 760/16, 8 T," TOTAL
4993*
CONCRtTE
TIMBEK
T
FT
TOTAL OPERATING COST 81.9
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 181.2
UNIT COST S/TON 9,;i6
'UNIT'COST [/TON^-MTL^E 0.5?"
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1.3? MMhB
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50.0-60. M/H
-40.02 CHANG"ET J.N OKtRATI0M~7^5PtEU
U1
TOTAL OPERATING COST 65.5
TOTAL ANNUAL COST I 6>.«"
UNIT COST S/TON ie.76
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE 0,9ft
FUEL RFQUIREMfcNTS l.tja MKbB
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT '" ~3abS
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TON
UNIT COST [/TON --MILE
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 0,<
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
•60,fix CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50,0-60, M/H
4S.8
138.3
13.63
> MMb9
2464
TOTAL OPERATING COST 124,5
-TOTAL-ANNUAL COSt 227, t~
UNIT COST S/TON 7,57
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE B.69
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1.99 MUBB
TOTAL" EMPLOYMENT 6887"
-------
40.0* CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50,0-60, M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 150.6
TOTAL ANNUAL COST - 3'J6.^~
UNIT COST S/TON 8.7f,
UNIT COST C/TON -MILE 0,83
FUEL REQUIREMENTS a. 32
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 7581
COST? AND RESOURCES FOR UNIT TRJ.IN TRANSPORTATION
MILLION DOLLARS - 25_ MMTY
ROUTE M 3, GILLETTE - HOUSTON 1400.H MILES
FULL CAPACITY~CPER~ATION~ - "SPEED "30.0 M/H LOADED, 6~0
NUMBER OP TRAINS 28.0
CAPITAL
TRUCKS
POAPBtO
EQUIP.
TOTAL
COSTS;
15,5-
749.6;
914.5 °
ANNUAL
CHARGE
FIXED
ON DEFT
AV, RATE BASE
DEBT RMENT.
FED, TAX
DEPRECIATION
TOTAL
15
104
^OPERATING
.3- FUEL
,7"" LABOR
,9; SUPPLY
.5" TOTAL
COSTS
Ifrl
95,
5
7
" UNIT COSTS ~
A •*
"5 /TON 8.01"L"t
•t/T-M ?>,b7-FL
;i/MBTU 39,72"
ENERGY
REQUIREMENTS
IEL'MB, i,9>
; STEEL KEouiHfcD "
" ~ CASS HH200tEI~T.~"
; LCiCO 22344,0 T,-
" TOTAL 8595«4ep T,"
EMPLOYMENT ;
RR 3684"'
CAP/WORK 0,25°
MEL INO, '/fta"
TOTAL 4385™
CONCRETE 12».«00t!l,0 T
TIMBER 7378c»000.-0 FT
•20,0X CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 30,0-6Hs M/H
TOTAL AMNIIAL COST 182,0
UNIT C03T $/TON 9. IP)
UNIT COST C/TON -MILE 0.65
-FUEL/'REQUIREMENTS"- 1 ."52 'MM8B'-
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 3717
-40,02 CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 30B0-609 M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 62.9
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 163.8
•"UNIT COST J/TON- 1K-.92-
UN'IT COST [/TON -MILE 0.78
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1,14 MMHB
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 3053
-------
-60,P* CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 30.0-6H. M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST «3.B
TOTAL A-INLJAL COST 142.8
~OMT COST'S/TON l'C.29-
COST t/TON -MILE
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 0,76 HMBB
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 2175
20,PZ CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 30.0-60.
TOTAL" OPERATING COST 120,3
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 251.8
UNIT COST I/TON 7,39
UNIT COST (/TON -MILE 0.5«
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 2,28 MMBO
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
30.0-60, H/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 30«,2
~UMT COST VTON ' — 8,69
UNIT COST j/TON -MILE 0.62
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 2,<>6 M"BB
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 6596
FULL CAPACITY OPERATION - SPEED 30,0 M/H LOADED,60 M/H UNLOADED
NUMBER OF TRAINS 36,0
CAPITAL COSTS-
TRUCKS
ROADBED
EQUIP.
TOTAL
15.5-
749:6-
192.1-
957.2 *
ANNUAL FIXED
CHARGE ON DEBT
AV. HATE HASt
FED TAX
"OEPRtCl AT I ON
TOTAL
TOTAL
59
16
33
109
.3-
.6"
.«
.7"
ANNUAL
OPERATING COSTS" UNIT COSTS " ENERGY
REQUIREMENTS
FUEL
LABOR
SUPPLY
TOTAL
COST
23
71
21
U6
225.
,9 -J/TON 9.04-LOCU. 567nyi^.fiHP
.1 "C/T-M 0.65-FUEL M8. 1,90
,2 *[/MBTU 1«/?«>
7 0 9 0 55 "I . M
fiVl 12R.H
* CONCRETE I2*»0^i
" TIMrtEW 7378000
T.- HR
!.- CAP/wOHK
1." HEL INI).
T.- TOTAL
tnw.v T
0.0 FT
»"»:
5171-
-20,0X CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 30,0-60, M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 96,5
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 2^3.9
UNIT COST S/TON 1H,19
UNIT COST f/TON -MILE P.73
FUEL REOUlRfcMENTS 1,52 MMP8
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT «637
-------
"-40.
TOTAL OPERATING COST 7ft.9
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 181,8'
UNIT COST S/TON 12.1?
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE £1.67
FUEL REQUIREMtNTS 1 111 MhBB
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT "~- '3809'
-60.0% CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 3(5.0-60, M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 53.ft
TOTAL ANNUAL COST I5fa,3
UNIT COST S/TCJN 15.63
UNIT COST [/TON -KILE"" 1.1?"
FUtL REGUIREMLNTS ^.76 MMBB
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT ?713
OPERATIOM",
OPERATING COST
TOTAL-ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TON
UNIT COST t/TOM -MILE
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 2.26
-"TOTAL-EMPLOYMENT
,|
).61
CO
CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 30,0-60. M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 176.9
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 343.6
UNIT COST S/TON 9.82
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE 0.713
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 2.ftfe M.M66
TOTAL EfPLOYMfcNT 8313
FULL CAPACITY OPERATION - SPEED 3C5.H M/Vt LOADEO,60 M/H UNLOADED
NUMRKR "OF- TRAINS 44.M - —
CAPITAL COSTS
TRUCKS
ROAflBtO
EQUIP;
15
719
"23~4
.5
.6
.5
ANNUAL f-IXFO
CHARljf 0"! DEBT
~ AV, RATE
- DEBT «MF"
— FED," "TAX
- PEPfttCIAl
RASt
rioN
499
1 '
3 "5
•OPERATING COSTS" UNIT COSTS ~ ENERGY
" HEQUlRfcMtNTS
.9" FUEL
.0; LABOR
Ife"
23,9 -S/TON 1C* P6-I.OCO
86.9 "[/T-M 0.72"FUEL
"a* * *»
, 6930315, MHP
MU, i,90
STEtL KEuuiRfcD ~ EMPLOYMENT
CARS 1 3 6 ft 0(? . ?i T.- ww
LOCO 3bii?.ia r,- CAP/I^OF
RAIL ---IHIVV,® ,01 TV"' REl. TNI
579W
K H . 1 / "
1, 7b'3~-
TOTAL
r or* c
"TtnT-«t—9gg712.^ T." TOTAL
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 251.6
CnNCHtTfc 126000(^.0 T
TIMBFR 73785100K.-B FT"
-------
-20,0x CHANGE IN OPERATION .SPEED 30.0-60,
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TO^
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE
FUEL
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
1,52
113.7
225,9
11.39
(.',.81
M.-ibH
5557
-40,0% CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEEO 30,0-60, M/H
TOTAL-OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TON
UMIT COST j/TUN -MILE
FUEL" REQUIREMENTS
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
9^.7
13. 34
0,95
1.14 M98 --------------
4564
-60,0K CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 30.0-60, M/H
TOTAL OPERATING- COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
UMIT COST S/TON
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE
~
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
-63.4-
169,7
16.97
3251
CHANGE IN OPERATION! ,SPEED 30,0-60. M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 172.7
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 287,ft
UNIT COST */TONi 9.59
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE a.6«
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 5,28 MrtBB
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 8293
CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 30.0-60, M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 208.7
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 36J,5
UNIT COST S/TON 1096
UNIT COST J/TON -MILE
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 2.6fi
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 1BP31
-------
FULL CAPACITY OPERATION - SPEED 5n.« M/H LOADEO,6l? M/H UNLOADED
NUMBER OF TRAINS 21.0
CAPITAL COSTS'" ANNUL FIXFO "OPERATING COSTS- UNIT
CHARGE ON DEBT
TRICKS 15.5" AV RATE RAS'E 4bft,2" FUEL 26,6 "S/TON
ROAnatO 749.6" DES3T RMENT." " 5S,1." LABOR ""50,9"-"" C/T-iT"
EQUIP. 171.2" PEP. Tax 1ft. 3" SUPPLY 10.0 "[/MBTl
" DEPRECIATION 32.9-
COSTS - ENERGY
REQUIREMENTS
_ 7,79-LOCO. 793H0M.0HP_
J 38 |II; V ^ Hff' *n
"2 5TEEL"
~ CAMS
2 SAIL 1
661b(7!.S3 I." WR 339U-
4?ei9ie^T;— -CAP/WORK— 0;2n~~
r49ti0£>,0 T," REL IND. '17"
TOTAL
936.3 ~ TOTAL IB7.3- TOTAL 87,5 *
• •MW«MaMW«M«WWB««MMB«MV*»Ma«MBWMM0MMB*aB«4BMMMa>«H0MM«WI
TOT«L ANNUAL COST 1^4,6 *
~ TOTAL 0^^369,2 T," TOTAL
TIMBER
KT
72.5
177. 6"
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST"
UNIT COST $/TiJN
UNIT COST C/TOM -MILE 0.63
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1.69
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT ---- —
TOTAL OPERATING COST 57.6
TOTAL ANNUAL COST IM.S
UNIT COST S/TON 10,73
TJNIT COST" t/TON~-nrrt 0v7-ft-
FUEL REQUIR-HME^TS 1,27 MM88
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 2857
H
?
CHANGE IN OPERATION .SPEED 50,0-60, M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST
"TOTAL A^NUAV'CnST
UNIT COST S/TON
ce.i
~
UNIT COST t/TON -MILE
FUEL REQUIREMENTS
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
a,84
1.01
2030
IN OPERATION iSPtEO bP,3-6B, M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TON
'UNIT COST t/TON -MILE
1 1 a , 71
2J7i2
7.24
0.5?
2!?.0J£ CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 50,0-60, M/H
-------
50,2-60.
TOTAL OPERATING COST 132,6
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 395.8
UNIT COST 5/TUN 8.«5
UNIT-COST t/TON- -MILE B.6.U"
-"S/TON 9.34'
"t/T-M PI.67*
"l/MBTU 46,35'
, , .
MB, 2,Jl
LOCO b9371,3 1," CAP/WORK
RAIL 7<490C1r7i,H r . - RtL INU.
TOTAL 1017,9 ~ TOTAL 117,1" TOTAL 116.4
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 233.6
TOTAL 906H21.2 T." TOTAL
T
CONCRt'Tfc .
T I M H t R 7 3 A 8 0) 'A 0 0 . B
-20,0X CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50,a-608 M/H
TOTAL"OPERATING COST 96,9—
TOTAL A'JixlUAL COST 211,"
UNIT COST S/TON 10.55
UNIT COST f/TON -MILE 0.75
"FUEL" REQUIREMENTS i;fc<5 WEB
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
-flg.BX CHANGE INI OPERATION ,SPEEO 50,3-60. M/h
TOTAL OPERATING COST 77, a
TOTAL ANNUAL COST: _____ 1B8.3
"UNIT COST S/TON
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE
FUEL REOUlRtMENTS
1,27
-60,0% CMANGE IN OPERATION >SPEEO 50.0-6K). M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TON "
54,1
2. PI
"
UNIT COST J/TON -MILE 1.16
FUEL REPUlREMfcNTS W.B4 "" ' '
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
2863
-------
20.,0% CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50.0-6B. M/H
TOTAL"OPERATING-COST I 0«~^Tw ••" v w ea«> v •• ••"«• «•»«•«•" •^••••••^^••••••Bt*«»«i^»»w»«t"»»l«»n"«*«»w™»0<«"'""™«»»»»«B»*»«»"» — »••••••"•• (••«•••••»«»•»»'»•
CAPITAL COSTS" ANNilAI FIXED "OPERATING COSTS UNIT COSTS " ENERGY " STEEL KEQIJTRtD " EMPLOYMENT '
CHARGE ON DF.HT - - REQUIREMENTS 1 __.
TPUCKs"""""T5r5°"Av"RATE"HASt"55"rB:°FuFL"""26rfe"" X~/w"~l'l~eb~LQCOtl5a7W.\,ViHl> ' CARS Ii2j^Pl,a T.; «R b'»>'
ROAOptO 7U9.6." DFBT RMENT, 60.7" LABOR 101,7 [/T-M d,79-FuEL MB. 2.11 " L^CO day3fl,« T. CAP/WQHK /1. 11
EQUIP. 342 4" FEO, TAX 19.5" SUPPLY 20,0 t/MBTU 54,35" __ KAIL 749»*"***^'!9^^^^w^a!*"v^.»ir^^%ri^
-23,0Z CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50e0»60, M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 123.7
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 247,7
UNIT COST S/TQN 12.3R _
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE 0,aa -_._.....
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1,69 MMBfl
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 6463
H
K)
OPERATING COST
"TOTAL ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TQN
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1,27 M
-----
99,2
H18.9~
14.59
-------
-60,9X CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50.0-60. M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 69.5
TOTAL ANNUAL COST l8i,l
UNIT COST S/TON . 18.Si
-UNIT-COST--[/TON—-Hftf t.3?-
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 0,8fl MMtfB
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 3775
20,0* CHAvGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 5^,S-6». M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST jea.s
"TOTAL ANNUAL COST316,3"
UNIT COST 5/TON 13.54
UNIT COST C/TON -MILE «.7b
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 2.53 MMbR
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT " 9664
40,0% CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SP£EU 50,0-60. M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL AK'NLIAL COST UZ2',(> t)
UNIT COST S/TON 12,07 «f
UNIT CQST f/TON -MILE W.86 ,Jj
--Slll'r-^^f^y.1!:^^!5 -2.96 MMB8 <•"•>
COSTS AND RESOURCES FOR UNIT TRAIN TRANSPORTATION
MILLION DOLLARS - 25 MMTY
ROUTE N <|, COLSTRIP - HOUSTON 16an.Pl MILES
FULL CAPACITY OPERATION - SPEF.D 31,Cl M/H LOADED,60 M/H UNLOAOtO
NUMBER OK TRAINS 31.0
CAPITAL COSTS- ANNUAL FIXEH 'OPERATING COSTS'* UNIT COSTS " ENERGY - STEEL REQUIRED " EMPLOYMENT "
CHAKGE ON I'EKT " ~ REQUIREMENTS - "
.«. •*••_•••.•••.••»•*•••••••* — ••_ — — «•»••••<•••••• — •••••• — ••<• — — •*- — ••••»• — •»•••• — »••• — •• — •••.«••»«••,•«.•••««««. — ««••••««•„« — • — «••.••».„.•»•••»••.
•5 15.5" AV, RATE HASE blfe.9" FUEL 27,4 "S/TON 9. fl ^"LOCO. aflfli25Ci, 0HP ~ C»P5 9^65?. 0 T ~ WR - 4fi6cf
EO 852. fi- OErtT RMENT. 60.1' LARQR 6S.9 *[/T-M I?,S9~FUEL M3. 2.17 " LOCO rf47iH.?i T. - CAP/nQRK 0.22"
. 165.4" FED. TAX 17.9" SUPPLY 215.8 "C/MBTU 44.78' - RAIL 8b6tfPM.fi I.- REL INO. 791"
- DEPRECIATION 36.1' * ~ -
TOTAL 1^33.9 ~ TOTAL 118.1" TOTAL 118.1 *• " TOTAL 9/8i8«,55 T,~ TOTAL
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 23fe.2 * ~ • CONCRETE MUPMUM.M T
40,0 F i"
-------
-20,PX CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 30,0-60. M/H
TOTAL"OPERATING COST 98,P>
TOTAL ANNUAL CQST 211.1
UNIT COST I/TON 10.7?:
UNIT COST [/TO* -MILE 0.67
FUEL REQUIREMENTS i-,74
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
-4PI,(?l% CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 3P,3-6H. M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 77.9
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 1 9 1 , 9
UMIT COST S/TON i?.7o
UNIT COST t/TON -MILE 0.8v5
F-UEL REQUIHUMCNTS 1.30 M1BB
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT SSBB
-6W.0X CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 30,0-60, M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 54.2
TOTAL ANNUAL COST lbf>,3
'UNIT COST S/TON 16,63-
UNIT COST t/TON -MILE !.»
-------
FUUU CAPACITY OPERATION - SPEED 30.0 M/H LOADED,6H M/H UNLHADfO
NUMBER OF TRAINS 41.0
CAPITAL
TRUCKS
ROAOBtD
EQUIP,
COSTS"
ANNUAL FIXEO "OPERATING COSTS' UNIT COSTS " ENERGY
CHANGE ON DERT " *
15. S-
858.8"
218, fl"
AV, HATE BASE
DEBT RMENT.
FE~n. TAX
nEPRECIATION-
5«3.6" FUEL
67,*" LABOR
19.9" SUPPLY
33. 3- -
27.4
92.5
..27.fi
"S/TON
; -c/T-M
. "l/MBTU
REQUIREMENTS
10.8fl"LOCO, 645/58. MP
fl.66"FUEt MB. 2,17
51. b?;
" STEEL REQUIRED " EMPLOYMENT ~
" CARS 1?91SM.H T.- WH 6 1 1> b ~
" 1 OCtl 55/18.0 T.- CAP/WORK B.IB"
" HAIL 8 's 6 P 3 tt , 0 !," Kt L INO , H 32"
TOTAL 1067,1 ' TOTAL 124.6" TOTAL._ 147,4____"• _.. " _. .. " TOT AL1017Phfl,0 T,~ TOTAL
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 272,0 - - - rcKCRtTc, MOHBBB^T
-20,02 CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 30.0-6^. M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 122.6
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 24'1,5
UNIT COST S/TON 12.22
[/TDN--MILE ~ ""
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1,74 MMBB H
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 5935 tj
NJ
Ul
TOTAL OPERATING COST 97,7
'TOTAL ANNUAL COST' ~ 217.0
UNIT COST S/TON 14.46
UNIT COST [/TUN -MILE Vl.'t'A
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1,30 MMbB
TOTAL"EMPLOYHENT 4876
-60,0Z CHANGE IN OPERATION .SPEED 30,0-60, M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 68.2
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 384.8
UNIT COST S/TON 18.48
UNIT 'COST-t/TON -MILE 1.16
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 0,87
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
TOTAL OPERATOR COST Ift^.l
-TOTAL ANNUAL COST 31t»,8—
UNIT COST S/TON 10.36
UNIT COST I/TON -MILF 0.&s
FUEL REQUIREMENTS ^,61 MMbH
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 88<-9
-------
CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 4la,5 .-.__._
UNIT COST S/TON 11,d^
UNIT CfiST (/TUN -MILE li.7a
FUEL PEGUIHF.MtNTS 3,04 MMBB
_-_ TOTAL EMPLOYMENT I06S9
FULL CAPACITY OPERATION - SPEED 30.H M/H LOADED,60 M/H UNLOADED
- - - - NUMBER-OF "TRAINS 5W,0 ~ ~ ~ "'
avBaotawraMvA^vMvMOTWwvBonBMvcBWBnHanviaBAntBnM^Mnw^ABpavOTanaKgMacMKBEn^n^naMMBmnBaraUMaiBnnBtwcswwnBaonnwWBa'eKaaV'Hia*
CAPITAL COSTS" ANNUAL FIXED "OPERATING COSTS'" UNIT COSTS " ENERGY STEEL HELiUlRtD
• - CHARRE OK' DEBT " •--" ' - — —REQUIREMENTS -" '"
TRUCKs""""""5r5-"Avr"KATE"BASt"bb7r6-"F"eL"°" 17^3 """s/fo"""l a7T7"LOCO. 7rt750[i^HP CARS Ib/bHP!.^ T.~ RR
ROADBtO 852.fl~ PE6T RMEN1 , 70. ti" LAhOR 112,8 " C/T-M 0.76-FUEL MB0 2.17 LOCO J990M.I', T." CAP/wQWK 0.15
EQUIP. ~ 2fe6.8- FED, TAX - 19,7" SUPPLY "33,6 ' "C/KbTU 57.68" RAIL' ~856nap.B~T." HtL'IND.'
" DEPRECIATION 4C".«I" "
TOTAL tl357T""~ TOTAt I3B,5"~TOT^L 173,8'—** " ^-T-rrTAtlBb^'JMtl.KT^" TOTAL
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 304,3 ™ * CfU.'CRETt Ha0HBM,0_T
H
NJ
CTl
-20.BX CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 30,B"6a, M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST J41.fe
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 271. t
UNIT COST $/T(JN- 13i5S
UNIT COST t/TON -MILE P.P5
FUEL REQUIREMENTS S,7U MMfc>e
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 7H«
CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 30.0"60, H/H
TDTAL ANNUAL COST
UMIT COST $/TON
NIT COST t/TON -MILE
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
539,5
IS. 97
1,00
seaa
CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 30,0*60,
TOTAL _ _ .
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TOM - .._
UNIT COST j/TON -MILE 1.26
-FUEL-REOUIRFMENTS ^.RT
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
-------
.0% CHANGE IN OP ERATION .SPEEU 30.0-60, M/H_
TOTAt OPERATING COST
TOTAt ANNUAL COST
UNtT COST S/TGN
UNIT COST t/T(.)N -MILE
3501.3
11.6.1
.
FUEL REQUIREMENTS
TOTAt
2.61 MMbb
40,eu CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 30,0«&0,
-— -- "TOTAL "OPERATING COST-
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 46^,3
UNIT COST S/TON 13.27
UNIT COST r/TON -MILE 0.83
-- - FUEL" REQUIREMENTS J.«4 MMPH
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 159??
FULL CAPACITY OPERATION - JiPEJ;D 5PI.O M/H LOADED,60 M/H UNLOADED
NUMBER OF TRAINS ?3,0
«**«*«»a»««v*i«»B«»»«ivww«i»«<*0»wM«wwMatw«»«iMM«v>B**«MUWp»OTw«>i«wBBM0«»w««BW<»<»0»VBaM*>«3 , 7 - " t/T-M {".b7~FUEL Mb, "2,41 "-LOCO
EQUIP, 1«7,5- fKD TAX in,?- SUPPLY 12,5 "C/MBTU 43,10" - RAIL tJbfa/BtUM T^- KtL IND. 80S'
"DEPRECIATION 37,0" - " - -
W»«— • — ««*IB«>0MWa>««c»«Wva— —«* — !» »«(•••<»«•«•» •>••••«* a»««»~M»WMwa»WB«*Ww0..«»a»W»«v«B»WB>»«e »••<••.» W»W«0M >.«.••• «W«B«w«r •»•«•• •»«««««•)«••«•«•
TOTAL 1055,9 - TOTAL 1211,8" TOTAL 106,6 " - TOTAL 9ra499,6 T," TOTAL 5W53'
•••^•^•••••wMOTAWwaBnvMMMnMaMWv^nBVwwwMiBMMwBnavMWvtaWMMw^awnaBMvnMWBaiflaKCTOBWMinainBavnMVnMOTwcMiBVBWMWwatB^MMNWAvavBWwawwiwwwvMwMvWa
"- TOTAL ANNUAL" COST 327.4 --" " - CONCkE Tt 1 4flPPi0W.(v T
" TIM HER 84320f)ei(?,0 FT
NJ
.P>X CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEEO 50.0-60. M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 88.4
~~"TOTAL" AMN'UAL" COST ?07,CT
UNIT COST S/TOM 10.35)
UNIT COST r/TON -MILE 0.65
FUEL KEDUIRfiMtNTS 1.^3 MMBH
T OTA UT'E" P LtTY n EN T
-40.HZ CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50.0-6H, M/H
OPPRATINfi COST 7 PI , 3
TOTAL ANNUAL C(J3T t ^ 6 , S
UNIT COST i/T(jri lf?.a_<
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE H,?8
FUEL REQIIIPEMSNTS 1,"5 MM^B
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 3517
-------
-b0,0Z"CHANGE--TN- OPERATION" .SPEED '50,3-6W, "M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 49.H
TOTAL ANNUAL COST " 16?.9
UNIT COST S/TON 16.29
UNIT cnsT [/TON -MILE 1.U2
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 0.97 MI1B'<
TOTAt FMPLOYMENT --"• --2SP5"
20,0% CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50.0-60, H/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 134.3
TOTAL AMNUAL COST 255.1
UNIT COST S/TON 8.5PI
UNIT-COST t/TUN—-MTtf fc,b3~
FUEL REQUIREMENTS ?.90
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
ap.ax-et-t-ft-NisE—I-N-OPERATION ^sPEEO-50.a«60. M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST !6109
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 345.9 i_i
UNIT COST S/TON 9,sa M
-UNIT'COST- C/TOt*—-MttE R-,62 |>
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 3.38 Mt-ys I
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 7599 £O
FULL CAPACITY OPERATION -, vSpEtO 50.0 M/H CQADEf\6Pl M/H UNLOADED
OF TRAINS 359K
CAPITAL
TRUCKS --
ROADRfcO
EQUIP,
COSTS-
15.5-
852.8"
285.4-
ANNUAL FIXFD
CHARGE ON I1EPT
AV. RATE RASE 57fs
OEfcT R.1FNT. 71
FF.IK TAX 2n
DEPRECIATION 41
^OPERATING
li" LABOR
,0- SUPPLY
,2"
COSTS^ UNIT
30; 0— "'R/TON'-
98,9 "t/T-«
19.0 "t/MBTU
PS
COSTS " ENERGY
REQUIREMENTS
ir, tfe°Loco7i323a5Ji/j.3HP ---
STEEL
CAFTS
LMCD
PAIL
KEOUIRtD
t>J(f3\',y T
fl 5 6 p. 0 ci , 0 i
- EMPLOYMENT
, " RR 64
,- CAP/WO»K 0.
," REL INU, 8
•*
58'
1MI
TOTAL 1153a7 - TOTAL 132.8" TOTAL !46,3 " - TOT«L1?33281,H T." TOTAL 7342
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 279,1 - - - CONCRETE 1440SS0W.0 T
" TIMBER 84'J2aPi?0,0 FT
CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 5080»60. M/H
TOTAL OPERATING "COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 551,3
UNIT COST S/TON 12,5*1
UNIT COST t/TON -MILE
-fl !EL"KEQUI REGENTS "—I•
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
-------
TOTAL OPERATING COST 97,5
TOTAL ANNUAL COST ?23.3
UNIT COST WTON i4.Se
UNIT COST t/TUN -MILE 0.93
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1.45 MMUR
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 5109
CH A_NG_E__lN__0_PJi R_A T I0 N__ ,SPEEO 50.0-60. M/H
-fefl.0% CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEEO 50.B-60. M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
-UNIT COST S/TUN 19.05-
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE 1.19
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 0.97 MMBB
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 3638
20,0Z CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50.0-60. M/H
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 318,v
UNIT COST S/TON 10.60
UMIT_COST t/TON -MILE M.66
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT ' 9280
N)
TOTAL OPEPATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
'UNIT COST S/TON
UNIT COST J/TON -MILE
FUEL REniJIRfcMf.NTS 3.
TOTAL EMPUOYMfcNT
12. J6
B.Vb
MMUB
CHANGE IN DPER A TIP N__, SPE EP
, M/H
FULL CAPACITY OPERATION - SPEED 50,0 M/H LOADED,60 M/H UNLOADED
NUMBER OF TRAINS 47.0
CAPITAL COSTS"
KOAlJotQ
EQUIP,
TOTAL
IS. 5"
852. fl-
3H3.2;
1251,6 -
-
ANNUAL HXEO
CHARtiE OM DEBT
AV, KATF t'ASt
Dt',ii T,"
2,41 " LOCO 90c, H.a T,-
^ RAIL B b 6 n If) ? , (!) 1 , -
" TOTALl^a«M.» T,-
" TIMUEK tJ432fi5'ri^,0 F
EMPLOYMENT -
C A P / '* 0 R K H . 1 4 "
R E L INO, 95«-
TOTAL 963C1"
T
T
-------
• 2fi,0X CHANGE IN QPEKATION , SPEED 50,0-6(3,
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST .
UNIT COST S/TON 14,77
-UNIT"COST" t/TON -MILE 0.92
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1,93 MMdB
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 8lfc2
raP E RATION ,-SPeEP~SB
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TON
UNIT COST C/TON -MILE
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1,«5
"TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
17.53
1 .08
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TON
^UNTTCOST C/TON^-HILE"
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 0,'
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
87,4
218,1
MKBR
4772
CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50,0-60, M/H
H
oo
o
OPEKAT1T3N"
TOTAL OPERATING COST 236,3
""'TOTAL ANMI.IAL COST 381.P'
UNIT COST S/TON l?./0
UNIT COST i/TON -MILE (r.,79
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 2.90 KM^H
—TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 12234-
CHANGE IN OPEKATION ,SPEED 50,0-60,
TOTAL OPERATING COST ?8fe.b
TOTAL Af'NUAL COST- — b^fc.4~
UNIT COST S/TON 14.47
UNIT COST C/TON -MILE B,S?i
FUEL KEDUIREMfcNTS 3.38 Mf'BB
—TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
-------
COSTS AND RESOURCES FOR UNIT TRAIN TKANSPOKTAT ION
_hlLUION DOLLARS - 25 MMTY
ROUTE N 5, COLSTKIP - SEATTLE 1050,0 MILES
. ... . .... FULL 'CAPACITt flPfKATlnN^i."SPEEO- 3B.0-M/H tOAOfcD760-M/-H-UNLOADED
NUMBER OF TRAINS 31,0
_„«««..•. M. «W«.»MW«WM»M**WW«»«««*.»«M«»VB«c»«.i — M — — *•»•«•>••••—WMMWMMWOWWMOI — •)•»—* — «•» — — Mt»*» — — W«0««»«iWV» — W— —••»••••••••• — —•» — ••»-••• — «
CAPITAL COSTS" ANNUAL FIXED "OPERATING COSTS" UNIT COSTS " ENERGY " STEEL REQUIRED " EMPLOYMENT
CHARGE ON: f.iEBT " * REQUIREMENTS
TRUCKS""" "5ls~~AV, RATE hASf;~343.3~"FUEL~~~ 18l"~"*7rCNi"~"5l?i?-LOCO, 33075a"HP " CARS 6bl5?,;i T.- KR 2V
ROADBED 569.0" DEBT RMENT, 43,2" LABOR 31.1 *l/T-M 0,53"FUEL MB, 1.42 " LOCO 16758.0 T." CAP/WORK 0.
EQUIP, 112.1" FEB. TAX 12,1* SUPPLY 9,3 "C/MBTU 2^,14" " RAIL 56.1753.0 T.~ KEL IND,
_" DEPRECIATION 2''.3"__ _'_ _ _ " " "
TOTAL 696,5 " TOTAL 79,6" TOTAL 58,3 * " TOTAL 614658,61 T," TOTAL 2606'
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 137.9 " " CONCHtTt 9a5^(?0,P! T
~ TIMBER b53ia990.0 FT
-20.0X CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 3P.0-60. M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST «R.2
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 126,a
UNIT COST S/THN 6.32
UNIT COST t/TUN -MILE t).6H
FUEL REHUIRFMENTS 1.1« MMBH
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 2208
__ -40.0X CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEEO 30.0-60, M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 3R.1
TOTAL ANNUAL COST lia.9
UNIT COST"S/TON 7.66
UNIT COST C/TON -M.HE 0.73
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 0.85 MMBH
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 1812
to
TOTAL OPERATING COST 26.0
TOTAL ANNUAL COST lt'M,9
UNIT COST S/TON 1M.1C»
UNIT COST f/TON -MILE 1^.97
FUEL REQUIREMENTS i^.57 MMBb
THTAL EMPLOYMENT 1290
CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 30,0-60, M/H
-------
2PI.0K CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEE" 30,0t60, M/H
73.1-
-THTAL OPERATING -CflST
TDTAL ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TON
UNIT COST t/TDiM -MILE
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1.71
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 3226
152,7
5. 09
n.«o
flJli0%._CH_A_NGE__IN_0_PER_AT_ION .SPEED 30.0-ba, M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TON
UNIT COST t/TON -MILE
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1.99 HMBH
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 365;"
87. fl
u<»,n
5.97
FULL CAPACITY OPERATION - SPEED 30,0 M/H LOADED,60 M/H UNLOADED
NUMRER OF TRAINS ae.0
CAPITAL COSTS-
ANNUAL HXEn
CHARGE ON PF-fU
nPERATING COSTS" UNIT COSTS
ENERGY
REQUIREMENTS
STEEL REQUIRED - EMPLOYMENT
H
U>
N)
TRUCKS 15.5- Av. K*Tf RASE ?
p h T n D t. r\ ETtn «" n cr
i \ O 1 J • J ^ V « f\ " \ ' 11 "i
BfcD 569.K- PE8T RMtNT.
' ~ FED, TAX n:.,
DEPRECIATION•"- 25.9'
FUEL
LAfiOR
IB,
EOUIP. 149.4^ FEJJ^^TAX^ J 2 . 7^ 3UPPL Y 1 2 , 3_
ji/TUn O«2^1 lUI^U* t***J.t"KJ"TJ«|VI
"C/T-M 0,59'f-UEL MB, 1.42
~ t/MBTU_ 29,_55^
CARS ..
LOCO 22344.W I." CAP/WORK 0,2f
RAIL 5f>W5tl.M T.- REL INO, 5' "
TOTAL 733,9 - TOTAL 84.1" TOTAL 71.8
•*a>aB«M««BMO»lBB«aBM««_mB«BWB>M>«rv*>»B>«w«a«B«>«taB«i*aiMBa«a*flBa«»«»a
THTAL ANNUAL COST 155,9
TOTAL fe/2294,0 T.- TOTAL
CONCHtlfc 945tf00.iii T
b533«9V0.0 FT
-20,0% CHANGE IN OPEKATION ,SPEED 30.0-6W. M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL AMMIAL COST
UNIT COST S/rON
"UNIT "COST [/TON' -
59.5
iii.s
7,09
" KJ.fcS ---
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1.14 NMHH
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
2817
TOTAL OPERATING COST 47.2
— TOTAL-ANNUAL- COST 127.7-
UNIT COST S/TDN 6.51
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE B.81
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 0,»5 MMHB
""• ••-- EMPLOYMtMT S312-
-------
-6PI.0J! CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPCEQ 30.0-60, M/H
TOTAt OPERATING COST 3a.B
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 111.5
UfJTT COST I/TON 11.15
UNIT COST T/Torc-^nrtrt r"t3&-
FUEL REQUJHEMtNTS U.57 MMBB
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 1645
"20.
OPERATION— 7SPEEP
TOTAL OPERATING COST 9W.3
"TOTAL' AKNUAL COST 174.4
UNIT COST S/TON 5.81
UNIT COST (/TON -MILE 0,55
FUFL REOUIREMtNTS 1.71 HMBB
"TOTAL'EMPLOTPIENT 4154
40,0Z CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 30,0*-60. M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST
-TOTAL-ANN'MAt COST
UNIT COST S/TON
UNIT COST t/TON -MIUE
FUEL REFUlRF-MtNTS 1.^9
TOTAL ErPLOYMtNT ----- '
1KB, 8
a3b.B ---
6.?7
H
oo
CO
FULL CAPACITY OPERATION - SPEED 303.0 M/H LOADED,60 M/H UNLOADED
^
CAPITAL COSTS* ANNUAL FIXED
TRUCKS
ROADBED
EQUIP.
TOTAL
tnflrfbe "'.'ri uc
15.5" AV, RATE RASE
569.PI- PFHT RftENT,
- DEPRECIATION
765.9 - TOTAL--1
n 1
47
1 3
"OPERATING
i » • . >
wi>:ir.o
III!
eerf
FUEL
I ABOR
SUPPLY-"
-TOT-ft-tr— '
K
U"HCK Ur TKA
INS 5«.B —- --
COSTS" UNIT COSTS - ENERGY - STFFL
18
50
15
83
'SWS5
.3
-S/TON 6
-C/T-M 0
- -" t/MBTU-^2
^ ._ _. __
• " KCUuiKe.nr.Nio -
,85-LOCO, SSS'iPa.ciHP
,65'FUEL Mb. 1.42
'
" CARS
" LOCO
-"--RAIL —
-• TOTAL
KF.MUIRED - EMPLOYMENT
\VlT\K?. V> T.- WR 3i
-------
-40,OX CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 3B.0-60, M/H
_ . . ... COST S5.fr
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 138,ft
UNIT COST S/TON 9.24
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE 0.88
~FUEL""REQUIREMENTS H.85 "Ml"! 88"
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 2740
CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 30.0-6K. M/H
39.3
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 119.P
UNIT COST S/TON 11.98
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE i.j«
-FUEL-REQUIREMENTS k),-*>7 MMMH
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 1950
30,02 CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEEO 3gt0*6B. M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 193.
"UNIT COST S/TON- -6.<13—
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE 0,61
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1,71 MHBB
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
H
«P),BX CHANGE IN OPERATION .SPEED 30,0«6W, M/H
'TOTAL-OPERATING- COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/THN
UNIT COST [/TUN -MILE
-fUF.tr RCUUISEME.NTS — ly
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
0.71
FULL CAPACITY OPERATION - SPEED 50,0 M/H LOADED,few M/H UNLOADED
NUMBER OF TRAINS ib,0
CAPITAL COSTS*
CHARGE OH LlfcHT
nFER/rTT.HR-rt]sTs&- UNIT-COS T-S-~
ENfHGY- "STEEL KtRUIRCD ' EMPLOYMENT
REHUIRfcMENTS
TRUCKS
-ROADBED—
EQUIP,
15.5-
5fe9.n~
130.5"
AV.RATE BASE
-nErr-R^KTiri
FED, TAX
DEPRECIATION
357.5" FUEL 19,9 -S/TON 5,«6"ljOCQ, 6t?4B0'5i?lHP " CAKS b ?l l'i
cb , 1 *" **
'5H°0 T|~ KEL INO,
ban
TOT*L
711.9 " TOTAL 81. P" TGT»L 5a,7
ww«BVBV.WBVVavi«BWBWiWww«aBi«iBW«l»aa«Ma>MW*a«»a>w«
- ----------- TaTAC"ANRUAt~ COST
TOTAL 6^279^,2 T." TOTAL
"•"CONCRtTt — 9 a 5 Bfl K V»"" T
-------
0r-t VTA N GE~tltf- 0 P E « A T10 IT TS P E E0~5 0.0 • 6 PT.
TOTAL OPERATING COST 45.2
TOTAL" ANNUAL COST 125.5
UNIT rnST S/TON 6,27
UNIT COST r/TUN -MILE 0.60
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1.27 MMSB
TOTAf Ef "
CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50,0"6d, M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TUN
UNIT COST-t/TON -MltE--
FUEL REQUlKfcMENTS 0.95
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
35.7
«.«
7,b3
«.73-
TOTAt OPERATING COST 2«,8
TOTAL'ANNUAL COST IW1 .»-
UNIT COST S/TrjN l^.lfi
UNIT COST C/TON -MILE 0,97
FUEL REULJIREMENTS 0,b3
TOTAL*
H
00
Ul
CHANGE IN DPEf?ATION ,SPEED 50.0-60,
68,
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TTN „__
UNIT COST' t/TDN^ -flTUE
FUEL REOUlKEMtNTS l.St? IIMriH
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TON
UNIT COST t/TON ".MILE
FUEL RewuiRE^ENTS 2,22
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
fl?,4
,
5,41
0.56
-------
FULL CAPACITY OPERATION - SPEED~5C1.B M/H~t:OADED, 60~H/H
NUMBER OF TRAINS 24.0
CAPITAL COSTS" ANNUAL FIXFO
- C H A K G E 0 N 0 fc !3 T
TRUCKS "
ROAOREn
EQUIP,
TOTAL
15.5" AV , R'ATE" RASE
19s!7" FED. TAX
" DEPRECIATION
76P.1 " ,TOTAL
TOTAL
" 390,1
27|9
89. R
AMNUAL
^OPERATING COSTS" UNIT COSTS "
- FUEL
" LABOR
^ SUPPLY
" TOTAL
COST K
19.9 - '"s/TOM 6, n 3 ~L 01
43,6 "C/T-M Pi.6P.-FUI
a, 6 *[/MBTU 30,70-
72,1 -
M.9 '
ENERGY " STEEL REQUIRED " EMPLOYMENT
REQUIREMENTS " "
EL'MB. i",§a ~ Lncn ^596/4^8
2 RAIL 56175"i, 0
" TOTAL 6P331'4.8
" CONCRfcTE 9a5M(
" TJMWEH 55434991
T!~ CAP/WOHK VI. 21"
T.- REL IND, 59^"
T.- TOTAL 3501-
5M,d T
5,0 FT
-8f),0% CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50,0-60, M/H
-TOTAL OPERATING COST 59i9~
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 147,3
UNIT COST S/TON 7,36
UNIT COST t/TON -MILE 0.70
-FUEL REQUIREMENTS—lT27"MMe8-
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 29b5
H
U)
CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEEP 50.^-60, M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 47,6
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 13?,6
UNIT COST S/TON 8.pa
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE 0.84
FUEL REQUIREMENTS P.95 MMBB
TOTAU EMPLOYMENT 3431
TOTAL OPERATING COST 33,3
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 115,S
"UNIT COST S/TON 11.58-
UNIT COST (/TON -MILE 1.10
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 0.63 MHBB
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 1729
20,0% CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50.0*60, M/H
"TOTAC~OPERATTNG- COST
TOTAL AMNUAL COST
UMIT COST S/TON
UNIT COST t/TON -MILE
"
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
9B.9
180,7
6,0?
0.57
-
4376
-------
CHANGE IN DPEHATION ,
TOTAL OPERATING COST 16)9.7
TOTAL ANNUAL COST ?"h.?
UNIT COST S/TON 7.M4
U^'IT COST [/TUN -MILE U.h7
FUEL REQUIREMENTS rf.22 MKHB
TOTAL EMPI OYMENT
FULL CAPACITY OPERATION! - SPEED SW.0 M/H LOADED, 60 M/H UNLOAPtD
NUMBER Of TRAINS 32.W
CAPITAL COSTS" ANNUAL FIXED
CHARGE ON IJE8T
TRUCKS
ROADBED
EQUIP.
TOTAL
15.5- AV, HATE BASE
569,0" 0 E 8 T R M E N T ,
260.9" PEP, TAX
" OEPRECI AT ION~
845, a - TOTAL
TOTAL
as?. 7;
It'.T
~-3», 7"
97.8"
ANNUAL
OPERATING COSTS
FUEL
LABOR
SUPPLY
TOTAL
COST
19.9
58.1
11. A
UNIT COSTS - ENERGY " STtFL KEUUIREO - EMPLOYMENT "
REQUIREMENTS " "
S-/TDN 7,
-------
TOTAL OPERATING COST 113.?
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 211,Pi-
UNIT COST $/TQM 7,6'3
UNIT COST [/TON -MTLE ».67
FUEL REQUIWfcMtNTS 1.90 MMBB
TOTAL-EMPLOYMENT 5*85-
CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50,0-60, M/H
TOTAL OpFRATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST -265,5
UNIT COST S/TUN 8,16
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE 0./B-
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 2,22
COSTS AND RESOURCES FOR UNIT TRAIN TRANSPORTATION
MILLION DOLLARS - 85 MMTY
ROUTE N 6, GILLETTE - NEW YORK 3020,0 MILES
pt^t--CAPACITY-OPERATION--- -SPEED -30,fl-M/H LOADED,60 M/H UNLOADfcO
NUMBER OF TRAINS 39.0
H
00
CAPITAL COSTS" ANNUAL FIXED "OPERATING COSTS" UNIT COSTS " ENERGY
CHARGE ON DEBT " " RETIREMENTS
TRUCKS
ROADBED
EOUIP.
TOTAL
15,5- AV, RArF PASfc
1133.2" OiifiT WMENT.
208.1- FED. TAX
" DEPRECIATION
1356.9 " TOTAL
6fe. a" FUEL
fll.l" LABOR
23. fr" SUPPLY
47.2-
154.9" TOTAL
- 34,5 "S/TQN 13.35'LOCO. 6i4g5tj.?iMP
111.1 "t/T-M ?,66-FUEL MB, 2,74
33,1 2C/^BTU <>6.SeC
178,7 "
" SThEL HEHUIHEO " EMPLOYMENT "
" CARS 1 ?
- LOCO 3
" RAIL i«e
* TUTAL123
2«b-l.0-T.-'Rft •- 7 a 05" "
11??. 0 T,- CAP/WORK 0.1H-
-------
-40,0% CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEEO 30.0-60,
TOTAL OPERATING COST 118,3
TOTAL ANNUAL COST ?6R,?
UNIT COST S/TllN V7.-§8-
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE 0,89
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1,64 MMHB
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 58B9
-60,0X CHANGE IN DPERATION ,SPeEO 30.0-63. M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 8?.fe
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 229,9
"UNIT COST S/TON22,99-
UNIT COST t/TON -MILE 1.14
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1,10 MM«B
TOTAL EMPLOYMtNT 4198
20,ax CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 30,0-60, M/H
'TOTAT OPERATING CTDST"
TOTAL ANNUAL COST SBwIS
UNIT COST S/TON 12,fee
UNIT COST t/TON -MILE K.63
FUEL~REQUIREMENTS 3,29 MMBB
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 10666
TOTAL OPERATING COST 273.4
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 568.4
"UNIT COST S/TON ia;SJ
UNIT COST [/TON -MJLE 2.72
FUEL RE.QUIWEMt.NTS -5.H4 MMB3
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
4g.3X CHANGE IN OPERATIOM ,SPEEO 30,0-byi, M/H
FULL CAPACITY OPERATION - SPEED 30,« M/H LOADED,60 M/H UNLOADED
NUMBER OF TRAINS 52,0
CAPITAL COSTS-
ANNUAL FIXED
CHARGE ON DEBT
"OPERATING COSTS" UNIT COSTS -
ENERGY
REQUIREMENTS
^ STEEL KEOUIREO - EMPLOYMENT 3
TRUCKS 15,5" Ay. RATE OASc 713.1" FUEL 34.^ 'S/TON 15.61'
ROAPtJfcO 1133.2" DtHT HMf-NT. Bft,«" L.A80R 14H.1 "[/T-M 0,?7"
EOL'IP. 277.5' FRO. TAX 2.? " TOTAL 163.4" TOTAL 226,8
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 390,2
TOTALl?0599h.H T," TOTAL 10966"
CONCRETE 1818«00,S) T
TIMBtK\f)64540H0,l3 FT
-------
TOT»L OPERATING COST
TOTAU ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TON
"""~ —
FUEL REQUIREMENTS
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
-20.0X CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 30,0-60, M/H
18fl.fi
3^8.8
TOTAL OPERATING COST
"TOTAL"ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TON ;
UNlf COST [/TON -MILE
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1.64
TOTAL"EMPLOYMENT
507.
.
1.01
-60,0X CHANGE IN OPERATION , SPEED 30,a-6(?i, M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TON
-aNiT-cosT~r/Ttro— -
FUEL REOUIREMENTS
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
1.10 MMB8
5451
I
o
CMAM6E—tK
TOTAL OPERATING COST
-TOTAC~ANNUAL 'COST =—450-. 3
UNIT COST S/TON 15,?ll
UNIT COST t/TON -MILE 0.7/4
FUEL RffiUIREMENTS 3,29
-TOTAL -EMPLOY WfcOfT:-
40,0X CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEEO 30.8-60, M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 347,1
TOTAL' ANNUAL" COST 595.8'
UNIT COST S/TON 17.32
UNIT COST [/TUN -MILE e.ei
FUEL R£rJUIR?-^fcNTS 3.R4 M'lfJB
f EMPLOYMtWT 16991-
-------
FULL CAPACITY OPERATION - SPEF.D 30,0 M/H LOADED,60 M/H UNLOADED
NUMBER OF TRAINS 6 s. M
CAPITAL COSTS" ANNUAL FIXED "OPERATING COSTS" UNIT COSTS ~ ENERGY " STEEL KEUUIRfcD '
~" CHARGE ON DEBT —~- - - REQUIREMENTS -- - -
TRUCKS ISTI^'AV, RATE BASE 747,S" FUEL " 3<4,5~ "S/TON 17.87"LOCO, 102375B. HHP " CARS 2tf475P!,0 T.'
ROAIIbtO 1133,2" "EBT RM£NT. 9?.7" LABOR 185,1 " C/T-M 0. Bfl'FUEL. MB. 2.74 " LOCO bl87fl,8 T," CAP/ijQHK 0,)i
"EQUIP. 346.8" FEH, TAX Sh , V" SXTPPCT b5."I "T/nBTtT~88763'~ ^"RAIC TPIBi?l70l71, ?)"
~ DEPRECIATION ^3.2" * "
TOTAL ' M195.6- ~ TOTAL 171.9" -TOT^t"-37178 " ~ '"TOTAL 1337380,-^-
^ TOTAL ANNUAL COST 446.7 " " CONCHfcTt lfll8H0M.Pi_T
_-20,BX CHANGE JN OPERAHON ,_SPEEO 30.0-6P). _M/_H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 229.1
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 396.H
UNIT COST S/TON ~ 19,84J
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE 0.S8
f?UEL REQUIREMENTS 2,19 MMBB
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT ~
H
-40,3X CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 30.0-60, M/H
•-TOTHt~OPERATING- COST Ifl3.«~
TOTAU ANNUAL COST 346.ft
UNIT COST S/TUN 23.12
UNIT COST (/TON -MILE i.i«
--FUEL -HEQUIRtMtNTS " 1.64 MMBfr
TOTAL EMPLOVMtt- 9404
-60,OX CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 30.0-60. M/H
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 287.6
UNIT COST S/TO.N 28.76
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE l.«2
"— -
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
6704
20,0x CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEEP 30,0-60. M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 34fl,3
TOTAL ANNUAL COST e)2f%2
"UNIT COST' SVTrm- ----------- 17 ,
UNIT COST I/TON -MILfc
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 3,29 Mf'BS
TOT4L E^PLOVMfcNT _ 17101
-------
40,0% CHANGE IN OPERATION .SPEED 30,0-
TOTAL" OPERATING cast-- oai.e
TOTAL ANNUAL COST ^83. 3
UNIT COST S/TON 19.52
UNIT COST [/TON -MRE 0,97
FUEL RETIREMENTS 3.B4 MHBr '" — - '
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 2fi89«
FULL CAPACITY OPERATION - SPEED 5C.B M/H L_OADtD,60 M/H UNLOADtO
NUMBER Of TRAINS 29.0
-•«,.„. »_._c-~«^a. „„«,»--»«.„_„„_„.«.„„»„„«„,„„„».„-„_„»„-„«.»Do-»,>,»««.<.«»™D.»«^m = ™-«».KK»»»«,t. = -u,='.-.».n^*^-™n.-.
CAPITAL COSTS" ANNUAL FIXEO "OPERATING COSTS" UNIT COSTS " ENERGY "~ ~ " STtEL HEUUIRED -
CHARGE ON UEBT " " KtdlUIWtMtNTS
TRUCKS""" "IsI^'Av" RATE BASE 69?.t>~ FUEL" " 38.^" "VTON i?"a'Loco.i^96sae>.cinK - CAKS visbpi.0 T.- WR
"ROADBtO 1 J33.3--DEBT-K'1EMT. 65.9-^t/H}OR J191', 3~- ~" t /T'»M 0 , t. 3-FUEL—MB. 3v8s •- LOCO-- SSb^ffi. 8"! ,---C AP/WO^K—IJ-.-21"
EQUIP. 236,5" FE". TftX 24.0" SUPPLY 19,9 "C/MBTU 63,10" " HAIL 1H60?OH,W T,- WEL INC. lk)6f
- " -
MAvRiSBMMCBnvnonva
TOTAL I385e2 " TOTAL 158,fl" TOTAL 159,6 " * TOTAL 12dTui9^. 0 T," TOTAL 7817'
TOTAt— ANMOAt^COST 5t8 ,-0 " " "^CONC»ETt 1 8US0PIf7is-T
" FT
H
K)
TOTAL OPERATING COST 13?,6
TOTAf'ANNUAL -COST 2S8.-3—
UNIT COST S/TON 11,41
UNIT COST t/TON -MILE P.71
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 2,^
^
• 80,05! CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50,01-60, M/H
?'J8.b
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
UNIT CUST S/TON i
UNIT COST I/TON «HILE
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1,83
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 5446
CHA~NT?t IN
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TC1N
UNIT COST t/TON -MILE
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1,22
~TO TAT. "EMPLOYMENT 3B8
223,7
2i.37
1.11
-------
TOTAL OPERATING COST 201.7
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TOM
UNIT COST I/TOM -MILE" -- B.S-
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 3.66 MMBB
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
12,
CHANGE IN OPERATION .SPEED 50.8-60. M/H
-471,tux-CHANGE-IN OPERATION ,sPtEt> 50.0-6a. M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 2«3.9
TOTAL ANNUAL COST UBU,?
UNIT COST S/TON 13.8*
-UNIT COST t/TUN -MJLE—-0.69
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 4.86 NMBB
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 11871
CAP-ACITY'-OPEKATION - SPF.ED 5C%PI M/M-tOAQED, 60"M/H
OF TRMNS 41,0
CAPITAL COSTS;
TRUCKS
ROADBED
EQUIP.
TOTAL
15.5-
J133.,?-
358,8-
1507,5 "
AMNIJAL -FIXED -OPERATING COSTS* UNIT COSTS "
CHARGE CNOENT " *
A V . KATE RASE
F E f , TAX
DEPRECIATION.
TOTAL
751. 8"--
IbiT-
b.<.7-
173,4-
FHF.L 38;«- - "S/TON 15,83"LO(
LAbOR 153,8 "[/T-M t",76"FUE
SUPPLY 3?, 2 *C/MBTU 78, 5i"
TOTAL ?2?,4 "
ENERGY - STEEL HEfJUIhfcO ~ EMPLOYMENT -
REQUIREMENTS " -
IL'MB, "3.*(^5 " L"cu ^^eftalb j'.~ CAP/IIORK
" RAIL lUtitWKPl.I'j I , - KEL INI),
" T(-lTAL13^356fl,0 T . "" TOTAL 1
list;
1«Z6"
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 395,7
CONCRtTt 18)8PdM.t« T
TIMBEK1 06454,000.0 FT
U)
CHANGE IN OPERATION .SPEED 50.0-60, M/H
OPERATTN5TTT5T I'f 5.6'
TOTAL ANhUAL COST 3b4,^
UNIT COST S/TON 17.73
UNIT cnsr [/TON -MILE 0.88
FUEL PfOUIREHE^TS 2,ay M«6B
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
•40,0X^CHANGE_IN _OPERAJION_ r SPEED 5_0_S0-60AJV_H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 14fl.8
TOT^L ANMMAL COST 31?.4
UMIT COST S/TDN 20.89
UNIT COST r/TQ^i -MILE l.e.3
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1,83 MMBfl
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 7945
-------
-60,0% CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEEO 50.0-60, M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
"UNIT COST S/TON
UNIT COST [/TUN -MILE
FUEL REQUIREMENTS
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
1,22
, 3
1.31
5661
20,0X CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50,0-6H, M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
UNIT COST S/TON
UNIT COST [/TON -MILE
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
883.? ----
,
15. i9
0.75
14481
43,0X CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50,0«-60, M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 3—•>—— — —— — — « — — — — — — — •>— —— — — — <>a
CAPITAL COSTS' ANNUAL FIXED "OPERATING COSTS** UNIT COSTS " ENEKGY " STEEL REQUIRED - EMPLOYMENT
CHARGE PN DEBT " ._. ~ ". _. REQUIREMENTS _ •_ - •
TRUCKS 1S,5""AV, RATE RASE Blfl.fl- FUEL 38,4 "S/TON 1B. 73~LOCO. 2192
-------
TOTAL OPERATING COST
~TOT AI.—ANNUAL-COST
UNIT COST $/TON
UNIT COST t/TON -MILE
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 1.83
-
•60,0X CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50,0-60, M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST : 302,
UNIT COST S/TON
FUEL REQUIREMENTS "1^22
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 7323 ._.
n
IN OPEKATION ,SPEEO
TOTAL OPERATING COST 357.?
" ^TO T7VU~A"N fJUTAL COST 5 S TTT
UNIT COST S/TON
UNIT COST t/trjw -MILE iJ.90
FUEL REQUIREMENTS 3,66 MMBb
"TOTAL" EMPLOYMENT •" " 18909-
,0X CHANGE IN OPERATION ,SPEED 50,0-60, M/H
TOTAL OPERATING COST 437,8
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 718,a
UNIT COST S/TtlN 2P.53
UNIT COST t/TtlN -MILE J,f2
FUEL REOUIRtMfeNTS «,26 MMBH
"TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
-------
SECTION III
COAL SLURRY PIPELINES
3.1 General.
Slurry pipelines are less route specific than
railroads. Terrain is relatively unimportant in terms of
pumping distance, but the terrain affects the cost of
construction, the pipeline operating pressure, and the
pumping power required; greater distance might have to be
tolerated to avoid extremes in the other parameters.
Existing pipelines do not return the water to the origin
after dewatering at the receiving end. Thus, the availability.
and to a lesser extent, the cost of water can be a problem.
Evaporation of the water after dewatering by feeding into cooling
towers can also be a problem since 1. 7 tons/day of coal fines might
be released to the atmosphere for a shipment of 25 MMTY. No
control has been considered by ETSI. If the coal transported
is to be exported after dewatering, this water will lack
evaporation facilities . Returning the water by pumping it back
to the mine area after adding the make-up water means an added cost
of piping and pumping but solves the problem of water availability.
The condition under which returning the water to the mine area is
justifiable is one of the terms analyzed in this study- It was
shown in our earlier study that slurry pipeline is superior if new
railroad must be built for shipping coal alone over a distance of
shipment of more than about 200 miles.
The lack of flexibility in economic shipping capacity
is an important feature of the slurry pipeline. A line designed
for 3.5 mph flow velocity cannot be safely operated at a velocity
below 3 mph without plugging. Operation at 5 mph requires a design
providing for double the horsepower, peak pressure, and wear.
- 59 -
-------
- 60 -
The capital costs of a slurry line are completely
front ended. A 7 percent escalation of cost is used as an
average, although 4 percent was proposed by ETSI in view of
the low operating labor component. Given maintenance, repair,
partial replacement and possible plugging, the labor component
may not be the proper criterion.
The cost per unit commodity capacity mile at
reduced capacity increases by the inverse of the fraction
of full load; an 80 percent load factor increases the unit
cost by 25 percent. The upper limit of capacity is usually
the safest and most economic operating condition for a slurry
pipeline. A part load in a slurry pipeline is not feasible
although a line designed for 5 mph operation can be operated
at 3.5 mph though at much higher unit cost. A slurry line can
be branched if there is steady flow at both the inlet and the
delivery points, but variables dispatching is not feasible
because the trunk lines have to be operated within a narrow
speed range. Delivery points and inlet points can be
switched following a rigid schedule but cannot be tapped
and fed at will. A stopped line can be flushed with water,
but trunk line flow cannot be fed through, say, one of 5
branch lines with arbitrary closing off of the others.
A number of falacies concerning the slurry pipeline
have been propagated on both sides of the argument. A listing
based on facts and experience, is desirable. The areas to be
covered include the following:
(1) The statement that the Black Mesa line uses
10.4 MMCFD of gas for coal drying and flame
stabilization for 4.8 MTY is untrue. That
allegation assumes the use of gas for drying
coal rather than mechanical dewatering.
-------
- 61 -
(2) Two hundred mesh coal in the slurry may settle
out in 36 hours. This is the confidence limit
for stopping the line without flushing.
(3) The output slurry is to be stored in holding
tanks with continuous stirring.
(4) The abrasion and wear on pipes is nearly
uniform because of the density of water.
Design safety factors include provision
against line break.
(5) Short term shut downs of less than 3 days
have been shown to be allowable.
(6) Low points are to be avoided whenever
possible. Stream crossings are best handled
by overground pipes.
(7) Pipe cost is proportional to 0.65 power of
the pipe diameter. Based on unit flow
throughput small pipes cost more in both
material and pumping power.
(8) Distribution lines should follow the above
formula.
(9) More water is not needed for branching but
rigid requirements of operation is a real
problem.
3.2 Capital Cost Elements.
The pipeline routes specified in Section 1.1 are
given in detail in Table 3.1 which shows for each route the
number of miles for the shortest practical route for each
-------
Table 3.1
COAL SLURRY PIPELINE ROUTES
Slurry Pipeline:
(1) Fannington, NM to Los Angeles, CA
M = 660 Miles HV = 10080
W/0 & W/ return water
Water cost, W = 1, 2.50 $/gallon
3 cases.
(2) Gillette, WY to Chicago, IL
M = 1000 Miles HV = 10080
W/0 & W/ return water
Water cost, W = 1, 2.50 $/gallon
3 cases.
(3) Gillette, WY to Houston, TX
M = 1210 Miles HV = 10080
W/0 & W/ return water
Water cost, W = 1, 2.50 $/gallon
3 cases.
(4) Colstrip, MT to Seattle, WA
M = 840 Miles HV = 10080
W/0 & W/ return water
Water cost, W = 1, 2.50 $/gallon
3 cases.
- 62 -
-------
- 63 -
given topography. This gives rise to the curvature of the
pipelines shown in Figure 1.1, although there are fewer
twists and turns than for rails, giving the pipeline an
advantage in westward shipments.
The different nature of the coal slurry line from
crude oil pipelines renders cost estimates based on crude
oil lines too low. The ETSI data for 1974, when escalated
at 7 percent is 13 percent higher than 1975 crude oil pipeline
data because of significantly different pumping facilities.
The costs of preparation equipment and wells, the
pipeline and pumping stations, and the dewatering facilities
for the Black Mesa pipeline (5 MMTY) as well as for:the
Wyoming to Arkansas pipeline (25 MMTY), based on ETSI estimates,
are escalated to produce 1975 prices and to show the details of
capital costs. Additional details are given in the notes to
items in Table 3.2. Next, additional assumptions concerning
capital cost estimates are noted.
One caveat must be noted. When a private line is
built it is often impossible to say how much of the capital
cost (if any) has been absorbed by the companies at either
end and not debited to the pipeline. Similarly, shipment
costs become akin to transfer prices. The strict analogy is
that between the "costs" of company owned oil tankers and
those chartered on the open market (not spot rates). There
is no unique connection between the two. The Black Mesa line
fits this description.
The Black Mesa pipeline consists of one mine supply-
ing one destination by a 273 mile, 18 inch pipeline. It
supplies 5 million tons of coal per year to the Mohave
Generating Station. A 38 inch Wyoming to Arkansas pipeline
of 1,040 miles would supply 25 million tons of coal per year.
More than one mine will be needed to provide the 25 million
tons of coal. Five with coal preparation facilities like
-------
Table 3.2
ITEMIZED CAPITAL COSTS OF BLACK MESA AND
WYOMING-ARKANSAS COAL SLURRY PIPELINES
Black Mesa
273 miles
Preparation 5 x 10 tons/yr
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Truck hopper
Initial crushing and cleaning
Stocking conveyor
Raw storage
Active storage
Dozers and scrapers
Conveyor transfer tower
Conveyor to bunkers
Bunkers and feeders
Operating plant
Vibrator
Rod mill
Vibrator
Slurry holding tank
Slurry test loop
Wells and water pumps
Water working storage
Water reservoir and pipe
Water piping and rust inhibitor injectors
._ 1 C _.
0.05
1.0
0.2
i n
0.68
1.0
0.6
0.2
00
0.15
0.15
1.0
0.2
Oc _.
1.5
0.15
0.6
0.05
One __ _
1.25
0.35
0.3
0.1
5n
. T7 BQ _
Wyoming-Arkansas
1,040 miles
25 x 106 tons/yr
- — — 7 "=;
0.25
5.0
1.0
5n
3.4
5.0
3.0
1.0
._ __ i R
0.75
0.75
5.0
1.0
. j c
7.5
0.75
3.0
0.25
One
6.25
1.75
1.5
0.5
oc n
. _ _ OQ A
Pipeline
26(a) Mainline 45.6 26(b) 700
27. Collecting and branch lines 190
28 (a) Coal in pipelines 0.23 28 (b) 4.4
TOTAL: Pipeline 45.83 894.4
- 64 -
-------
Table 3.2 Continued
Separation
Black Mesa Wyoming-Arkansas
273 miles 1,040 miles
5 x 106 tons/yr 25 x 106 tons/yr
29(a) Permanent storage
30. Holding tanks
31. Dewatering centrifuges
32. Pulverizers
33. Flocculating tanks
34. Piping
TOTAL: Separation
4.8 29(b) 13.0
2.1 10.5
4.0 18
0.9 4.5
0.7 3.5
0.15 0.75
X^«uO ~~ ~*~ ™ — — — — — oU»^O
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
76.36 1034.0
Notes to Table 3.2:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Five 125-ton trucks for transport from the mine @ $30,000 each.
Truck hopper @ $50,000
TWo 28 ft by 14 ft diameter rotary breakers, $l,000/ton/hr x 660 ton/hr
x 1.5 [4a]
Movable stacking conveyor, $800/ft x 250 ft [4b]
200,000 tons coal @ $5/ton in-active storage
35,000 tons coal @ $5/ton raw storage + feeder and site development @
$500,000 [4c,5]
38,000 tons coal @ $5/ton active storage + rotary plow, structure above,
and site development @ $810,000 [4c,5]
Four bulldozers or scrapers @ $150,000
400 ft by 30 in. conveyor, $250/ft equipment x 400 ft x 1.28 labor and
material/material x 1.6 [4d,6a]
Transfer tower with 300 ton bin; coal sampled and weighed @ $300,000
300 ft x 30 in. conveyor, $250/ft equipment x 300 ft x 1.28 labor and
material/materials x 1.6 [4d,6a]
Three 590 ton bunkers with feeders @ $50,000
Operating plant @ $1,000,000
x 60
0.58
ft* x 1.32
Three 6 ft x 10 ft twindeck vibrators, 3 x $l,100/ft
installation x 2.4 stainless steel x 1.5 [6a] , 2
Three irtpactors, 290 tons Air, 3 x $85/ton/hr x 290 ' tons/hr x 1.57
installation x 1.5 [6a]
Three 18 ft x 13 'ft I.D. rod mills, 1,500 hp, 150 tons of rods,
3(150 tons x 2,000 Ib x $l/lb + $20,000/motor x 8.5 installation) [7.8] ,
Three 3.5 ft x 4 ft wedge wire screen vibrator, 3 x $900/ft2 x 14°'58/ft'
x 1.32 installation x 2.4 stainless steel x 3 wedge wire x 1.5 [6a]
- 65 -
-------
Table 3.2 Continued
16, Four 650,000 gallon tanks with 10 ft 125 hp agitator, 4($60,000/tank
x 1,75 inflation + $350/hp x 125°«5 hp x 1.62 installation x 1.5
inflation) + $100,000 slurry tower
19. 206 ft test loop, 4,200 gpm @ $50,000
20. 100 acres @ $500/acre
21. Five 3,400 ft wells and punps @ $250,000 [9]
22. 150 ft diameter x 48 ft high, 6.3 x 106 gal water storage tank,
$200,000 x 1.75 [6b]
23. 3 x 106 gal plastic lined tank and 14 in., two-mile pipe, $150,000
x 1.75 + $40,000 pipe [6b]
24. Piping and rust inhibitor injectors @ $100,000
25. Three 1,750 hp, 330 tons/hr coal equivalent slurry punps, 1,000 psi
discharge, 3 x $1,330,000 + $1,000,000 accessories [6c]
26a. $7,120,000 purrping x 5 x 106 tons/9 x 106 tons x 1.65 inflation
+ $37,590,000 mainline x 273 miles/344 miles x 5 x 106/9 x 10b tons
x 2.1 inflation - $5,000,000 first pumping station [10]
26b. ($13,000,000 + $3,400,000) x 5 pipeline valuation in Niobrara and Goshen
Counties, Wyoming, x 1,040 miles/106 miles x 0.91 deflation - $25,000,000,
first pumping station [9]
27. ($20,800,000 + 3,600,000) x 5 collecting pipeline valuation in Campbell
and Converse Counties, Wyoming, x 2 destination supply lines as well as
collecting lines x 0.91 deflation [9]
28a. 46,000 tons coal in pipe @ $5/ton
28b. 875,000 tons coal in pipe @ $5/ton
29a. Two 36 x 106 gal storage tanks in a ground plastic lined, 90 tons coal
each, 2($200,000 for 6 x 106 gal tank item 22 x 6°-8 size factor x 1.75
inflation + 90,000 tons coal x $10/ton) [6b,8]
29b. 1 x 106 tons coal hauled by train and stored dry @ $10/ton + $3,000,000
for facilities
30. Three 6 x 106 gal holding tanks, 15,500 tons of coal, 3($200,000/tank
x 1.75 inflation + $200,000 agitator and accessories + 15,500 tons x $10/ton)
[6b,8]
31. Twenty centrifuges, 20 x $35,000/centrifuge x 3.1 process plant cost ratio
x 1.9 [8,11k]
32. Ten pulverizers, $520/lb x (660 tons/hr x 2,000 lb/ton)0.35 x 1.59
installation x 1.8 [6a]
33. Two 200 ft I.D. tanks @ $350,000 [6b]
34. Piping @ $150,000
- 66 -
-------
- 67 -
Black Mesas aro assumed. Five destinations are also assumed
because the Mo'nave Generating Station is the largest coal-
burning facility in the United States with a daily consumption
of 25,000 toms (9 million tons per year)[2].
The assumptions for coal preparation capital costs
are for Black Mesa. About five times that amount would be
required for the Wyoming-Arkansas pipeline. This linear
extrapolation is also assumed for the costing of separation
facilities because the pipeline can supply several power
stations. Additionally, linear extrapolation is used because
the largest equipment available was used at Black Mesa, yet
there was still a need for duplication of equipment for
preparation, separation, and pumping facilities. The cost
of developing larger equipment would probably offset any
economic advantage because it would have very limited appli-
cation.
The Black Mesa pipeline has a design peak pressure
of 1500 psi. The Wyoming to Arkansas line, due to gentle
terrain, was estimated by ETSI to have a peak pressure of
900 psi, but their estimates of 3/8" pipe wall thickness for
38" diameter pipe is close to critical design. For a trunk
line like Wyoming to Arkansas, the electricity used at the
pumping stations would be purchased locally or transmitted
from the power plant using the slurry, whichever costs less.
A power cost of less than 1.5 cents/Kwh cannot be expected.
If the water is to be returned to the mine area, a t$ipe
diameter of 27" will be needed for pairing with the 38" slurry
line. There will be additional costs for pumps and power
consumption. The ETSI estimate of $250 million for the
recycle line only covers the cost of the pipe.
Pumping stations on the Black Mesa pipeline are
each equipped with 3 slurry pumps, one of which is standby.
Speed can be raised to 4.3 mph when all of them are thrown
-------
- 68 -
into operation; peak pressure increases to 1.5 times the
design pressure for 3.5 mph flow.
Holding ponds were mentioned but were not tested
at the Black Mesa site where local dumping was not deemed
impermissible. According to ETSI, for the 25 MMTY shipment,
each station is supposed to have a lined holding pond for
dumping and a water pump and water reservoir for flushing.
For dumping the hold-up in each 100 mile branch, a holding
pond of one acre should have a depth of 100 feet. Recovery
by dredging has been mentioned by ETSI, but reinjecting
into the pipeline is no simple matter and the cost was not
provided by ETSI for such standby equipment and, perhaps,
cannot be justified within the cost structure. The minimum
land area for a pumping station is 4 acres. The ETSI
estimate of 3.66 MM ft for a dumping pond at each station
is correct, but a holding pond of ten times this capacity
might be needed at the delivery point. Flushing water
amounting to 27.4 MM gallons will be needed (the ETSI specifi-
cation of 18.7 MM gallons does not include the volume of coal
to be filled by water). Hence, the water reservoir should
also be 3.66 MM ft3 instead of the 2.5 MM ft3 estimated by
ETSI.
The purchase or lease of the right of way for
buried lines, except at stations, is similar to oil and gas
pipelines. Major towns must be bypassed, river crossings,
ravines and gorges may require the use of cable suspended
pipe. Cold weather can pose a problem on the exposed portion
of the pipe. No existing slurry pipeline passes through a
hard freeze area.
For the present comparison, annual fixed charges
are estimated on the same basis as that for unit trains.
Because almost all the capital costs are front-ended, the
-------
- 69 -
line is unusually sensitive to utilization. Coal throughput
may be dropped due to conditions at the supply end, the
demand end or line problems. For the first two, a significant
water flow might still be needed with little reduction in
electric usage.
3.3 Operating Costs.
Water is not a major cost item, but there is a
problem of availability and the environment. For a 25 MMTY
shipment 6.43 billion gallons of water per year are needed
(19,700 acre ft.). Costs of $1.00 per 1000 gallons to
$2.50 per 1000 gallons may be expected. Estimates by ETSI
that water costs of 20 times the cost for agricultural usage
of $5-10 per acre ft. means a water cost of only 25 cents
to 50 cents per thousand gallons. This is not believed to be
realistic,25 cents/1000 gallons in Wyoming is a confiscation
level.
Table 3.3 (based on SRI estimates) shows a typical
operations and maintenance data sheet similar to that used by
Bechtel-ETSI. Their water requirement estimate was in error
by a factor of ten times too small and has been corrected.
Table 3.4 shows the operation and maintenance labor in man-
years. The material, power, water needs and costs are shown
in Table 3.5 which has been corrected for a water cost of $1
per thousand gallons and costs escalated to obtain a 1975 base.
3.4 Cost Analysis and Results.
Table 3.6 shows the basic cost and resource items
for a specific route and for a given set of operating para-
meters. Cases include both one way slurry and water return,
and designs for both 3.5 mph and 5 mph velocity, and water
-------
Table 3.3
COAL SLURRY PIPELINE
(includes slurry preparation and dewatering)
Prime Input: 25 million tons/year of fine coal (25 x 10 ton-miles/year)
Other Input: 1,267 x 10 /kWh/year electric power, 6.43 x 10 gals water/
year
Prime Output: 25 million tons/year of fine coal
Q
Other Output: 6.43 x 10 gals water/year
Days/Year of Normal Operation: 357
Description and Size:
* 25 million tons/year
' 1,000 miles in length
" 38 inches in diameter
10 pump stations
* Coal preparation and dewatering facilities.
- 70 -
-------
Table 3.4
MANPOWER REQUIRED FOR OPERATION OF ENERGY FACILITIES
(Average Man-Years per Year)
Coal Slurry Pipeline
(includes slurry preparation and dewatering)
A. NONMANUAL
1. Technical
a. Engineers:
Chemical 1
b. Designers and draftsmen 0
c. Supervisors and managers 4
d. Other technical:
Office employees 2
e. Total technical 7
2. Nontechnical:
Foreman 52
B. MANUAL
1. Craftsmen
a. Critical skills:
Pipefitter/welder 8
Electrician 8
Operator, station
engineer, pumpman 16
Mechanic helper 16
Mechanic _72_
Subtotal 120
b. Other 0
c. Total craftsmen 120
2. Teamsters and laborers 32
3. Nonmanual, TOTAL
59
3. Manual, TOTAL
152
- 71 -
-------
Table 3.5
MAJOR ITEMS REQUIRED FOR OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE OF ENERGY FACILITIES
(Quantities per Year)
COAL SLURRY PIPELINE
(includes slurry preparation and dewatering)
Thousands
I. MATERIALS of Dollars
A. Major Raw Materials, Volume, Energy Content:
25 x 10° tons fine coal/year; 405 x 1012 Btus/year
B. Other Materials and Supplies
1. Lumber and Wood Products (20,21)s* Lumber 122
2. Paper and Paper Products (24-26) 31
3. Chemicals and Allied Materials (27-32):
Corrosion retardants 1,378
Other 62
Subtotal 1,440
4. Stone, Clay, and Glass Products (35, 36);
Negligible
5. Nonferrous metals (38)s Aluminum, copper products 122
6. Metal Products (39-42): Pipe, valves, and fittings 298
7. Miscellaneous: Negligible
8. TOTAL I 2,013
II. MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT
1. Nonelectrical machinery (43-50, 52): Negligible
2, Electrical Equipment (53-58): Negligible
3. Transporation Equipment (59-61): Negligible
*Bureau of Economc Analysis industry category numbers are in parentheses,
- 72 -
-------
Table 3.5 Continued
Thousands
of Dollars
4. Instruments and Controls (62, 63): Negligible
5. Miscellaneous (64):
Machinery (pumps, pulverizers, etc.);
controls, electrical instruments,
cxarmunication equipment 2,986
6. TOTAL 2,986
III. UTILITIES
1. Power and Light (68):
(l.SC/kWh)
Coal preparation 420 x 106 kWh (49,020 kW) 6,300
Pipeline movement 847 x 106 kWh (98,856 kW) 12,700
2. Fuel (68): 161
3. Water (68) : 6.43 x 109 gal ($1AOOO gal) 6.43 x 106
4. TOTAL 19,161
- 73 -
-------
Table 3.6
BASIC ITEMS - COSTS AND RESOURCES
25 MMTY Slurry Pipeline
One way - 3.5 nph - w/o return water
Million Dollars
CAPITAL COSTS:
A. Gathering 15.5
Preparation 81.9
97.4 (1)
B. Piping = 0.86M (2)
C. Separation Plant & Water Disposal 50.3 (3)
TOTAL Capital Cost (l) + (2) + (3) (4)
ANNUAL COSTS:
A. Annual fixed charge on debt
Average rate base (5)
Debt Retirement (30 yrs)
Rate base: (6)
Federal tax: (7)
State tax: (8)
Depreciation: ____ (9)
Total debt retirement (6) + (7) + (8) + (9) (10)
OPERATING COSTS:
B. Operating Labor (11)
Administrative (12)
C. Material (13)
D. Power (14)
E. Water (15)
Total Annual Operating Cost (11)+(12)+(13)+(14)+(15) (16)
^- 1 Annual Cost (10) +(16) (17)
- 74 -
-------
Table 3.6 Continued
F. a. $/ton = (I7)/25 (18)
b. C/ton-mile = 100 (17) /M (19)
i n6
c. C/MMBtu = (18) (20)
d. £/MMBtu mile = '—' (21)
Notes
Item (1) Gathering with 50 ea. 125-ton trucks.
Gathering cost directly proportional to design capacity.
Item (2) In case with water returned to the mine area, 56% additional
cost is average (KH). The lower limit is set at 28% (KL) .
In case of design for 5 mph, piping of double pressure and
double pumping power increases to $1.30 million per mile.
Item (3) Preparation cost directly proportional to design capacity.
Item (13) For case of design for 5 mph, 25% additional cost.
Item (14) For case of 5 mph, purtping power is doubled, preparation and
dewatering power increase by 43%
When water is returned, pumping power is doubled.
Item (15) In case of 5 mph, water required will be 9.26 billion gallons
No water cost when water is returned. 25% make up cost is
negligible when acquired in low water cost areas.
- 75 -
-------
- 76 -
costs of both $1 and $2.50, per 1000 gallons. Computational
results for various routes and parameters are given in the
computer printouts in the Appendix to this section.
Figure 3.1 shows the route specific costs in dollars/
ton for each slurry pipeline assuming water costs of $1 per
1000 gallons and $2.50 per 1000 gallons and for both cases of
no return and where the water is returned including piping
and pumping equipment cost at both the low level of $240,000
per mile (denoted RL in Figures 3.1 and 2.1(a)-(c) in
Section 2 for comparison) for the 27" diameter pipe and
$480,000/mile as a conservative high value (RH). The figure
of $240,000 per mile was close to that suggested by Bechtel
and is believed to be the lowest possible cost including
pipes and pumps, motors but no new excavation or other route
preparation. Depending on current prices of equipment, this
figure might buy only the pipe. The figure of $480,000/mile
would account for the necessary uphill pumping and a pump
designed to handle inky water after separation of the coal
from the slurry. When water is returned, the unit cost in
cents/ton-mile (Figure 3.1) does not decrease over distance
as much as in those cases when water is not returned. Also
included in Figure 3.1 are the multipliers for converting the
unit costs in tons to unit costs per million Btu (MMBtu).
Two multipliers are provided for each source, the 'dry1 basis
(D) and the 'as mined' basis (M). Because 'as mined' coal
includes up to 30 percent moisture by weight, the MMBtu trans-
mitted is close to the 'dry1 basis because less water is added
to form the slurry. At the delivery end, the moisture left in
the cake after dewatering is at least 25 percent. The moisture
causes a loss of approximately 2.5 percent of the heating value
based on the weight of dry coal fired.
-------
1.0
0.9
go.
8
0.7
0.6
12
10
8
600
RH
RL
$2.5
$1.0
RH
RETURN WATER
COHSERV. COST
*
RL
RETURN MATER
OPTIMISTIC COST
$2.5/1000
GAL"
000 GAL.
800
1000
t t t
NM TO LA MT TO WA WY TO
CHI
1200
t
WY TO TX
1400
MILES
FIGURE 3.1 UNIT COST - SLURRY PIPELINES
-------
- 77 -
Slurry pipelines have a narrow range of operating
flexibility even when operating economy is sacrificed. The
lower limit of a watery sludge is approximately 65 percent
load capacity where the slurry is 38 percent coal. The
part load condition is included in the modal comparisons in
Section 5.
There is considerable argument concerning water
requirements for the slurry pipeline. The often quoted
estimate of 15,000 acre feet per year is only for steady
state operation of the 25 MMTY pipeline. Flushing of the
pipeline with water in 12% days requires a short-term
increase of the pumping rate to 28,800 acre feet/year.
Long distance, large diameter slurry pipelines are
not a completely proven technology. The following table
contains a list of selected slurry lines but one which
includes all of the coal slurry lines; past, present and
anticipated. The Consolidation line (Cleveland-Cadiz, Ohio)
as late as August 1963, just before shut-down, was referred
to as experimental in a joint report by the Consolidation
Coal Company and the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company.
More important, the proposed ETSI lines represents an increase
by a factor of two in diameter and about 3.8 in length. The
remaining operational lines are short distance, small diameter,
and low tonnage. Serious problems with much larger, longer,
lines are not inconceivable.
Discussions and concern with respect to slurry
pipeline shutdown and spillage may be found in: J. Ellis and
P. Bacchetti (both of Peabody Coal Co.), "Pipeline Transport
of Liquid Coal," Bureau of Mines, 1C 8543 (1972)'. See also
E. Wasp, T. Aude, J. Kenny, R. Seiter (all of Bechtel), and
R. Jacques (of Black Mesa Pipelines), "Deposition Velocities,
Transition Velocities, and Spatial Distribution of Solids in
Slurry Pipelines," Hydrotransport 1, First International
-------
Table 3.7
SUMMARY OF SELECTED COMMERCIAL SLURRY PIPE LINES
Slurry material
Existing
Coal
Limestone
Copper concentrate
Magnetite concentrate
Gifsonite
Tails
Nickel refinery tailings
In Progress
Coal
Magnetite and Hematite
System or
location
Annual thruput
Length Diameter (million Initial
(miles) (inches) tons/year) operation
Consolidation
Black Mesa
Calaveras
Rugby
Trinidad
Colombia
Bougainville
West Irian
KBI Turkey
Pinto Valley
Tasmania
Waipipi (land)
Waipipi (offshore)
Pena Colorada
American Gilsonite
Japan
Western Mining
108
273
17
57
6
17
17
69
38
11
53
4
1.8
30
72
44
4.3
10
18
7
10
8
7
6
4
5
4
9
8
12
8
6
12
4
1.3
4.8
1.5
1.7
0.6
0.4
1.0
0.3
1.0
0.4
2.3
1.0
1.0
1.8
0.4
0.6
0.1
1957
1970
1971
1964
1959
1944
1972
1972
1974
1967
1971
1971
1974
1957
1968
1970
Nevada Power
Utah/Nevada 180
Energy Transportation
Systems, Inc.
Wyo./Ark. 1,036
Sierra Grande 20
Brazil 250
Mexico 17
Houston Natural Gas
Colo, to Tex. 750
Gulf Interstate
Northwest Pipeline 800
24
38
8
20
10
22
30
10
25
2.1
12
1.5
9
16
Phosphate
Sulphur/hydrocarbon
Magnetite and hematite
Australia
Canada
Africa
Brazil
India
Mexico
Australia
200
800
350
240
36
17
44
16-22
12-16
18
20
20-22
10
8
4.0-6.0
6.6
12.0
10.0
1.5
0.9
- 78 -
-------
- 79 -
Conference on the Hydraulic Transport of Solids in Pipes,
September 1-4, 1970. Plugging was cited by the Peabody
Coal operators during the June 1975 visit of one of our
researchers. See also: T. Aude, N. Cowper, T. Thompson
and E. Wasp (all of Bechtel), "Slurry Piping Systems:
Trends, Design Methods, Guidelines," Chemical Engineering,
June 28, 1972, for further discussion of the potential
problems. More discussion of the plugging problem can be
found in E. Wasp and T. Thompson (both of Bechtel), "Slurry
Pipelines...energy movers of the future," Oil and Gas
Journal, December 24, 1973. During our researcher's visit
to Black Mesa, Peabody Coal people spoke of having to dig
up the plugged line after locating the plug. Part of the
line was replaced. In testimony and questioning before
the Subcommittee on Energy Research, Development and Demon-
stration, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives, January 1976, E. Wasp (Bechtel/ETSI)
admitted having to drill out the plug.
The seriousness of the plugging of a slurry
pipeline may be visualized as follows: when a plug is noted
between two stations along a 1000 mile line, with station
spacing of 100 miles, each station will begin to dump the
slurry into a holding pond of one acre by 100 feet deep.
It will also begin to introduce water from a flushing pond
or other local water source by pumping water into the line.
For each branch, complete flushing takes 30 hours. In the
meantime, the plug is located within the 100 mile sector
followed by digging and plug removal. This process is
expected to take at least a week.
Subsequently, the slurry is reintroduced into the
pipeline from the supply point, while the flushing water is
returned to the ponds at each of the stations. The slurry
-------
- 80 -
dumped at each station will not be reintroduced unless
special injection equipment is provided which, considering
the cost, is unlikely if 99 percent operating reliability
is practiced. After this new start, the coal supply will
reach the delivery point 12% days later thus giving a total
stoppage time of almost 3 weeks. The water from the last
branch of the pipe, amounting to 19 million gallons, has to
be disposed of. This water is too dirty to simply dump and
contains too little coal to warrant dewatering and subse-
quent use of the coal. Storage of slurry or "cake" against
such a contingency is costly and environmentally problematic;
a slurry holding pond of 10 acres by 200 feet will be needed.
Unless treated, the holding ponds themselves may constitute
health hazards. If the ponds are not lined, the water per-
colates into the soil and/or evaporates and the now dried
coal may wind drift. If the ponds are lined a non-environ-
mentally hazardous method must be found for disposal.
If slurry line shutdown involves the purchase of power at
the receiving end, such power is more costly than "own"
produced power. If the purchase involves the use of the
network, a "wheeling charge" (service charge) of about 10
percent of the cost is added by each utility through which
the power is bumped. Finally, while the water flow rate
during operation amounts to 15,000 acre-feet/year, the
flushing rate, throughout its duration, amounts to about
28,000 acre-feet/year. Far more serious than the additional
water usage is the environmental problem of the disposal of
the flushing water; a very dilute unuseable suspension of
coal in a large volume of water. A line break has all of
the problems suggested above, but the break is unlikely to
be considerately near a dump pond. No provision has been
reported for breakage. Leaks and breaks in oil and gas lines
are familiar to all of us.
-------
- 81 -
The return of the water is desirable where the
use of the water for the slurry poses a serious problem to
the local economy and/or the environment. Even when water
is available to agriculture at 3 cents/1000 gallons ($10 per
acre-foot), the willingness of the slurry pipeline operators
to pay $2.50/1000 gallons may not be a sufficient reason
to deprive the farm sector of 6 billion gallons of water per
year. A case in which water has to be returned to the mine
area occurs when the slurry is to be dewatered for export,
because, without a power plant sited at the delivery end,
there is no means for evaporating the ink after dewatering.
The undesirability of operating a pipeline
designed for 3.5 mph at 5 mph is seen in the doubling of
pumping power and a pipeline pressure at 143 percent of
design capacity. Since each pumping station on the Black
Mesa pipeline is equipped with 3 pumps with one as a spare,
if this practice is applied, operating at 122 percent
capacity is feasible provided the line can take a 50 percent
increase in operating pressure. In this case the unit trans-
portation cost will be reduced by 18 percent. Similarly,
operating at the minimum flow velocity of 3 mph gives a
transfer capacity of 86 percent for the same slurry at 75
percent of the power need. In this case, unit costs are
increased by 15 percent.
One option is to design a pipeline for 5 mph
thus giving the flexibility of a reduced load at 3.5 mph or
3 mph. For purposes of comparison, a case was calculated
(Table 3.8), showing changes in costs for such, a pipeline
operating at 3.5 mph. Note that while a pipeline designed
for 5 mph may have a unit cost of only 5 percent higher than
a 3.5 mph line, when the former is operated at 3.5 mph the
unit cost will be 40 percent higher, for a 40 percent capacity
-------
Table 3.8
CHANGES IN COSTS PER 1000-MILE PIPELINE DESIGNED FOR
5 MPH FLOW AT 5 MPH AND 3.5 MPH AS COMPARED TO
ONE DESIGNED FOR 3.5 MPH
(in million dollars)
Design 5 irph Line 3.5 irph Line
Operating Flow 5 nph 3.5 itph 3.5 mph
Operating Capacity, MMIY 36 25 25
Capital Costs:
Gathering 22.3 22.3 15.5
Preparation 117.9 117.9 81.9
Piping & Pumping 1300 1300 860
Separation 72.4 72.4 50.3
Total 1512.6 1512.6 1007.7
Annual Costs:
Fixed Charges
Rate Base 93.8 93.8 62.5
Federal Tax 26.3 26.3 17.5
State Tax 30.3 30.3 20.1
Depreciation 50.4 50.4 33.6
Total 200.8 200.8 133.7
Operating Costs
Labor 6.9 6.9 6.9
Material 6.25 5 5
Power 34.1 19 19
Water ($1/1000 gal) 9.3 6.4 6.4
Total Annual Cost 258.6 239.3 171.0
Unit Cost:
$/ton 7.18 9.57 6.85
C/ton-mile .72 .96 .69
C/MMBtu 36 48 33.9
C/TWBtu/mile .036 .048 .034
- 82 -
-------
- 83 -
range. Note also that a unit train system has a unit cost
range of only 15 percent for a capacity range of 60 percent.
The proposed slurry pipeline for shipping coal from
New Mexico and Colorado to Houston with deliveries along
the way is an example of a pipeline with gathering and
branching. The costs cited in their proposal show general
agreement with our estimates. Note, however, that successful
operation calls for a nearly steady flow; delivery must be
maintained even if a power plant along the way is shut down.
-------
REFERENCES
Section III
1. National Petroleum Council, Coal Task Group, Other Energy
Resources Subcommittee, Committee.on U.S. Energy Outlook,
U.S. Energy Outlook (Coal Availability), for the U.S.
Department of the Interior, 1973, p. 126.
2. Wolff, A., "Showdown at Four Corners," Saturday Review of
Society, June 3, 1972, p. 29.
3o Golenpanl, A., Information Please Almanac, Atlas^ and
Yearbook, 1975, p. 76.
4. Rieber, M. and S. L. Soo, The Feasibility o£ Coal Mine
Cooperatives: A Preliminary Report and Analysis, report
prepared for the Energy Resource Development, Office of
Coal Federal Energy Administration, CAC Document No. 157P,
April 1975, (a) p. 57; (b) p. 92; (c) p. 96; and (d) p. 64.
5. Kube, W,, R., "Technology and Use of Lignite," Proceedings
2JL t^6 Bureau gjf Mines, University of North Dak"ota
Symposium Bismark, N.D., May 12-13, 1971, U.S. Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, 1972, p. 19.
6. Guthrie, K. M., "Capital Cost Estimating," Chemical
Engineering, March 24, 1969, (a) p. 132-3, (b) p. 140,
and" (c) p. 127.
7. Link, J. M., N. J. Larringia, and R. R. Faddick, "The
Economic Selection of a Slurry Pipeline," Paper K3,
Hydrotransport _3, Third International Conference on the
Hydraulic Transport of Solids in Pipes, May 15-17, 1974,
p. K-17.
8. Jelen, F. C., Cost and Optimization Engineering, McGraw-
Hill Book Co., 1970, p. 315-317.
9. Energy Transportation Systems, Inc., "Facts Concerning
Proposed Coal Slurry Pipeline from Wyoming to Arkansas,"
(Post Office Box 3965, San Francisco, CA 94119),
February 21, 1974.
10. Department of Interior, Report to the Panel on Civilian
Technology on Coal Slurry Pipelines, May 1, 1962, Table II-5,
- 84 -
-------
- 85 -
11. Smith, C. J., "Cost and Performance of Centrifuges,"
Data on Methods for Cost Estimation, Part 1: A Collection
of Articles from Chemical Engineering, McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
1952, (a) pp. 82-83 and (b) p. 77.
12. Musey, M. J., Jr., Controller, Black Mesa Pipeline, Inc.,
Annual Report, Year ended December 31, 1973.
13. Canadian Department of Energy, Mines, and Resources,
Transport of_ Solids in Pipelines with Special Reference
to Mineral Ores, Concentrates, and Unconsolidated Depos'its,
October 1969, (a Literature Survey).
14. Federal Energy Administration, "Coal Slurry Pipeline,"
Final Task Force Report on the Project Independence System
Integration Model for the Transport of Energy Materials,
Volume II, Chapter VII, November 1974.
15. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, "Pipeline
Transport of Liquid Coal," Technology and Use gjf Lignite,
May 1971.
16. Aude, T. C., T. L. Thompson, and E. J. Wasp, "Economics of
Slurry Pipeline Systems," Proceedings of_ the Transportation
Research Forum, Vol. XV, No. I, 1974.
-------
APPENDIX SECTION
COSTS AND RESOURCES FOR SLURRY PIPELINES
-------
COSTS AND RESOURCES FOR SLURRY PIPELINE
MILLION DOLLARS - 35 MMTY - 3.5 MPH
ROUTE - tARMINGTON.LOS ANGELES - 660,0 MILES
COST OF WATER 1,8 S/100.0 GAL
CAPITAL COSTS
ANNUAL COSTS
ANMUAL'FIXEO CHARGE OH DEBT"-"""" OPERATING COSTS"
UNIT COSTS
PREPARATION
PIPING
97. <
567. «
50,;
1 -AVERAGE RATE BASE
> "RATE BASE
5 "FF.OF.RAL TAX
"STATE TAX
"DEPRECIATION
357.6
44,3
12.4 —
14 3
23^
-OPERATING LABOR
"ADMINISTRATION
-MATERIAL
"HATER
3,9 -$/TON
2 , 5! — [ / T 0 kl ~ M I L t
^ , tj ~ I /MMST'J"
14,7 " t /MMtff o-MI Lt
6.4 -
5
0
~ "
(1,i54« -
™
—
COSTS AND RESOURCES FOR SLURRY PIPELINE
MILLION-DOLLARS - as MMTY ---3^5 MPH
ROUTE - FARMINGTON-LOS ANGELES - 660,0 MILES
COST OF WATER 2.5 $/1000 GAL
CAPITAL COSTS
ANMUAL COSTS
" ANNUAL FIXED CHARGE ON DfcBT
PREPARATION
PIPING
SEPARATION PLANT
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
97,
567,
5P.
715.
a
6
3
3
-AVERAGE RATE BASE
•RATE BASE
"FEDERAL TAX
-STATE TAX
"DEPRECIATION
-TOTAL RE9T RETIREMENT
357
44,
1?:
14.
94,
S
4
3
9
OPERATING COSTS
-OPERATING LABOR
-ADMINISTRATION
-MATERIAL
"POWfcR-
•WATER
"TOTAL OPERATING COST
UNIT COSTS
-
3.9 "S/TUN
2.0 "[/TUN. MILE
5,P! "t/MMBTU
14,7 " [/MMBTU-MIL-fc
16,1 "
41.6 -
-
5. ah ~
0.6.5 -
H.H36-*
-
-------
COSTS AND RESOURCES FOR SLURRY PIPELINE
MILLION DOLLARS • 25 MMTY c 3,5 MRH
ROUTE » GILLETTE » CHICAGO - 1000,a MILES
COST OF WATER 1,0 S/10P3 GAL
CAPITAL COSTS
ANNUAL COSTS
ANNUAL'FIXEO-CHARGE'ON DEBT - """OPERATING-COSTS
UNIT COSTS
PREPARATION
PIPINS
~''
97,4 "AVERAGE RATE BASE
flfcfl.B "RATF RASE
50J3--FERERAL TAX
"STATE TAX
"DEPRECIATION
503,8 "OPERATING LABOR
62.5 "ADMINISTRATION
17.5 -MATERIAL
20,2 "PDWER-
33,6 "WATER
4.6
2.3
5.0
19.£1
6.4
$/T ON
t/TuN-MTLfc
-
6.1
V*1
33,
'TOTAt DEBT RETIREMEMT"-133.7"- "TOTAL- OPERATING "COST
.......................................
37.4
CALCULATION FOR RETURN
CAPITAL COSTS
PREPARATION
PIPING
-SfcPARA-T-fON— PL-ANT
-TO-T-A L— -C-A PI T-fti— COST
97,4
1341.6
58,3
1489.3
ANNUAL COSTS
- ANNUAL FIXED CHARGE ON DEBT " OPERATING COSTS
-AVERAGE RATt BASE 744, b "OPERATING LABOR
"RATF RASE 92.3 "ADMINISTRATION
"FEDERAL TAX ?S,9 "MATERIAL
"STATE TAX 29,8 -POWF-.R-.
"DEPRECIATION 49.6 "WATER
-"TOTAL DEBT RETIREMENT 197,6 -"TOTAL OPERATING COST--
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 240,9
4
2
5
35
a
-43
UNIT COSTS
«
.6 ;S/TUN
^3 •" C/MilBTU-MILE
,0 '
.2 "--
-
•»
9.63 -
--
—
H
H
K)
COSTS AND RESOURCES FOR SLURRY PIPELINE
MILLION DOLLARS - 25 MMTY • 3,5 MPH
ROUTE - GILLETTE - CHICAGO - 1000,V MILES
COST OF WATER 2,5 S/1300 GAL
CAPITAL COSTS
ANNUAL COSTS
UMT COSTS
*• " ANNUAL FIXED CHARGE ON DEBT " OPERATING COSTS
PREPARATION
-PTPlwtr
SEPARATION PLANT
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
97, i
860. (
50,:
1007,:
* "AVERAGE RATE
1 "RATfc BASE"
5 "FEDERAL TAX
"STATE TAX
"DEPRECIATION
BASE
r "TOTAL DEBT RETIREMENT
503,
62,5
17^5
20,2
133,7
TOTAL ANNUAL
8 "OPERATING LA80R
-AnMINISTRATlON-
"MATERIAL
•POWER.
•WATER
"TOTAL OPERATING COST
COST 180,7
4,6
2,3
5,0
19. E
lfe.1
47.0
2-VTON _ 7,23 2
"1/MrifiTU 35l8b -
" t/MMBTU-MILt a. 036 "
— ^
T
-------
COSTS AND RESOURCES FOR SLURRY PIPELINE
MILLION DOLLARS - 25 MMTY - 3,5 MPH
ROUTE"*- GILLETTE---HOUSTON •.
COST OF WATER 1.0 S/10CI0 GAL
CAPITAL COSTS
PREPARATION 97,4
PIPING 10«H,6
SE P A R-A-T~I O~N P t~A NT -5 M . 3 -
-fflTA-L— C*P^T*L— COST 1168.3
CALCULATION FOR RETURN WATER
CAPITAL COSTS
PREPARATION 97.4
PIPING 1623.3
SEPARATION PLANT 50,3
TOTAL CAPITAL COST 1771,1
ANNUAL COSTS
ANNUAL FIXED -CHARGE ON DEBT - OPERATING COSTS
•AVERAGE RATE BASE 594.1 "OPERATING LABOR
"RATE BASE 73.7 "ADMINISTRATION
"K-OERAL- TAX 2«.6 "MATERIAL
"STATE TAX 23.8 "PO:«IER-
"DEPRECIATION 39.6 "WATER
"TOTAL DEBT -RETIREMENT" 157 , 7 "TOTAL OPERATING COST-
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 198,4
ANNUAL COSTS
"-ANNUAL FIXED CHARGE ON DEBT " - OPERATING COSTS
"AVlRAGt RATE BASE 885.5. "OPERATING LABOR
-RATE HASE 109,6 -ADMINISTRATION
"FEDERAL TAX 3d, 7 "MATERIAL
"STATE TAX 35.4 "Pnwfe'R-
-DEPRECIATION 59,0 "WATER
"TOTAL DEBT RETIREMENT 235,0 "TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 284,1
UNIT COSTS
5.1 "S/TON
2,5 -[/TON-MILE
5,0 - " l/Mf BTU
21,7 "C/MMBTU-MILt
bin -
-40.7 "
-
UNIT COSTS
-
S.J "S/TIJN
2.5 " t/THN-rtlLt
5,0 " 1 / ri M r) T U
PlJ0 "
«9.1 "
~ f
7.93 "
39|3b ^~
"
-
-
-n.
11. if "
B . 9 » "
K.tmt ~
'•
—
H
H
U)
COSTS AND RESOURCES FOR SLURRY PIPELINE
MILLION DOLLARS - 25 MMTY - 3,5 MPH
ROUTE * GILLETTE » HOUSTON •. 1210,0 MILES
COST OF WATER 2,5 S/1000 GAL
CAPITAL COSTS
ANN'IAL COSTS
UNIT COSTS
ANNUAL FIXED CHARGE ON HEBT
OPERATING COSTS
PREPARATION
PIPING
SEPARATION PLANT
97,4 "AVtRAGF RATE BASE
104P.fe "RATE BASE
5P.3 -FtnFTRAL TAX
"STATE-TAX
"DEPRECIATION
594.1 -OPERATING LABOR
73.7 "AOMINISTRATION
2tf,6 "MATERIAL
-23.6 "POWER-
39.6 "WATER
S / T U N
[/TUN-MILE
t/MMBTU
t/MMBTU-MILt
ft. 3d
a.fes
41. 21
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
1188,3 "TOTAL DEBT RETIREMENT 157,7 "TOTAL OPERATING COST
.....................................^.................
5H.3
-------
COSTS AND RESOUHCF.S FDR SLURRY PIPELINE
MILLION DOLLARS - 35 MMTY - 3,5 "IPH
ROUTE - COLSTRIP - SEATTLE
COST OF WATER 1.0
- 840. 0 MILES
GAL
CAPITAL COSTS
PREPARATION
PIPING
SEPARATION4 PLANT
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
CALCULATION FOR RETURN
CAPITAL COSTS
-p|j c. Q A hj A *f T fl V
PIPING ;
SEPARATION PLANT
TOTAL CAPITAL COST !
ANNUAL COSTS
- ANNUAL FIXED CHARGE ON DEBT " OPERATING COSTS
97,4 "AVERAGE RATE BASE 435, PI -OPERATING LABOR
7?2.« "RATE BASE 53,9 "ADMINISTRATION
5W,3 "FfcPERAL TAX 15,1 "MATERIAL
-STATE TAX 17.4 "POWER-
"DEPRECIATION 29,0 "WATER
870*1 "THTAL OE6T RETIREMENT H5,S "TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 150,3
WATER
ANNUAL COSTS
" ANNUAL FIXED CHARGE ON DEBT " OPERATING COSTS
97.4 "AVERAGE RATE BASE 637,3 "OPERATING LABOR
1128,9 -RATE BASE 79,0 "ADMINISTRATION
50,3 "FEDERAL TAX 22,1 "MATERIAL
"STATE TAX 2-5,5 "POWER-
"DEPRECIATION 42,5 "WATER
1274.6 'TOTAL OE3T RETIREMENT 169,1 "TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL- ANNUAL COST 227.9
UNIT COSTS
-
4,1 - $ / T U N
2.1 -C/TNN-MIL.E
S , Cl "" [ / M P1 B T 1 1
17,0 " [/MMi-tTU-MILt
6,4 ~
34,8 "
*•
UNIT COSTS
«
•'1,3 "S/TON
2,1 "[/TON-MILE
5,0 "[/M1STU
fl,7i "
58.7 "
-
-
6.^1 ~
•«
-
-
-
8,31--*-
3.91* "
39,41 -
•*
H
H
COSTS AND RESOURCES FOR SLURRY PIPELINE
MILLION DOLLARS » 25 MMTY--- -J.-5 -MPH--
ROUTE • COLSTRIP • SEATTLE - 640,0 MILES
COST OF WATER 2,5 S/1000 GAL
CAPITAL COSTS
PREPARATION
PIPING
SEPARATION PLANT
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
97,4
12Z.H
5H. .5
87K.1
ANNUAL COSTS
" ANNUAL FIXED ChAKGE ON OEBT ~ OPERATING COSTS
"AVERAGE RATE BASE 435,5? "OPERATING LABOR
"RA1F BASE 53,9 "ATMINI STR AT ION
"FFOfRAL TAX 15.1 "MATERIAL
"STATt TAX 17.4 "POWER*
"DEPRECIATION 29, 2 "WATER
"TOTAL DEBT RETIREMENT 115,5 "TOTAL OPERATING COST
TOTAL ANNUAL COST 159.9
UNIT COSTS
-
4,3 "S/TUN
?,1 1 [/TON. MILE
IbJl "
44,5 "
-
-
-
6,40 "
0.76 "
30.3
-------
SECTION IV
EXTRA. HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION
4 .1 Introduction.
Coal, as electrical energy in large blocks, can be
transported from mine mouth generating plants to distant load
centers. Particularly in more densely populated areas, if
environmental issues can be surmounted, this form of transport
may be the least costly.
While for economic reasons, the emphasis here is
on DC rather than AC transmission, both alternatives are
compared. Five routes are investigated. These are to
Los Angeles from Kaiprowits, Utah (1-6) and Farmington,
New Mexico (2-6); and to Chicago from Beulah, North Dakota (3-7),
from Gillette, Wyoming (4-7), and from Colstrip, Montana (5-7).
A general cost analysis is also presented.
4.2 Extra High Voltage Transmission - AC-DC Comparison
In its earlier development, power demand was primarily
from isolated places or individual industrial plants, and load
was fed locally. Therefore, voltages were low, distances were
short, and direct current was exclusively transmitted. The
development of AC transformers offered advantages in the use
of high voltage to compensate for distance. Therefore, AC
usage superseded DC. AC transmission is again being challenged
because transmission voltages have reached levels which are so
high that reactive compensation is too costly and line losses
are very high. Economics is dictating a switch back to DC
transmission. Currently, there are eleven major HVDC lines
in operation (see following table) with more in the final
planning stage.
- 87 -
-------
Figure 4.1
00
00
-------
- 89 -
Table 4.1
Table 1: High-voltage direct-current power
transmission projects in commission and
Service
date
1954&70
1961
1965
1965
1965
1965
1967
1968-1970
1970
1972
1973-1976
1973
Const.
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design
Design
Status
In service
Gotland-Mainland - submarine
Cross-channel - submarine
New Zealand • 0/H & submarine
Japan (frequency changer)
Konti-Skan - 0/H & submarine
U.S.S.R. (Volgograd-Donbass) - 0/H
Sardinia - Italy • 0/H & submarine
Vancouver Island - 0/H & submarine
NW-SW Pacific Intertie - 0/H
New Brunswick asynchronous tie
Nelson River • Winnipeg • 0/H
Kingsnorth • London • U/G
Not in service
Cabora Bassa - 0/H
Zaire -0/H
Skagerak -0/H & submarine
Hokkaido - 0/H & submarine
Ekibastuz Center- 0/H
North Dakota Minneapolis -O/H
Center- Duluth-0/H
planned
Voltage to
ground (kv)
150
100
250
2 + 125
250
400
200
260
400
2 + 80
450(1976)
266
533
500
250
250
750
450
250
Length
(mi)
61
40
382
0
107
295
252
43
846
0
600
51
845
1.116
138
236
1,500
402
460
Rating
(Mw)
30
160
600
300
250
750
200
312
1,440
320
800-1,620
640
1,920
1.120
500
300
6.000
1,000
500
Source: Electric World, p. 44, July 1, 1974.
-------
- 90 -
Theoretically, HVDC systems have some advantages
over equivalent AC counterparts. Most important, they have a
much higher power density within a given right of way than an
AC system. This provides economic and environmental advantages,
Furthermore, in transmitting the same amount of power over the
same size conductor at the same peak load gradient for the
same distance line losses are smaller with direct current.
AC line losses are about 33 percent greater than those for DC.
The following calculation represents the basis of comparison
between AC and DC power transmission:
Line Loss ratio for equal power transmitted.
Assume:
3-Phase AC
Bipolar DC
Same conductor resistance per mile, RL
Same crest voltage stress on
insulation and clearance.
E = Voltage; I = Current; P = Power.
rms = root mean square.
where,
Pap = 73" Erms I
AC
P = F T
rDC LDC [
rms
Erms = 2L-L f_n crest (AC)
EDC = 2£n crest (DC)
-------
- 91 -
Therefore,
P = P
rAC rDC
Erms Inns = EDC IDC
•v/3" -*- £n crest Jrms = 2£n crest
"
'DC
Line Loss:
2
LLAC = 3l2rms RL = 3( 1,) RL
2
[J_DC = Line Loss = 2JDc R|_
2
LL
AC _ -"v 3 ' _ 4
2
DC
LL 2 3
Therefore, neglecting the AC skin effect, AC line losses are
33 percent greater than DC losses for the same conductor voltage
stresses and the same power transmitted.
Among the advantages of DC power generation are the
following:
1. Greater power per conductor.
2. Lighter and simpler line and tower construction,
reducing cost and secondary impacts.
3. A ground return can be used. Hence, each con-
ductor can be operated as an independent circuit.
-------
- 92 -
4. No charging current,
5. No skin effect.
6. The cables can be worked at a higher voltage
gradient.
7. The line power factor is always unity; the
line does not require reactive compensation.
8. There is less corona loss and radio inter-
ference than for AC transmission, especially
in bad weather, for given conductor diameter
and rms voltage.
9. Synchronous operation is not required. There-
fore, distance is not limited by stability.
10. A DC system may interconnect with AC systems
of different frequencies.
11. There is low short circuit current on a DC
line. It does not contribute to short
circuit on an AC line.
12. Tie-line power is easily controlled.
The chief drawback to the use of DC for electric
power transmission is the high cost of HVDC terminal equip-
ment. In the early 1960's cost estimates for terminals
were about $25/kw [12][13]. Even though the development of
solid-state valves has helped to hold down costs, this seems
to have had little effect on the overall cost reduction of
these major items.
4.3 The EHV Cost Model.
The costing, but not the technical, analysis in
this section must be considered more tentative than that
developed for unit trains and slurry pipelines. This situa-
tion may be remedied in the next 3-4 months with the publica-
tion by EPRI, of a commissioned study by Commonwealth Asso-
ciates which will include an analysis of 765 kv overhead
line.
-------
- 93 -
Comparisons between the total costs of DC trans-
mission with those of conventional AC transmission are
difficult because of the lack of a proper definition of
equivalence of systems and because of the diversity of
outdated published cost information for both systems.
The range of results of various studies made in the past
vary widely [8], [9], [13], and introduce some doubt as
to the accuracy of the conclusions which may be drawn from
them. Unless account is taken of the continual changes
which are taking place in equipment design, manufacturing
techniques, market prices and the expected utilization of
the line over a long period of time, it is difficult to
utilize studies made at different times.
Given current operating and equipment limitations
for DC facilities, comparisons between AC and DC transmission
are based on point to point lines, with complete terminal
facilities at each end, for a range of loads and distances.
The systems are non-comparable if either one has more
intermediate line terminals or line taps than the other.
Estimated total costs for each system includes
fixed charges on investment, operating and maintenance costs,
and both line and terminal equipment losses. These data
are used to determine the breakeven distances at which DC
costs equal AC costs for any given value of power delivered
to the receiving terminal of the transmission system. A
cost model for extra-high voltage transmission is formulated
to evaluate the economics of an EHV transmission line for
source to load long distance electrical energy transfer. It
it also used to formulate and demonstrate the economic com-
parison between EHV-AC and EHV-DC transmission.
-------
- 94 -
4.3 Results.
The cost model is self-described by the data
presented in Tables 4.2 - 4.5. Pertinent assumptions are
given in Tables 4.6 - 4.7. Route specific data are shown
in Table 4.8. Figure 4.2 indicates the breakeven point
for AC and DC transmission for the relevant voltage.
Given the facilities description, it is estimated
that for a double circuit HVDC transmission line, the
weight of self-supporting steel towers ranges from 61-112
tons/mile. Guyed steel or aluminum towers would weigh
45-67 tons/mile. In general, the AC towers use 1.67 times
the material used in DC towers.
For AC transmission, conductor requirements are
estimated from 62-89 tons/mile of steel reinforced aluminum
wire. DC transmission requires about 54 tons/mile.
-------
Estimated Unit Cost of EHV Transmission of 3000 Mw (1975$)
"S 4
•H
-------
Table 4.3
ESTIMATED INVESTMENT OF 1000 MILE EHV
TRANSMISSION OF 3000 MW
(1975 dollars)
765 kv AC Transmission
SENDING SUBSTATION:
Building & Site Development
Structures
765 kv Terminals with Breakers
Generator Step-up Transformer 22/765 kv
Transformer Connections with Breakers
Total: Sending Substation
RECEIVING SUBSTATION:
Building & Site Development
Structures
765 kv Terminals with Breakers
345 kv Terminals with Breakers
Auto-Transformers, 3-10-765/345 kv
Transformer Connections with Breakers
Total: Receiving Substation
COMPENSATION FACILITIES:
Series Capacitors ($14.0/kvar)
Shunt Reactors ($24.2-$13.0/kvar)
Shunt Capacitors ($11.4-$9.9/kvar)
Total: Compensation Facilities
TRANSMISSION FACILITIES:
Line & Tower (Double Circuit)
Rights of Way (Including Clearing)
(225 Ft Row, $1500/acre)
Total:
102,850,000
16,530,000
800,000
2,027,500
13,246,000
14,261,400
5,745,000
36,079,900
800,000
2,027,500
13,246,000
2,365,500
17,551,200
5,745,000
41,735,200
59,500,000
55,250,000
14,355,000
178,880,000 - 129,105,000
(Self-Support)
(Guyed)
433,390,000
353,690,000
40,500,000
473,890,000 - 394,190,000
±600 kv DC Transmission
SENDING SUBSTATION:
RECEIVING SUBSTATION
TRANSMISSION FACILITIES
RIGHTS OF WAY (Including Clearing)
(175 Ft Row, $1500/acre)
123,000,000
118,712,000
236,000,000
31,500,000
- 97 -
-------
Table 4.4
COST ANALYSIS OF 765 KV+ EHV AC TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
(1975 dollars)
(3000 MW, 1000 Mile)
I. CAPITAL INVESTMENTS:
A. Sending Substation 35,651,600
B. Receiving Substation 41,306,900
C. Compensation
Cl. Series Capacitors @ $14.0/kvar 59,500,000
C2. Shunt Reactors @ $18.6/kvar 79,050,000
C3. Shunt Capacitors @ $10.65/kvar 15,442,500
D. Transmission Line Facilities
@ $353,690/mile 353,690,000
E. Right of Way @ $1500/acre 40,500,000
Total Capital Costs: 625,141,000
II. ANNUAL FIXED COSTS;
A. Sending Substation @ 13.9% of IA 4,956,000
B. Receiving Substation @ 13.9% of IB 5,742,000
C. Compensation § 13.9% of 1C 21,405,000
D. Transmission Facilities § 13.5% of ID 47,748,000
Total Annual Fixed Costs: 79,851,000
**
III. ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS:
A. Sending Substation @ 2.34% of IA 834,000
B. Receiving Substation @ 2.60% of IB 1,074,000
C. Compensation @ 1.3% of 1C 2,002,000
D. Transmission Facilities @ 1.3% of ID 4,598,000
E. Electrical Energy Losses: 32,850,000
El. Energy Lossess @ l£/kwh
Total Annual Operating Costs: 41,358,000
IV. ANNUAL COSTS: (II + III) 121,209,000
V. UNIT COSTS;
A. Mills/ton-mile of equivalent coal 10.48
B. MillsAw-hr received power 5.271
C. Investment $/annual MWH received power 238.15
Double circuit is used.
*
Based on FPC P-38 Annual fixed charge rate.
**
Includes administrative and general expenses @ 3.0% of their operating costs.
- 98 -
-------
Table 4.5
COST ANALYSIS OF +600 KV EHV-DC TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
(1975 dollars)
(3000 MW, 1000 Mile)
I. CAPITAL INVESTMENTS:
A. Sending Substation @ $41/kw 123,000,000
B. Receiving Substation @ $44Aw 118,712,000
C. Transmission Facilities @ $236,000/mile 236,000,000
D. Right of Way @ $1500/acre 31,500,000
Total Capital Costs: 509,212,000
II. ANNUAL FIXED COSTS:
A. Sending Substation @ 13.9% of IA 17,097,000
B. Receiving Substation @ 13.9% of IB 16,501,000
C. Transmission Facilities @ 13.5% of 1C 31,860,000
Total Annual Fixed Costs: 65,458,000
III. ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS:
A. Sending Substation @ 2.34% of IA 2,878,200
B. Receiving Substation @ 2.60% of IB 3,086,500
C. Transmission Facilities @ 1.30% of 1C 3,068,000
D. Electrical Energy Losses: 26,542,800
Dl. Energy Losses @ l£/kwh
Total Annual Operating Costs: 35,575,500
IV. TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS: 101,033,500
V. UNIT COSTS:
A. Mills/ton-mile of equivalent coal 8.503
B. Mills/kw-hr received power 4.28
C. Investment $/annual MWH received power 188.8
- 99 -
-------
Table 4.6
ESTIMATING ASSUMPTIONS
A. Assumptions applying to both AC and DC transmission
calculations:
1. From source to load point-to-point transmission
is assumed.
2. Investment costs for transmission lines and sub-
station facilities are taken from our estimation
of a typical unit.
3. For the purpose of estimation and comparison, annual
fixed charges, as a percentage of investments are
assumed to be 13.9 percent for substations and
facilities, and 13.5 percent for steel tower trans-
mission lines (from data released by FPC).
4. Annual operating and maintenance costs as a percentage
of total investment, are assumed to be 1.8 percent
for sending substation, 2 percent for receiving
stations, and 1 percent for transmission lines and
compensatory facilities.
5. The cost of energy losses is assumed to be iC/kwh.
6. Power loss is calculated to cost $150 per kilowatt
and annual fixed charge of 13.9 percent.
7. Annual load factor of 100 percent is assumed.
B. Assumptions applying only to AC transmission calculations:
1. Series compensation is used to raise the power
loading of the AC line for long distance electric
transmission. The amount of series compensation,
where needed, is estimated [11] and is considered
a good approximation of optimum economic applica-
tion.
- 100 -
-------
Table 4.6 Continued
2. The sending-end voltage is 105 percent of rated
voltage.
3. Shunt capacitors are installed on the transformer
tertiary at the receiving terminals as required
to provide 100 percent voltage at the EHV bus with
a load of unity power factor at the low voltage
bus.
6. The high values of charging current met with in
765 kv lines necessitate the use of shunt reactors,
These act as a very effective means of reducing
excessive reactive current and energy losses at
low load.
7. All reactors are connected directly to the trans-
mission line and are assumed to be in service
under all conditions, except when1 disconnected
for maintenance.
8. All auto-transformers are assumed to be stepped
down to 345 kv at the receiving end.
9. AC line loss calculations are estimated from
"Best Case" formula [10].
10. Only transformer losses which constitute the
major part of terminal equipment losses are
accounted for and are assumed to be 0.9 percent
of the power rating.
- 101 -
-------
Table 4.7
EHV SOURCE TO LOAD TRANSMISSION SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS
Transmission Capacity, (MW)
Transmission Distance, (Mile)
Heating value of coal, (Btu/lb)
Plant factor, (%)
Heat rate, (Btu/kwh)
Coal consumption rate, (ton/year)
Conversion efficiency, (%)
Line Losses, (MW)
Substation equipment Losses, (MW)
Delivered Capacity, (MW)
Transmission efficiency, (%)
765 kv AC
3000
1000
8500
90
9500
13,217,300
35.9
347.2
27
2625.8
87.5
±600 kv DC
3000
1000
8500
90
9500
13,217,300
35.9
260.4
42.0
2697.6
89.9
o
-------
Table 4.8
ROUTE SPECIFIC COSTS
**
ROUTES
Estimated Transmission Length (Mi)
Heating Value of Coal (Btu/lb)
Coal Consumption (MIbn/¥tear)
Transmission Voltage (kv)
,
Transmission Loading (MW)
Delivered Power (MW)
Transmission Efficiency (%)
CAPITAL COSTS:
Sending Substation
Transmission Facilities
Receiving Substation
Line Compensation
Right of Way Cost"1"
Total Capital Costs
ANNUAL FIXED COSTS:
Sending Substation*
Transmission Facilities*
Receiving Substation*
Line Compensation
Total Annual Fixed Costs
(1) - (6)
495
10800
10.4
±600
DC
3000
2829
94.3
123.0
116.8
124.5
0
15.6
379.9
17.1
15.77
17.3
0
50.17
765
AC
3000
2802
93.4
35.65
175.1
41.30
63.6
20.05
335.7
4.96
23.64
5.74
8.84
43.17
(2) - (6)
660
8600
13.1
±600
DC
3000
2787
92.9
123.0
155.8
122.6
0
20.8
622.2
17.1
21.03
17.0
0
55.17
765
AC
3000
2745
91.5
35.65
233.4
41.30
93.1
26.73
430.3
4.96
31.51
5.74
12.95
55.16
(3) - (7)
858
7500
15.0
±600
DC
3000
2736
91.2
123.0
202.5
120.3
0
27.0
472.9
17.1
27.34
16.73
0
61.16
765
AC
3000
2675
89.2
35.65
303.5
41.30
128.6
34.75
543.8
4.96
40.97
5.74
17.87
69.54
(4) - (7)
990
11700
9.6
±600
DC
3000
2700
90.0
123.0
233.6
118.8
0
31.2
506.7
17.1
31.54
16.52
0
65.16
765
AC
3000
2628
87.6
35.65
350.1
41.30
152.2
40.1
619.4
4.96
47.27
5.74
21.16
79.12
(5) - (7)
1089
8700
12.9
±600
DC
3000
2676
89.2
123.0
257.0
117.7
0
34.3
532
17.1
34.70
17.36
0
68.15
765
AC
3000
2595
86.5
35.65
385.2
41.30
170.0
44.1
676.2
4.96
52.0
5.74
23.62
86.31
o
U)
-------
Table 4.8 Continued
ROUTES
ANNUAL OPERATION COSTS:"1"
Sending Substation
Transmission Facilities
Receiving Substation
Line Compensation
Electrical Energy Losses
Total Annual Operation Costs
TOTAL ANNUAL COST:
UNIT COSTS:
'Mills/Ton-Mile (equivalent coal)
Mills/kw (as received)
Invest. $/kw (as received)
Land Requirement for (Acres)
Transmission Lines
(1) - (6)
2.88
1.52
3.24
-0-
14.98
22.62
72.79
15.0
2.94
134.3
10395
0.83
2.28
1.07
0.83
17.35
22.36
65.53
13.63
2.67
119.8
13365
(2) - (6)
2.88
2.02
3.19
-0-
18.66
26.75
81.92
10.2
3.36
223.3
13860
0.83
3.03
1.07
1.21
22.34
28.48
83.64
10.57
3.48
156.8
17820
(3) - (7)
2.88
2.63
3.13
-0-
23.13
31.77
92.93
7.92
3.88
172.8
18018
0.83
3.95
1.07
1.67
28.47
35.99
105.53
9.19
4.50
203.3
23166
(4) - (7)
.88
3.04
3.09
-0-
26.28
35.29
100.45
11.74
4.25
187.7
20790
.83
4.55
1.07
1.98
32.95
41.02
120.14
14.43
5.22
235.7
26730
(5) - (7)
.00
3.34
3.06
-0-
29.96
39.24
107.39
8.57
4.58
198.8
22870
OO *5
. bo
5.00
1.07
2.21
35.48
44.59
130.9
10.7
5.76
260.6
29403
+ Excluding right of way, $1500/acre.
t Includes administrative and general expenses @ 30% of operating costs.
* Based on FPC P-38 Annual Fixed Charges Rate.
** Consistent with "as mined" HV data in Table 3.1.
-------
REFERENCES
Section IV
1. Rattien, S, et al, Electric Power and Development; A
Feasibility Study of the Development of A Large Scale
Mine-Mouth Electric Power Export Industry for Northern
West Virginia, EP-3, Graduate School of Public and
International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh, 1971.
2. Olmsted, L. M. , "Special report on Transmission," Electric
World, June 1, 1972, pp. 35-44.
3. "30,000 Coal Cars in Six Years?" Power Engineering,
August 1975, p. 7.
4. National Academy of Engineering, U.S. Energy Prospect;
An Engineering Viewpoint, Task Force on Energy^1974.
5. Mutschler, P. H., R.
-------
- 106 -
12. Federal Power Commission, "Estimated Installed Cost for
EHV Transmission Facilities," Advisory Committee Report
No. 10, National Power Survey, Part II, pp. 85-102,
Washington, October 196TI
13. Dillard, J. K., "Transmission Above 700 kv Hits Economic
Roadblock," Electric Light and Power, Vol. 43, pp. 44-49,
February 1965.
14. Lemay, J., "Technical Studies Relating to the Transmission
Options for the James Bay Development," Proceedings of the
American Power Conference, Vol. 36, pp. 987-1000, 1974".
15. Henderson, J. M. and A. J. Wood, "An Economic Study of
High Voltage Transmission," AIEE, Transactions, Part III,
Vol. 75, pp. 695-701, 1956.
16. Federal Power Commission, The National Power Survey,
a. Advisory Committee Report: "Research and Development
for the Electric Utility Industry," July 1974.
b. Task Force Report: "Energy Distribution Research,"
December 1973.
c. Task Force Report: "Environmental Research,"
January 1974.
17. Federal Power Commission, The 1970 National Power Survey
Part IV, August 1971.
18. Federal Power Commission, Working Committee on Utilities,
Report to the Vice President and to the President's
Council on Recreation and Natural Beauty, 1968.
19. Electric Power Research Institute, Electric Research
Council, Transmission Line Reference Book 345 kv and
Above, 1975.
-------
APPENDIX A TO SECTION IV
EHV TRANSMISSION SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT
-------
APPENDIX A TO SECTION IV
SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT
Concern over extra high voltage transmission
lines centers around line leakage, physiological effects
due to proximity, noise, odor, radio and television and
other communication interference and aesthetics. Signifi-
cant material has been developed under EPRI auspices [19]
concerning corona phenomena on AC transmission lines, radio
and television interference, corona loss, and the electro-
static effects of overhead transmission lines and stations.
Studies are currently underway in EPA and EPRI among others,
There appear to be few additional tangible results.
The following excerpts are reproduced from
Federal Power Commission sources [17][16B].
This material has been omitted. See sections 3.1 through
3.4 of reference [17] and sections 2.5, 6.3.11, and 6.3.12
of reference [16b].
IVA-1
-------
APPENDIX B TO SECTION IV
EHV TRANSMISSION COMPARATIVE DATA
-------
APPENDIX B TO SECTION IV
COMPARATIVE DATA:
765 KV AC AND ±600 DC
Data obtained from the Missouri Public Service
Commission, based on an analysis by Commonwealth Associates,
Inc., included the following points of reference.
(1) Total per mile costs for 765 kv AC trans-
mission are estimated at $300,000.
(2) For equal mileage, line losses for a 765 kv
AC line are 10 percent of those for a 345 kv
AC line.
(3) For "equal" lines, the cost per mile for DC
transmission is approximately two-thirds that
for AC.
(4) DC transmission can ship more power per unit
right of way than AC. A further advantage
is that it can be operated at half capacity
during some equipment troubles.
(5) Present estimates of terminal costs are
about $40/kw for a DC line.
(6) There are no currently available breakers
to sectionalize a DC line.
(7) For the 456 mile HVDC line currently being
constructed between Center, North Dakota and
Duluth, Minnesota, the connecting ,DC trans-
mission line is estimated at $25 million,
the two terminals will cost over $45 million.
Data supplied by the Bonneville Power Administra-
tion included the following:
IVB-1
-------
IVB-2
(1) The cost of d-c converter stations depends
on a number of factors, the major ones being
the capacity, the nature of the a-c systems
to which they are connected, availability
requirements, d-c voltage levels and location.
(2) Generally, the cost of the terminal in terms
of dollars per KW goes down with higher
capacity. Excluding the cost of land for
the terminal, cost of a-c system additions,
spares and utility overhead, installed cost
of HVDC terminals of 1500-3000-MW capacity
would be in the range of $37 to $32 per kW
per terminal.
(3) Modern HVDC terminals are based on solid-state
converter technology and are typically made up
of 12-pulse converters. In general, the
minimum cost terminal would have only one
12-pulse converter group per pole. However,
depending on the system reliability require-
ments, it might be desired to have at least
two 12-pulse converter groups per pole. In
this case, the cost of the terminal will go up
by about ten percent of the figures quoted
above.
(4) The cost of integrating the d-c terminal with
the power system depends on the existing a-c
systems. Apart from the cost of facilities
needed to connect the d-c terminals to the
a-c system, the voltage level of the a-c
supply to the converters can influence the
cost. The figures quoted above are typical
for 230- or 345-kV systems. Higher voltage,
500-kV or 760kV, a-c supply would increase
the cost.
(5) The cost of the d-c line varies with voltage
level, conductor size and terrain.
(6) For typical + 400-kV d-c line, some of our
recent preliminary cost estimates indicated
a price range of $115,000 to $130,000 per mile
depending on conductor size. These figures do
not include cost of land and administrative
-------
IVB-3
overhead. Smooth terrain was assumed.
Similar cost estimates for + 600-kV line
ranged from $165,000 to $200,000 per mile
depending on conductor size.
(7) A typical + 400-kV line could be constructed
of two Thrasher (2312 kcmil) conductors per
pole. Cost of this configuration based on
the assumptions given above would be about
$127,000 per mile. These would be single-
circuit steel structures requiring approxi-
mately 31 tons of steel per mile. A similar
typical + 600-kV line could use 3 Chukar
(1780 kcmil) conductors per pole and would
require about 44 tons of steel per mile. The
cost of this line excluding land and overhead
would be about $180,000. These designs are
based on grillage footings whose steel amounts
are included in the above figures. As to
conductor weights, a Thrasher condcutor weighs
2.53 Ib/ft. and Chukar 2.076 Ib/ft.
(8) Depending on the assumptions regarding average
span, terrain and wind loading, the right-of-
way for the + 400-kV line would be in the
range of 110 ft.-140 ft. and for the + 600-kV
line in the range of 130 ft.-160 ft.
In its draft final Report to ERDA, Clean Coal
Energy; Source-to-Use Economics, Vol. 1, "Model, Data, and
Results," January 1976, the Bechtel Corporation has presented
some generalized data which are reproduced below.
This material has been omitted. See pages 2-50, 2-51, and
2-52 of the reference cited above.
-------
SECTION V
CONCLUSIONS
5.1 General.
Western coal is not necessarily low sulfur coal.
In the designated supply regions there is often a consider-
able difference between the sulfur content of the coal as
mined and the sulfur content of the coal on the Btu basis
which must be used to meet EPA regulations. The standardized
basis selected for comparison is 22.6 MMBtu/ton, the 1970
utility average. A comparison for each of the supply loca-
tions follows:
Sulfur Content
Source As Mined Btu Adjusted
(%) (%)
Kaiparowits 0.52 0.55
Farmington 0.70 0.92
Gillette 0.3 - 0.8 0.26 - 1.16
Colstrip 0.8 - 1.2 0.98 - 1.72
Beulah 0.7-0.9 1.12-1.49
If the coal must be desulfurized anyway, one may question the
validity of shipping this coal to regions which have local
suppliers which, on a Btu adjusted sulfur basis, are not
much more polluting or which could be desulfurized. The saving
in transport costs by any mode, due to shorter distance, could
be applied to desulfurization.
It must be emphasized that, with respect to unit train-
coal slurry pipeline comparisons, a worst case comparison has
been developed. Unit train costs are too high; slurry pipe-
line costs, even though they have been inflated, are based on
- 107 -
-------
- 108 -
Black Mesa data, which pertain to a much smaller line, and
on ETSI-Bechtel preliminary engineering estimates for a line
in which they have a vested interest. The value of coal
inventories and pipeline holdup have also been kept arbi-
trarily low. On the other hand, all railroad right of way
upgrading, even though this benefits all freight movement,
has been assigned to unit coal train costs. No credits are
taken for the movement of other freight, which is impossible
with respect to the pipeline, a major factor favoring the
railroads. Furthermore, emphasis has been placed on an
artibrarily low bottleneck speed of 10 mph over various
percentages of the route. Had the bottleneck speed been
higher, say 20 mph, all of the comparative unit train cost
functions would have shifted downward. This must be kept
firmly in mind when reading the discussion or examining the
figures in this Section.
5.2 Slurry Pipeline and Unit Trains.
Over all the routes under consideration, the slurry
pipeline, without water return, is competitive with unit
trains if the railroad has bottlenecks of a 10 mph speed
limit to the equivalent of 10 percent of the distance. In
addition, there is usually a greater railroad distance between
points. The best pipeline case can be made for the Colstrip,
Montana to Seattle, Washington route, where the terrain may
yield a bottleneck of more than 20 percent of the distance
at 10 mph speed limit. There, the return of the water after
slurry dewatering may become feasible if the return pipe and
pumping equipment costs an average of only $240,000 per mile;
although a more conservative estimate is $480,000 per mile.
When a slurry pipeline is built especially for exporting coal,
-------
- 109 -
the higher price of $480,000 per mile might be justified
because the coal is readily loaded into ships designed for
carrying bulk material and there is a convenience factor
involved in unloading at the destination.
The slurry pipeline can be written off on the basis
of a 25- or 30-year take or pay sales contract for the coal
from a given mine are. For example, at 25 MMTY and $12 per
ton as mined, annual costs ($ million) are:
Slurry Pipeline Unit Train
Coal (dry basiis) 300 315
Shipping 208 185
Pulverizing 5
Total 508 505
This is because rail shipped coal may have on the average of
about 5 percent moisture even with wind drying after mining.
The above differential is within the accuracy of our esti-
mates. A higher cost of the slurry pipeline might be
expected if environmental factors work against export ship-
ments .
The value added by delivering coal in pulverized form
is not a major factor in a decision among modes of transport,
One reason is that beneficiation of coal by removing ash via
washing is usually done at a size range above 1x0" prior to
pulverizing. This is readily done for both unit train and
slurry pipeline shipment. This was not done at the Black
Mesa where the coal, as mined, has a heating value of up to
13,000 Btu/lb. A second reason is that dewatering produces
slurry cakes which must be repulverized in, for example,
Raymond bowl mills before feeding into the boiler furnace.
Depending on the grindability of the coal, pulverizing the
-------
- 110 -
coal after shipment by unit trains may mean an additional
cost of $0.18 to $0.20 per ton.
After mechanical drying the coal slurry retains 25
percent moisture in the coal cake. This means an average
decrease of 250 Btu/lb. in the heating value for coals of
about 10,000 Btu/lb. Hence, the loss is not serious. Drying
by heating is certainly not justifiable. An increase of the
air preheating temperature can be accomplished in any case
via a suitable air preheater. Moreover, some coal, as mined,
may contain up to 30 percent moisture.
The unit costs are given in Sections II and III respec-
tively, for unit trains and slurry pipelines. Comparisons
of their operation at various capacities are given in
Fig. 5.1(a)(b)(c) for a range of normal design flexibility.
Figure 5.1(b) shows a comparison of a slurry pipeline designed
for a 5 mph flow with unit trains on the Gillette to Chicago
route.
Unit train costs might be adjusted according to the
moisture content of the coal shipped; the slurry pipeline
mix should include the moisture content of the coal used in
forming the slurry at the design condition.
Analysis leads to our previous conclusion that a slurry
pipeline is definitely superior where a railroad is not
available. However, even if 15 percent new road is to be
built and operation includes a 10 percent bottleneck at a
10 mph speed limit and a mileage saving less than 30 percent,
the unit train is still likely to be the cost effective choice,
5.3 Comparative Studies.
Several recent studies by other investigators are pro-
duced in Appendices to this Section. Not all have been
explicitly analyzed here.
-------
12
10
8
\
\
FARMIN6TON TO L.A. 850 MILES
®- — -A SLURRY PIPELINE
30 - 60
--50-60
xO.043 TO OBTAIN $/MMBTU (DRY)
xO.058 TO OBTAIN $/MMBTU (AS MINED)
10 MPH
BOTTLENECK
20*
10*
0*
40
60
80 100
* CAPACITY
120
140
16
14
12 -
10 -
8
xO.0496 TO OBTAIN $/MMBTU (DRY)
TO OBTAIN $/MMBTU (AS MINED)
10 MPH
BOTTLENECK
10*
0*
40
60
80 100
* CAPACITY
120
140
FIGURE 5.1(a) UNIT COSTS AT VARIOUS CAPACITIES - UNIT TRAIN & SLURRY
PIPELINES
-------
10 MPH
BOTTLENECKS
OBTAIN $/MMBTU
OBTAIN $/MWBTU
MINED)
MATER
SLURRY
WH DESIGN
10
80 100 120
% CAPACITY
FIGURE 5.1(b) UNIT COST AT VARIOUS CAPACITIES - UNIT TRAINS
-------
22
A SLURRY
30 - 60
50-60
xO.0474 TO OBTAIN $/MMBTU (DRY)
xO.0582 TO OBTAIN $/MMBTU (
MINED)
OL i—
LU LU
»-<
QL LO
8
FIGURE 5.1(c) UNIT COSTS AT VARIOUS CAPACITIES - UNIT TRAINS AND SLURRY PIPELINE
-------
APPENDIX A TO SECTION V
COMPACTIVE DATA - COAL SLURRY
PIPELINES AND UNIT TRAINS: BECHTEL
AND STANFORD RESEARCH INSTITUTE
-------
APPENDIX A TO SECTION V
COMPARATIVE DATA: COAL SLURRY PIPELINES AND
UNIT TRAINS - BECHTEL AND STANFORD RESEARCH INSTITUTE
The most recent of these data sources is a study by
the Bechtel Corporation (a 40 percent owner of ETSI), Clean
Coal Energy: Source-to-Use Economics, Final Report (Draft) to
ERDA, Contract No. E (49-18)-1552, January 1976.
Coal transport prices (not costs) were based on con-
ventional rail rates estimated from the 1972 Carload Waybill
Statistics (a sample) published by the Federal Railroad
Administration [2-33]. A national average rate equation
(rather than a route specific analysis) was used for all con-
ventional rail shipments of coal [2-36]. The estimating
equation used was C = PD where C is the conventional rail
rate in mills/ton/mile, D is the rail distance, and P,Q are
hyperbolic parameters. The extent of the differences (price
not cost based) can be seen in the range between western and
southwestern routes, respectively: C = 47.7D * 2, and
C = 394.3D~°'543. The average U.S. rate was C = 179.5D~°'446
[2-34].
For unit train prices (again not costs) a nominal
train of 100 cars carrying 10,000 tons was assumed. Price
estimates (1974 dollars) for western railroads were estimated
for one way distances of 100-1500 miles. These ranged from
20 to 7 mills/ton/mile, respectively. For 1000 miles, the
rate was estimated at 8 mills/ton/mile [2-37 and 40]. Existing
ICC rates were reported to range between 4 and 13 mills/ton/mile
at 1973 prices [2-39] . The trend equation used by Bechtel to
generate average western 1974 prices was C = 122.45D
They note, however, that real prices are tailored by each move-
VA-1
-------
VA-2
ment and vary depending on degree of competition, annual
tonnage, train and car size, type of car, loading and unload-
ing method, terrain, and track conditions.
To forecast both conventional and unit train prices,
they extrapolate the historical index of railroad material
and wage rate for use as the base case [2-40]. This blurs
the difference between unit train movements and those of all
other freight. Unit trains do not use the same component
values and have had the benefit of some technological improve-
ments. Based on the general historic data, Bechtel uses an
inflation rate of 7.5 percent in current dollars or 2.5 percent
in constant dollars. Between 1967 and 1973 (the end of their
series, they note that the combined index for material and
labor for all rails and for all types of shipment (neither
costs, nor route specific, nor by commodity, nor by unit train)
rose from an index of 100 to 163.5, and at an accelerated rate.
Between 1973 and 1985 they appear to rely on a generalized
(again the caveats should be noted) model indicating an average
annual increase in material costs of 5.8 percent and labor
costs of 8.3 percent [2-41].
Based on a unit train of 100 cars (capacity 10,000
tons/train), a total of 8-10 hours for loading and unloading,
and (for our purposes most important) an average train speed
of 20-25 mph, Bechtel estimates the number of trains per day
on a double track route at 60 for unsignalled routes, 120 for
automatic block routes and 160 for routes with centralized
traffic control. If the routes are single tracked, these fall
to 20-40-60 trains, respectively [2-42].
For slurry pipelines, Bechtel shifts to an analysis
based on costs (not prices) which includes under capital costs
only preparation, line storage, dewatering and transport.
Water supply and water cleaning facilities are excluded [2-57].
The analysis is subdivided into fixed (capacity dependent) and
-------
VA-3
variable costs (capacity and length dependent) [2-57] . Hypothe-
sized cost inflation for both is dependent on the gross national
product implicit price deflator index (which is comparable to
the 2.5 percent constant dollar index noted above for rails
rather than the 7.5 percent escalation factor)[2-58]. They
claim that elevation differences, terrain, and soil conditions
affect costs by less than ±10 percent, while economic factors
such as interest on debt and the amortization period also
affect costs by less than ±10 percent [2-58 and 59]. Load
factors are claimed to have a substantial effect on fixed and
a negligible effect on variable costs but all estimates were
made assuming a 100 percent load factor [2-59].
Their general conclusion, based on the above, is
that in 1974 dollars, for slurry pipelines carrying 5x10 TPY,
costs are consistently above unit train prices (not costs) on
a mills/ton/mile basis, but the unit train tonnage basis is
not specified. At 10x10 TPY, slurry pipeline costs are below
unit train prices except for distances of less than about 100
miles or more than about 1200 miles. At 20x10 TPY, slurry
pipeline costs are shown to be significantly below (about 0.2
cents/ton/mile at 1000 miles) unit train prices over the entire
range of distance [2-60]. A mixed cost-price comparison is
untenable. The other anomalies have been noted above.
Bechtel suggests that their analysis should be inter-
faced with their model, developed for NSF, and called the
NSF/Bechtel Energy Supply Planning Model for manpower, materials
and capital requirements [7-17]. The original data for unit
trains and slurry pipelines was developed and prepared for
Bechtel (in support of ContractNSF-C-87) by the Stanford
Research Institute, Manpower, Materials, Equipment, and
Utilities Required to Operate and Maintain Energy Facilities,
March 1975. These estimates are appended. In particular, it
-------
VA-4
should be noted that the estimates for slurry pipelines are
heavily dependent on the Black Mesa line [references 1 and 4
page 247] , Bechtel [reference 3 page 247] , and ETSI/Bechtel
[reference 5 page 247]. With respect to unit trains, the
differences in the assumptions [p.237] should be explicitly
noted, in particular distance, trip time, shipment size and
an eastern rather than a western route. All of these imply
high cost. Again, prices (tariffs) are used for rails [p.242]
but costs are used for the slurry pipeline [p.249] for the
final comparison.
The draft final report of the NSF/Bechtel study, The
Energy Supply Planning Model, July 1975, specifies the use of
nominal facilities (SRI) and average haul length. These,
however, are the basis for the interregional transport analysis
[4-22 and 23] except that,
"The use of certain modes between 0-D pairs
(origin-destination) must be explicitly
specified by the user because of the rarity of
use of the mode (e.g., 400kVDC electric trans-
mission lines and coal slurry pipelines. In
these cases, the user must specify the
percentage of flow between 0-D pairs to be
transported by these modes. The remainder of
the flow is handled by one of the other
algorithms...." [4-24].
In short, slurry pipelines have a unique position in this
study, [see also 4-28]. The NSF/Bechtel limitations regarding
rail analyses are documented and their results are deemed only
indicative [4-25]. Nevertheless, it is stated that,
"...the Interregional Transportation Facilities
Generator converts regional fuel flow networks
-------
VA-5
to transportation facility requirements, based
on a great deal of transportation system data
(haul lengths, regional shares, carrying
capacities, etc.) and user-specified (or
default) regional transportation modal-split
coefficients. The modal-split coefficients
specify the fractions of a particular fuel's
incremental flow (positive or negative) over
a particular origin-destination combination
that is to be assigned to the various com-
peting transportation modes" [5-25].
Thus, the analyses, and problems in the SRI-Bechtel analyses,
cited above, as well as the asymetric inclusion of the slurry
pipeline engenders problems in the conclusions. If the user
tries the default coefficients, he may not even know of the
biases.
The NSF/Bechtel estimated facility data comparisons
[Table G-3], upon which their conclusions are based, include
the following: (1) Coal train at 10,500 short ton capacity
have capital costs of $4.6 million. (2) The coal slurry pipe-
line at 70,000 short tons per day has capital costs of $412
million with preparation and dewatering capital costs of
$138 million at a capacity of 68,600 short tons per day. The
approximate accuracy range is given in the following table:
Detailed Major Total
Data Subtotals Capital Cost
Coal Train —% —% ±10%
Coal Slurry Pipeline ±25 ±20 ±10
Slurry Prep, and Dewater. ±25 ±20 ±10
It is stated [Table G-5] that the coal train estimates are
accurate and compare to ICC and USBM reports (a price basis)
-------
VA-6
while the coal slurry pipeline estimates are accurate and are
compared to a shorter (Black Mesa) slurry line (costs).
The inclusion of the slurry pipeline in the NSF/
Bechtel study is not obvious. It is not mentioned in either
Section 7 or 8 of the document where the President's 1975
energy statement and the possible scenarios are discussed.
It may be found in the Appendix H printout (H-51), schedule
of selected major materials and equipment required for con-
struction of all transportation facilities required to supply
fuel mix as required in the President's 1975 State of the Union
Message, for region 6, the west north central area (Iowa,
Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and
South Dakota). There it will be observed that the number of
compressors and drives of over 1000 hp are zero from 1974-1976,
three in 1977, thirteen in 1978, ten in 1979, and zero again
from 1980 through 1985.
If coal transportation costs are misstated or mis-
understood, not only may coal be mined in the wrong location,
it may move by the wrong mode.
-------
Material Omitted
For comparative data see: Stanford Research Institute,
Manpower, Materials, Equipment, and Utilities Required
to Operate and Maintain Energy Facilities, March 1975,
pages 247-249.
-------
APPENDIX B TO SECTION V
COMPARATIVE DATA
EBASCO AND BECHTEL
-------
APPENDIX B TO SECTION V
A. J. BANKS, "ENERGY TRANSPORTATION,"
PRESENTED AT THE EBASCO CONFERENCE
PHOENIX, ARIZONA, OCTOBER 1975
For comparison with EHV transmission and slurry pipe-
line costs, this study explicitly counterpoises unit train
prices (tariffs). Therefore, this review will concentrate
on the first two modes.
1. Electric Transmission, 765 kv AC and ±600 kv DC.
Bundled conductor configurations, single circuit con-
struction, double line, and series and shunt compensation
are assumed for AC transmission. The cost figures include
the increase in investment and fuel costs, where needed, to
2
account for I R losses.
Specific assumptions include:
(1) To levelize annual cost figures, a 10.9 percent
discount rate was used.
(2) Amortization is over a 30 year period.
(3) Annual escalation equals 6 percent.
(4) American utility experience provided the basis
for 765 kv AC costing.
(5) The 600 kv DC line, using a bundle of four 954 kvmil
conductors was estimated at 75 percent of the cost
of similar 765 kv AC lines.
(6) DC line voltage and conductor configurations were
extrapolated from (5) by Peterson's formula.
VB-1
-------
VB-2
(7) DC terminal costs are based on manufacturers'
information with an allowance for ground elec-
trodes.
(8) Right of way permits a collapsing tower and is
estimated at $2,500/acre, including clearing,
access, etc.
(9) Fixed charges equal 16 percent of depreciable
items and 20 percent of non-depreciables.
Financing was at utilities' debt/equity ratio.
(10) Investment costs for 1980 operation escalated
at 7.5 percent/year, 0 and M costs are one
percent of investment costs.
(11) The approximate percent range of annual costs
subject to escalation_is 24.0-54.3. The
variation is due to I R losses which vary with
load and distance.
For a sample ±600 kv DC two circuit line transmitting
3,200 MW, investment costs ($ 000) are approximately:
Right of way at $2,500/acre $131,000
Power line terminals 380,000
Power line 534,000
Total $1,045,000
The results, for comparable facilities described in
our study are shown in the following table.
-------
TRANSMISSION LINE TRANSPORTATION COSTS,
TWO CIRCUITS* 1980 INITIAL OPERATION
3,200 MW DELIVERED LOAD
Optimum
Voltage
765 AC
±600 DC
±600 DC
Distance
(miles)
500
900
1500
Line Loss
(MW)
130
187
312
Investment
($ 000)
618,000
1,045,000
1,518,000
Levelized Annual
Cost ($ 000)
155,710
252,400
376,390
* ±600 kv DC Conductor bundles 4-954 konil.
765 kv AC Conductor bundles 4-954 kcmil.
ANNUAL LEVELIZED UTILITY OWNING AND OPERATING COSTS
($ 000)
Distance (miles)
Capacity
Fixed Charges
Operating
Total
500
3200
765 kv AC
101,940
53,770
155,710
900
3200
±600 kv DC
172,510
79,890
252,400
1500
3200
±600 kv DC
251,720
124,570
376,390
VB-3
-------
VB-4
2. Coal Slurry Pipelines.
The general configuration assumed for this mode
includes a 50-50 coal-water slurry, pipeline pressure
1200 psi which on level terrain drops to 100 psi at
70 miles, 70 mile pumping station spacing each with dump
ponds capable of accomodating the upstream segment, a
velocity of 4.09 mph, and water treatment after removal
to eliminate fine dust, the water to be used for in-plant
services. The pipe size for the movement of 25 MMTY is
40". Water evaluation is not undertaken.
Specific assumptions include:
(1) EBASCO estimation of costs.
(2) Fixed charges based on 80/20 percent debt/
equity financing are 14 percent.
(3) Energy costs at utility rates.
(4) Material costs escalated at 6 percent/year
and labor costs at 8 percent/year to obtain
1980 costs.
(5) The approximate percent of annual costs
subject to escalation equals 27.1.
A sample 900 mile pipeline delivering 9 MMTY for 1980
operation is estimated at ($ 000):
Coal slurry preparation plant $ 92,000
Coal pipeline 348,000
Pumping stations (12) 155,000
Dewatering plant 115,000
Total $710,000
The results, for comparable facilities described in our
study are shown in the following table.
-------
PIPELINE TRANSPORTATION COSTS, 1980 OPERATION,
25 MMTY DELIVERY
Distance Pipe Diameter Investment Levelized Annual
(miles) (inches) ($ 000) Cost ($ 000)
900 40 2,090,000 401,530
1500 40 2,660,000 511,030
ANNUAL LEVELIZED OWNING AND OPERATING COSTS
($ 000)
Distance (miles) 900 1500
Fixed Charges 292,600 372,400
Operating 108,926 138,633
Total 401,526 511,033
VB-5
-------
VB-6
P. J. NAGARVALA, G. C. FERRELL AND L. A. OLVER,
CLEAN COAL ENERGY; SQURCE-TO-USE ECONOMICS,
VOL. 1, MODEL, DATA AND RESULTS
DRAFT, JANUARY 1976, THE BECHTEL
CORPORATION FOR ESERDA
CONTRACT NO. E(49-18)-1552
Bechtel's sketch of the slurry pipeline basis is
presented from their report along with their slurry-unit
train comparisons.
This material has been omitted. See pages 2-57, 2-58, 2-59, and
2-60 of the cited report.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-77-072d
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Energy from the West: A Progress Report of a
Technology Assessment of Western Energy Resource
Development Appendices
5. REPORT DATE
June, 1977
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Irvin L. White, et al
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Science and Public Policy Program
University of Oklahoma
601 Elm Avenue, Room 432
Oklahoma 73019
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
EHE 624C
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-01-1916
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research-and Development
Office of Energy, Minerals, and Industry
T.TagV.-ir.rH-nn P.P. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final, July, 1975-March, 1977
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
This project is part of the EPA-planned and coordinated Federal Interagency
Energy/Environment RSD Program
16. ABSTRACT
This is a' progress report of a three year technology assessment of the
development of six energy resources (coal, geothermal, natural gas, oil, oil shale,
and uranium) in eight western states (Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming) during the period from the present
to the year 2000. Volume I describes the purpose and conduct of the study,
summarizes the results of the analyses conducted during the first year, and outlines
plans for the remainder of the project. In Volume II, more detailed analytical
results are presented. Six chapters report on the analysis of the likely impacts
of deploying typical energy resource development technologies at sites representa-
tive of the kinds of conditions likely to be encountered in the eight-state study
area A seventh chapter focuses on the impacts likely to occur if western energy
resources are developed at three different levels from the present to the^year
2000. The two chapters in Volume III describe the political and institutional
context of policymaking for western energy resource development and present a
more detailed discussion of selected problems and issues. The Fourth Volume
presents two appendices, on air quality modeling and energy transportation costs.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Technology Assessment
Western Energy
Resource Development
Secondary Impacts
COSATI Field/Group
System Analysis
Electrical Power
Fossil Fuels
Ecology
Government Policies
0402
0503
0504
0511
0606
0701
0809
1001
1002
1202
1302
1401
2104
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
213
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
J>U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. I 9 7 7-2 4 I - 037 / S 2
------- |