Guidelines for Selecting Pellet Plant Technology

I. Cameron, M. Huerta, J. Bolen

M. Okrutny, K. O’Leary

AusIMM, Iron Ore Conference , Perth WA  |  13‐15 July 2015

00/2014
 2

Introduction
• The availability of lump ore and sinter fines is declining; lower grade
iron ore resources must be finely ground to upgrade Fe content to
acceptable levels.
• Eventually, new investments in pelletizing capacity are required to
bring Fe concentrates into the steelmaking value chain.
• The straight grate (SG) and grate kiln (GK) are the only two
commercially proven processes.
• Hatch compared both technologies to help investors better
understand how best to pelletize concentrates.

00/2014
 3

Contents
• Iron Ore Pelletizing Technologies
• Plant Capacity
• Fuel Options and Energy Consumption
• Pellet Product Quality
• Capex and Opex
• Environmental Performance
• Summary

00/2014
 4

The Growth of Iron Ore Pelletizing

Regional growth since 1950 • Iron ore pelletizing has grown
500 since its origins in 1950’s and
China accelerated in recent times.
World Pelletizing Capacity (Mtpa)

Middle East
400 Rest of Asia / Australia • With depletion of high quality
Europe
CIS DSOs and sinter fines, global
300
South America pellet feed production will
North America
200
substantially increase.
• Pelletizing capacity will continue
100
to grow to supply direct reduced
iron plants and blast furnaces.
0
1949 1968 1975 1982 1990 1998 2004 2010 • Usage of pellet feed at sinter
Year
plants will increase.

00/2014
 5

Straight Grate (SG) and Grate Kiln (GK)

The Straight Grate (SG)

pelletizing process

The Grate Kiln (GK)

pelletizing process

00/2014
 6

New Emerging Technology: Circular Pelletizing

Technology (CPT)
Primetals Technologies’ Circular Pelletizing • Alternative to SG and GK.
Technology (CPT)
• Essentially a SG induration
furnace arranged in a circle
to reduce the plant footprint.
• Current plant sizes on offer -
0.6 to 3.0 Mtpa.
• First plant under
construction in India.

00/2014
 7

Iron Ore Mineral Pelletized

Pelletizing capacity by iron ore mineral • The SG technology is
300 proven for magnetite,
Other Ores
hematite and mixed ores.
World Pelletizing Capacity 

250 Hematite
Magnetite + Hematite
200 Magnetite
(Mtpa)

• The GK is proven for

150 magnetite ores and mixtures
100 of magnetite and hematite;
less experience with
50 hematite ores than the SG.
0
SG GK

00/2014
 8

Pellet Plant Capacity Increase Since 1960

9.0
SG Improvements
Annual Capacity of Individual

8.0 GK Improvements
Expert
Systems Mathematical 
SG/GK Improvements Models
7.0 Hearth Layer 
Pellet Lines (Mtpa)

Bin Separation
Advanced
Double Deck 
6.0 Roller Screen
Process
Control
Deep
5.0 Carbon Bed High Pressure 
Grinding Rolls
Addition Fans with
Hyper‐ Variable 
4.0 Automation Activation Frequency 
Systems Roller Drives
3.0 Reduced
Screen
Air
Cooler
2.0 Recoup
Leakage
Coal Fired 
Kiln
1.0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Year

00/2014
 9

Fuel Options
Ability of SG and GK to use various fuels

Fuel SG GK

Gaseous Fuels  

Liquid Fuels  

Solid Fuels, such as coal 

Solid Carbon Addition to Hematite

 Limited
Concentrate

00/2014
 10

Energy Consumption
Thermal energy consumption for Electricity consumption for process fans
selected pellet plants
Magnetite GK Lowest
SG Typical
Magnetite Technology Reported
(kWh/t)
(kWh/t)
Mag ‐ Hem

Mag ‐ Hem SG 20 - 25 13
Magnetite
GK 15 - 20 12
Mag ‐ Hem

Magnetite

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Thermal Energy Consumption (MJ/t pellet)

00/2014
 11

Pellet Product Quality

• Both SG and GK produce quality fired pellets for BF and DR applications.
• Fired pellet quality depends on ore type, end user demands, type and quality
of fluxes and binders, balling technology, screening equipment, etc.
• The GK produces fired pellets with more uniform physical strength due to the
nature of material flow in the rotary kiln that exposes all green pellets to the
peak firing temperature.
• The SG generates less fines due to the absence of transfer points and little
relative movement/abrasion between pellets and furnace parts.
• Both SG and GK report experience with organic binders; more data is needed
to fully understand how best to use organic binder and produce top quality
pellets.

00/2014
 12

Capex and Opex Comparison

Capex Comparison – SG and GK Opex Comparison – SG and GK

100 Cost Items SG GK

Iron Ore Concentrate similar similar
Relative Capital Cost

80 Additives/Binder similar similar

Fuel ▼ ▲
60 Electricity ▲ ▼
Water similar similar
40
Refractory ▼ ▲
Other Consumables similar similar
20
Labour similar similar
0 Maintenance ▼ ▲
Straight Grate Grate Kiln Overall similar similar

00/2014
 13

Environmental Performance
• Air pollutants of concern are dust, SOx, NOx and greenhouse gases (GHG).
• Both technologies use ESPs or bag houses for dust control.
• Newer plants are considering de-S equipment to reduce emissions.
• The SG can utilize ultra low NOx burners in a separate combustion chamber
with controlled atmosphere; this approach is not possible in the GK.
• Low NOx burners can be used in the GK, but the ultra low levels projected for
the SG are probably not possible for the GK.
• GHG production, particularly CO2 is directly related to the type and amount of
fossil fuel combusted and the calcination of fluxes.

00/2014
 14

Overall Comparison – SG and GK

Variable SG GK Remarks

1) Iron Ore Mineral

a) Hematite limited GK is best suited for magnetite and magnetite/hematite mixtures
yes use while SG is suitable for all minerals.
b) Magnetite yes yes
c) Hematite/Magnetite Mixture yes yes
2) Unit Capacity
a) 3-7 Mtpa yes yes GK has not demonstrated unit capacities beyond 7.0 Mtpy.
b) 7-9 Mtpa yes no
3) Fuel Type
a) Natural Gas yes yes SG has not demonstrated operation with pulverized coal while GK can
b) Fuel Oil yes yes operate will all fuels.
c) Pulverized Coal no yes SG can operate with high amounts of carbon additions to hematite ore
d) Carbon Addition to Hematite high limited mixes whereas the use of GK for this application is limited.
Ore Mix amount use

Legend: Competitive advantage

No advantage/disadvantage
Disadvantage
Technical constraint

00/2014
 15

Overall Comparison – SG and GK

Variable SG GK Remarks

4) Thermal Energy Consumption slightly slightly Slight advantage for SG.

lower higher
5) Electrical Energy Consumption higher lower Advantage for GK due to smaller process fans.
6) Product Quality slightly slightly GK provides better fired pellet temperature uniformity.
lower higher
7) Fines Generation more Advantage to SG due to lack of transfer points.
less fines fines
8) Organic Binder Use limited In general, advantage to SG, although some have reported advantage
yes
use to GK.
9) Capex slightly slightly Slight advantage for GK in process fan cost, no hearth layer return
higher lower system and less building costs.
10) Opex similar similar Site specific.
11) Environmental Performance slightly slightly More potential to reduce NOx for the SG in a separate combustion
higher lower chamber, otherwise no obvious advantage.

Legend: Competitive advantage

No advantage/disadvantage
Disadvantage
Technical constraint

00/2014
 16

Acknowledgements
• The authors are pleased to acknowledge the following contributors
for their valuable input:
– David Tucker

– Jose Murilo Mourão

– Miguel Sabanero

– Urano Medeiros

– Kelly Scott

– Mike Walsh

00/2014
 17

Thank You
Ian Cameron
Senior Director – Iron & Steel
Phone +1-905-403-4052
icameron@hatch.ca

For more information,

please visit
www.hatch.ca

00/2014