You are on page 1of 5

SME Annual Meeting

Feb. 27-Mar. 02, 2011, Denver, CO

Preprint 11-097
OPEN PIT GEOMETRY MODELING AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF NOVEL AT-FACE-SLURRY OPTIONS
R. S. Suglo, Univ. of Mines & Technology, Tarkwa, Ghana
S. Frimpong, Missouri Univ. of Science & Technology, Rolla, MO
O. F. Brown, Missouri Univ. of Science & Technology, Rolla, MO

the frequent changes in the pit configuration. As open pit layouts
expand, equipment cycle times and haulage costs increases resulting
in lower production rates and system efficiencies. Thus, there is a need
for cheaper mining and haulage systems for ensuring optimum
profitability. Bulk materials transport systems such as belt conveyors
and hydraulic transport systems have been noted to offer lower
operating costs. They are also versatile and have practically unlimited
range of capacities and are increasingly being employed in the bulk
transportation of materials in large surface mines. They offer
competitive advantages over other materials handling systems in
reducing the unit production costs.

ABSTRACT
The evolution of surface mine layout configuration is a function of
the schedules and sequence of material excavation within the
optimized layouts. The production schedules and sequence of
materials movement from multi-bench and multi-face operations are
difficult to plan and execute. However, the ability to maximize the profit
or net present value of an orebody is largely dependent on the mining
schedule. The mining schedule will determine the life of the mine, the
projected cashflows, and the investment requirements over the mine
life. The pit geometries, pit expansion rates and the periodic volume of
materials from different benches in a multi-bench, multi-face open pit
mine determine the equipment requirements.

The novel at face slurry (AFS) system is intended to take
advantage of the lower unit operating costs, higher payloaddeadweight ratio, and higher efficiencies of hydraulic and belt conveyor
transport systems by extending the transport systems to the production
faces. In the AFS system, the shovel at the pit face will be linked to the
treatment plant by mobile trains of either a hopper-crusher-belt
conveyor wagons-slurry facility or a hopper-crusher-slurry facilityflexible/fixed pipeline system. Thus the excavation, crushing and slurry
process will be done at the face before being pumped to the main
treatment plant. The AFS system will introduce a unique set of mine
design layout, configuration and ergonomic challenges by allowing the
mobile train of flexible pipelines or conveyor belt systems to adapt to
the production face dynamics.

The volume of materials excavated, as well as pit layout changes
from circular and elliptical geometries of an oil sands mine were
modeled using analytical geometric and parabolic partial differential
equations (PDEs) and solved within Matlab. The results show that the
geometric values are almost the same as those obtained from PDEs
for different pit configurations. The economic analysis shows that both
the current mining system (CMS) and the cyclic excavator conveyor
belt control system (CycEx CBCS) are viable with high NPV (≥ $3.20 ×
1010), PI (> 19%) and IRR (> 29.02%) with short discounted payback
periods (≤ 3.24 months). The CycEx CBCS option is more economic
than the CMS option. Its NPV is 1.27 times that of the CMS option. The
PI and IRR for the CycEx CBCS option are respectively 2.24 and 1.13
times that of the CMS option. As well, the CycEx CBCS option has
almost half the DPBP of the CMS option. The CMS option has an
operating cost of $1.386 per tonne ($2.774/barrel) while that of the
CycEx CBCS option is $0.779/tonne ($1.558/barrel). These results
show that the CycEx CBCS option is the better option for mining
companies working on oil sands deposits to invest in.

The shovel-truck system, referred to as the current mining system
(CMS), is widely used in most surface mines in the world. Due to the
operating flexibility, mobility and resale value, truck haulage is the
favored method for moving both ore and waste in open pit mines
(Frizzell and Martin 1992). The shovel-truck system is currently being
used in mining and waste stripping operations in most hard rock and oil
sands mining companies. The CMS comprises shovels as the primary
loaders with diesel-powered dump trucks that are dispatched or
allocated to each excavator. The loaded trucks transport the materials
to dump sites at the crusher-slurry facility or to the waste dump site.
The system comprises discrete loading and haulage units whose
outputs per hour are characterized by their cycle times.

INTRODUCTION
Surface mine production scheduling can be challenging due to the
fact that most open pit mines work with multiple benches and often
involve the simultaneous excavation of both ore and waste from a
number of working faces (Dohm 1979; Bohnet 1989; Armstrong 1990;
Erarslan 2002). These production schedules and plans are used to
maintain and maximize the expected profit (Hustrulid and Kuchta 1995);
determine the future investment in mining; optimize return on
investment; evaluate alternative investment options; and conserve and
develop the mine's resources (O’Neil 1998). To determine the pit
volumes, the expansion rates, and periodic volume of materials within
the pits and optimize resources allocation, Matlab was used to solve
geometric equations for materials excavation on a multi-bench, multiface open pit mine subject to constraints imposed by the initial and
boundary conditions.

The CycEx CBCS comprises a shovel, a crawler-mounted mobile
crusher, belt conveyor wagons, a mixing tower and a slurry facility. The
shovel loads its materials into a crawler-mounted hopper located at the
face. Apron feeders transfer the materials to sizers then into double roll
crushers for size reduction. The crushed materials will be sized and
conveyed on a train of crawler-mounted belt conveyor wagons to a
surge facility from which apron feeders will transport it to a slurry
facility. The oil sands slurry is transported through the main hydrotransport system (HTS) to the main processing plant (Changirwa et al.
2000; Coward 2000). The slurry unit will also receive materials from
other faces in a multi-bench, multi-face mining and materials flow
system. This will ensure a continuous flow of materials from the
cyclical shovels to the slurry unit. The aim is to meet the required
production targets, and avoid downtimes of the slurry unit because of a
problem at any of the mining faces.

The cross-sections of most open pit mines are either circular or
elliptical in shape. To accurately determine the volumes of materials
excavated in these pits, geometric calculations and PDEs were
employed. The dimensions of the pits are expanded and deepened by
lateral and longitudinal incremental pushbacks.
Surface mining
materials handling is mainly by discrete or continuous flow units and
processes. Discrete materials loading and haulage systems are
predominantly used in open pit mines because they allow high
flexibility in planning and scheduling of operations and easily cope with

Different combinations of equipment can be used in a mine to
achieve the desired production targets. However, some equipment
combinations and their operating times result in lower unit operating

1

Copyright © 2011 by SME

Table 2 summarizes the results of the times required to mine all the ore on benches 1 to 3 using geometric calculations and PDEs for an elliptical pit. 02.68 2600. CO costs and higher system efficiencies than others.97 yr and 11.987.50 Bench #2 CBCS 2615. Figure 1 is a 3D layout of an open pit with three benches while Figure 2 is a solid 3D layout of the faces of a circular pit after taking ten incremental pushbacks of 10 m each.15 yr.00 0.000 m.33 Bench #1 CBCS 2. In a typical open pit mine. 2011.45 yr. Table 1. the ore reserves on bench #1 would be mined out in 2.11 to 3.53 Average Figure 1.50 2780.67 CMS 2827. are almost the same as those obtained from PDEs for the different pit configurations. The performance of CSM and an AFS conceptual option. From the geometric calculations. 3D View of Circular Pit Faces after taking Incremental Pushbacks on Bench #1.50 CMS 2677. The ore on benches 2 and 3 will be completely mined out in 11. In this paper Matlab algorithms are used in geometric calculations and parabolic partial differential equations (PDEs) to determine the pit volumes and expansion rates of pits in a hypothetical oil sands mine with elliptical and spherical geometries.19 years to completely mine all the ore on benches 1 to 3 respectively using the CycEx CBCS method.38 yr.96 0.56 2497. show that the values from geometric calculations using Matlab. both the waste and ore must be mined at the required rates simultaneously. geometric estimates show that the ore in benches 1 to 3 will be completely excavated after 12. Ratio 1. The remaining reserves along the major axis on the various benches can then be mined later and the volumes calculated using PDEs.51 to 8. Thus PDEs may be successfully used in volume calculations to arrive at the same values as obtained from geometric process. Thus for every tonne of ore mined about 1.03 1.58 2710. 11. the periodic volume changes in circular and elliptical pits are modeled using parabolic differential equations.99 0.1 tonnes of waste have to be removed to maintain the stripping ratio. The hypothetical mine has a daily production target of 262. the PDE calculations tend to overestimate the volumes excavated as the pit deepens (i. the ore in benches 1 to 3 will be completely excavated in 12.01 Geometric Volume of Materials from an Elliptical Pit Matlab was used for calculating the geometric volume of materials excavated from an elliptical pit. the CycEx CBCS in the different pit configurations are evaluated.95 years (using PDEs). Table 2.06 yr and 10.33 to 8.01 1.e. 3D View of a Circular Pit with 3 Benches. the ore on benches 1 to 3 will be completely mined out from 7.984. Geometric Volume of Materials from a Circular Pit Matlab algorithms are used in calculating the geometric volume of materials excavated from a circular pit.000 m.26 2812. The thickness of the deposit averages 60 m.97 1.03 0.82 yr and 11. However. Figure 2. The spaces in between the colored circular frustums show the voids created after taking each pushback with a thickness of 10 m.82 yr respectively.82 m after taking 10 pushbacks on bench #1. Time to Excavate Ore Reserves from a Circular Pit. The initial pit radius in Figure 2 is 80 m while the final pit diameter at the top is 381.52 yr respectively. In addition.13 yr and 11.18 years on the three benches (using geometric calculations) and from 6. The initial pit 2 Copyright © 2011 by SME .33 Bench #3 CBCS 2635.00 CMS 2630. Detailed geometric calculations show that it will Figure 3 is a solid 3D diagram of the faces of an elliptical pit after ten incremental pushbacks each of 10 m in thickness.376. calculations using PDEs for pit expansion in all directions are usually terminated when the boundary conditions along the minor axis or shorter dimensions of the property boundaries are attained.00 Bench #1 CBCS 2.99 0.17 CMS 2778.84 to 7. in Tables 1 and 2.95 0. Using the CycEx CBCS option in a circular pit configuration.87 2991.99 1.934.33 2900.76 days to mine the ore materials within each incremental pushback in all directions on bench #1.25 2908.1:1.90 2854. The results from both tables show that generally.01 0.19 yr respectively.04 1.926. In this case the calculations are terminated when the initial length of the minor axes of the elliptical cross-section is 3.04 yr) at the projected production rate of 262. the results show that the ore benches 1 to 3 will be completely extracted in 12.000 t/day. Table 1 summarizes the results of the times required to mine all the ore on benches 1 to 3 using geometric calculations and PDEs for a circular pit configuration. 11.00 Bench #3 CBCS 2. Geometric PDE (days) (days) CMS 2934.99 The results.21 yr respectively.24 2541. it will take from 6. Ratio 1. 27-Mar. The results show that when the CMS option is used. The waste stripping operation has to precede the ore mining and must continue at a good rate to ensure that sufficient ore material is exposed to meet the required ore production targets. This means that the amount of ore to be mined is almost the same as that of the waste stripping requirements.SME Annual Meeting Feb. The pit limits are reached when the radius of the pit reaches the shortest length of the property boundaries. at the lower benches) relative to geometric calculations. Time to Excavate Reserves from an Elliptical Pit Geometric PDE (days) (days) CMS 2. Denver.000 tonnes at a stripping ratio of 1.67 Average DYNAMICS OF EXCAVATED MATERIALS The dynamic modeling of the pit design and the material volumes from the pits with circular and elliptical shapes is done using Matlab. 11. The pit limits are reached when the pit dimensions along the minor axis reach the boundary conditions. When PDEs are used in the calculations.03 2841. When the CMS option is employed in an elliptical pit. When PDEs are employed with the CycEx CBCS option.10 2708.67 Bench #2 CBCS 2. take between 0.673.25 days (8. In this case the calculations are terminated when the radius of the pit is 3. This may leave some reserves in the pit along the major axis whose volume can be similarly determined using PDEs if excavation is assumed to be taking place in only that direction.

the volume of ore that can be mined on benches 1 to 3 are 3. It shows that the rate of change in the volume of the elliptical pit is virtually the same irrespective of the type of mining option used.00E+08 4.72 3 3 3 × 108 m . Time using CMS and CycEx 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 Time (hr) CMS The calculations show that the rate of increase in the pit dimensions was about 0.00E+08 80000 Time (hr) CMS 3.84 × 108 m respectively.44 × 3 3 108 m and 3.23 × 108 m and 2. Figure 3.00E+08 2. CBCS.23 × 108 m respectively.73 × 108 m . ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF MINING OPTIONS Mining projects normally involve huge levels of capital outlays with their corresponding high investment risks. 3.50E+08 1. This section presents the economic analysis of the CMS and CycEx CBCS options. 3. 27-Mar. involve continuous processes.50E+08 5.00E+08 1.91 × 108 m respectively. Using the CMS option. 3. Thus. 3D View of Elliptical Pit Faces after Incremental Pushbacks. if the differential volume expansion of the pit is known.50E+08 4.82 m × 431. to determine the attractiveness of projects and to aid in the selection of the best investment ventures from many options. Volume of Elliptical Pit vs. 2011.82 m after taking the 10 pushbacks on bench #1. From Figure 4.28 × 108 m respectively. then the time it will take to excavate it can be obtained from the x-axis or vice versa. The geometric volumes of ore that can be extracted from the elliptical frustum on benches 1 to 3 using the CMS option are 3. Figure 5 shows the initial AFS equipment layout in a circular pit for the application of the CycEx CBCS option. Economic analysis is one the best tools for evaluating and comparing different projects or investments options. Accordingly. Initial AFS Equipment Layout in a Circular Pit.00E+00 0 Volume of Circular Pit vs. 5. Figure 6 shows the respective rates of change of the volume of an elliptical pit at any given time when the CMS and CycEx CBCS options are used respectively. Dynamics of Excavated Volumes The expansion and materials handling operations.50E+08 Figure 5. The geometric volumes of ore from benches 1 to 3 of 3 the elliptical pit using the CycEx CBCS option are 3. design and scheduling cannot be used to accurately capture the continuous changes.00E+08 Volum e Excavated (m 3 ) V o lu m e E x c a v a te d (m 3 ) 4.00E+08 2. With the CycEx CBCS option. within the pit.50E+08 2. dimensions are 328 m × 208 m while the final pit diameter at the top is 549. 3. CBCS Figure 6.00E+08 3.SME Annual Meeting Feb.00E+08 4. the volume 3 of ore that can be mined from benches 1 to 3 are 3.65 × 108 3 3 3 m . Parabolic partial differential equations (PDEs) with their associated boundary conditions can be used to model changes in the pit volume and configuration when the pit expansion is in only one direction. it is much better to assess both options using the appropriate evaluation economic criteria. most of the available software for mine planning.00E+07 CBCS 0.046 m/hr.50E+08 1. alone or in combination. 3.00E+08 1. Figure 7 shows the initial AFS equipment layout in an elliptical pit for the application of the CycEx CBCS option. all new mining projects or modifications to existing projects have to be economically evaluated to assess their viabilities and whether they add value to the company.31 3 3 × 108 m and 2. Figure 4 shows the volume of a circular pit at any given time on bench #1 when using CMS and CycEx CBCS.50E+08 5. CO of 0. Even though the cost of production per tonne from the two options may be used to determine the better option. 02. Denver. Various economic evaluation criteria are commonly used.00E+00 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 Figure 4.00E+08 5.66 × 108 m .048 m/hr. Time using PDEs on Bench #1 for CMS and CycEx CBCS Option (Source: Suglo 2004). 3.00E+07 0. The dimensions of the elliptical frustum on bench #1 will expand at the rate 3 Copyright © 2011 by SME .50 × 108 m and 3.50E+08 2.

A detailed economic analysis on the CMS and CycEx CBCS options is carried out (Anon. AIME.. Vol. In addition. 6..b. (1990). Table 3. 7. and Szymanski. R.37 2. Figure 7. Kennedy.02%) and extremely short discounted payback periods (≤ 3. No.37 1.15 0.canadianeconomy.558/barrel). Initial AFS Equipment Layout in an Elliptical Pit (Source: Suglo 2004). Kennedy. calculations using PDEs for pit expansion in all directions are usually terminated when the boundary conditions along the minor axis or shorter dimensions of the property boundaries are attained. PI (> 19%) and IRR (> 29. As well. Frimpong. Syncrude Canada Ltd. Baltimore: 476-479. 2011.24 months). 27-Mar. 5. The results of the economic analysis show that both the current mining system which involves shovels and trucks and the conceptual AFS option. are viable with higher NPV values (≥ $3. the CycEx CBCS option has almost half the DPBP of the CMS option. In this study.13 times that of the CMS option. (2003b). as well as the frequent changes in political regimes in some states and provinces. ed. in Ch. 94.). The PI and IRR of the CycEx CBCS option are respectively 2. REFERENCES Table 3 summarizes the results of the economic analysis conducted on the two mining options in this paper.bankofcanada. 4. “Project Millennium – Suncor Ramping Up to Double Production”. some governments tend to impose higher than expected taxes on mining companies to balance their accounts and to meet increasing public demand for public facilities and services. Anon.774/barrel) while that of the CycEx CBCS option is $0. Thus PDEs may be successfully used in volume calculations to yield the same values as geometric estimates. 02. The results show that both mining options are viable with high net present values (≥ $3. Anon. “The Current Economy – Analysis of the Current State of the Economy”. 1054: 13-27. it is often necessary to assess the effect of changes in the discount rate at various percentages because with most new operations.78 times that of the CycEx CBCS option.37 43. Against a discount rate of 15% set by the company. the CycEx CBCS option is clearly more economically viable than the CMS option.02%) and extremely short discounted payback periods (≤ 3. Changirwa. © Palisade Corporation.27 times that of the CMS option.24 29. S. Collaborative Research on an At Face Slurrying (AFS) Technology – NSERC-Syncrude-University of Alberta. Optimum Production Scheduling.59 4 Copyright © 2011 by SME . As well. CIM Bulletin. Baltimore: 459-464. E. Bank of Canada webpage. profitability indices (> 19%) and internal rates of return (> 29. This means that it is cheaper for oil sands mining companies to adapt the CycEx CBCS option as against the CMS to increase their profitabilities and enhance the environmental conditions in their mines.ca 5. Anon.27 times that of the CMS option. 2001a. NY. The results show that the data closely fit various statistical distributions (Suglo and Szymanski 1995. 3. “Why We’re Here”. Anon. Over the years as more information is gathered and various parameters are known to high levels of certainty. The times to excavate the ore reserves contained in benches 1 to 3 using the CMS and CycEx CBCS options were also computed. “AFS Recommended Option”. (1997). 2003a.78 times that of the CycEx CBCS option.486. (2001b). the PDE calculations tend to overestimate the volumes excavated as the pit deepens relative to geometric calculations.27 19.779/tonne ($1.386/tonne ($2. Due to the unpredictable nature of mineral prices and other economic indices. The PI and IRR of the CycEx CBCS option are respectively 2.386/tonne ($2. The depletion allowance is taken as the minimum of 5% of gross revenue or 10% of Pre-Capital Cost Allowance (PreCCA) while the average exchange rate of the US $ to the Canadian $ for the past 7 years was 1. (2001a).24 and 1. www. 1997).13 times that of the CMS option.syncrude. The collected data are processed using the stabilized probability plot method and BestFit.gc. Armstrong. Economic Analysis of Mining Options. www. 2nd ed.. (1989). However. CONCLUSION In this paper geometric calculations and PDEs have been used to determine the pit volumes and expansion rates of pits with elliptical and spherical geometries. (2000). CO Table 4 (see last page) summarizes the total operating costs of the CMS and CycEx CBCS options obtained from calculations. The costs were assumed to vary by ±25% of their mean values.). the cyclic excavator conveyor belt control system (CycEx CBCS).A. Anon. the CycEx CBCS option has almost half the DPBP of the CMS option.16 0. Government of Canada webpage.20 × 1010). (2003a). the discount rates are reduced to reflect the level of confidence in the project parameters.558/barrel). The results show that the CMS option has an operating cost of $1. From Table 3. 2nd ed. Bohnet. “Bank of Canada – Monetary Policy”.SME Annual Meeting Feb. the CycEx CBCS option is clearly the better option to invest in.20 × 1010).A. As well. The CMS option has an operating cost of $1.b. Its NPV is 1. These results show that the CycEx CBCS option is clearly the better option for mining companies working on oil sands deposits to invest in.24 months).774/barrel) while that of the CycEx CBCS option is $0.02 33. Newfield. Anon. Thus the unit operating cost of the CMS option is about 1. 2. Thus the unit operating cost of the CMS option is about 1. ed. AIME. Anon. Coward 2003).06 1. It is also noted that generally.L.4 of Surface Mining (B. one barrel of oil is obtained for every two tonnes of ore.779/tonne ($1. Planning and Design of Surface Mines. www. it is also necessary to assess the impact of federal and state taxes on the viability of projects at various tax levels. D.27 0.com. 1.htm. The results show that the calculated values from geometric calculations using Matlab are almost the same as those obtained from PDEs for different pit configurations. Thus. “@RISK: Risk Simulation and Analysis for Spreadsheets”. Profitability Measure NPV ($1010) PI IRR ( %) DPBP (yr) Mining Option Ratio (CBCS/CMS) CMS CycEx CBCS 3. Thus. Its NPV is 1. webpage. Denver. 8. the CycEx CBCS option is more economically viable than the CMS option. in Ch.ca/en/monetary. 5 of Surface Mining (B.24 and 1. The Double Declining Balance (DDB) method of depreciation is used at the mine. An allowance of 25% of the cost is given for contingencies. comprehensive economic and risk analyses are required for all the possible scenarios to ensure proper comparison of the various mining options and to make informed investment decisions. Progress Report # NSERC/SCL/CRD00001 (January): 161. most investors often apply high discount rates at the start of operations. J.20 4.

Summary of Operating Costs of CMS and CycEx CBCS Options. 10. No. eds. and Petroleum Engineers.T. Metallurgical. (1992). (J.60 Shovel (O&K RH200) 6 22. sen. (March 2003). Denver.L.26 1. 21 of Open Pit Mine Planning and Design.C. Edmonton. Proceedings of Underground Operators’ Conference. 13. Mining Engineering. “Computer Simulation of Underground Room and Pillar Mining”. Table 4. (January 2000).80 2. Ch.84 54. (2004). R. of Units ($/min.A.S.2 Mobile Crusher & Slurrification 1 1. J. in.66 1. Dohm.. Suglo. J.05 13. Fundamentals. Circular Analysis – Open Pit Optimization.81 10.61 18. Open Pit Mine Design and Planning. J. 3: 313-321. (2002). (1979). Balkema. Communication with Syncrude Canada Ltd. Inc. Vol. 2011. University of Alberta.80 2.20 Crusher 1 7. (1995). Operators 9 6 6 12 Total Operator Cost ($ × 106) 7.779 ± 0. PhD Dissertation.80 1. 11. “A Practical Approach for Open Pit Design and Visualisation”. “Syncrude: Biggest Oil-Sand Miner gets Biggest Hydraulic Shovel”. (2003). (2000).5 of SME Mining Engineering Handbook 2nd ed.60 Total Operating Cost ($ × 106) Operating Cost per tonne ($/tonne) CycEx CBCS Option Maintenance Cost Operator Cost Type of Equipment No. W. (1995). (1998). American Institute of Mining. ed. and Martin. CO 9. Rotterdam: 1-625. Maintenance Cost Operator Cost Type of Equipment No. Communication with Syncrude Canada Ltd. R. 1. in Ch. Erarslan.023 Copyright © 2011 by SME .25 ± 2. Hustrulid.75 1. A.98 6.) ($ × 106) Belt conveyor wagons (20 m) 18 6. (H. AIME.M.A. Coward.09 15 12.386 ± 0. K. AIME-SME.90 9. NY: 31-40.07 Total Cost ($ × 106) 55. Kalgoolie.SME Annual Meeting Feb. 27-Mar. 12. 15.6 Mobile transfer conveyor 2 2. 9.66 0. Littleton.6 unit Total Operating Costs ($ × 106) Operating Cost per tonne ($/tonne) 5 Total No.). Journal of Mineral Resources Eng.49 ± 4. G. Canada: 1-181. New York.15 1. Operators 36 18 12 Total Operator Cost ($ × 106) 30. and Kuchta. Hustrulid. November 13-14. Vol.S. 1995): 1-4. M. 2. and Szymanski. Suglo.. Frizzell. 13.27 20.40 1. In-Pit Crushing and Conveying. O’Neil. Geometrical Mine Design and Multi-Bench Material Flow Simulation for AFS Characterization.57 5.05 5. Coward. of Units ($/min. 16. 02.49 22. Vol.6 Shovel (O&K RH200) 6 3. E. T. CO: 33-39. 17.18 Total No.6 Hydrotransport Pipelines 1 0.09 13.) ($ × 106) CMS Option Trucks (360 t unit) 24 14.02 74. W.94 1.52 22. Hartman.. 14.). Crawford and W. T. Baltimore: 13431350.87 Total Cost ($ × 106) 17.