PIPELINE SIMULATION INTEREST GROUP HYDRAULIC DESIGN OF SLURRY PIPELINE SYSTEMS BY D.W. HAIM AND L.C. FISTER BECHTEL PETROLEUM, INC. PSIG ANNUAL MEETING DETROIT, MICHIGAN OCTOBER 27 ~ 28, 1983ABSTRACT ‘The unique hydraulic characteristics of materials to be transported by slurry pipeline require that laboratory tests be performed to establish definitive design parameters. An overview of the relevant material characteristics, how they are deter- mined in the laboratory, and their application to basic hydraulic design are presented. The programs incorporating this data and their applica tion to the hydraulic design of slurry systems are discussed as well as system operation limitations and specific physical design characteristics. Key Word Slurry Pipeline SystemHYDRAULIC DESIGN OF SLURRY PIPELINE SYSTEMS INTRODUCTION A large variety of solid bulk materials are transported in slurry forn, including iron concentrate, coal, phosphate concentrate, copper concen trate, nickel, and limestone. The material properties which affect slurry pipeline design (particle size distribution, solid specific gravity, particle shape, and hardness) vary between applications, even when like commodities are transported. A prerequisite to detailed design of any slurry pipeline system is a definition of the hydraulic behavior of the material to be transported. This paper summarizes the analytical procedure utilized by Bechtel Petroleum, Inc. in the design of slurry pipeline systems. No attempt is nade in this paper to present the equations used in the analysis. Only pertinent parameters are explained, and the solutions to particular design problems are presented. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS UNIQUE TO SLURRY SYSTEMS Slurry systems pose additional design considerations beyond the usual tradeoff between pipe size and pumping equipment associated with gas or Liquids pipelines. These include © Influence of Particle Size Distribution Selection of the particle size distribution (size consist) is an optimization procedure in which con- flieting priorities are balanced. A high content of fine particles will tend to produce a stable slurry suitable for long-distance transport. The fine particles help to suspend the coarser fractions, allowing lower operating velocities accompanied by savings in friction losses and pump horsepower. The fine particles, however, are more difficult and expensive to dewater. For short lines having arelatively low cumulative friction loss, the savings in dewatering costs afforded by a coarse grind may more than offset the increased pumping costs. The size consist required for the end use may also influence the design as is the case for magnitite slurries. Slope Limitations Due to the settling characteristics of slurri maximum slope in a slurry pipeline is usually Limited by the angle at which solids slide to low points in the pipe after shutdown. This angle is determined in the laboratory, by observing the angle at which settled slurry begins to slide in a transparent tube, and by observing the angle of repose when slurry settles in a tube set at predetermined angle(s). » the Abrasiveness of the Slurry Slurry piping systems must be designed to prevent erosion of the pipe walls. at high velocities (above about 8 feet per second) or when operating at velocities below that required to maintain the par- ticles in a relatively homogeneous suspension, pipe wear is typically rapid. Pipe wear is virtually eliminated when all particles are suspended at mode rate velocities. In some applications, such as tailings disposal lines or short coarse slurry lines, the coarse par- ticles cannot be suspended at moderate velocities. In these instances, the pipe should be lined with an abrasion-resistant material, such as ceramic basalt or elastomeric compounds such as high-density poly- ethylene or polyurethane. Wear problems preclude the use of control valves in slurry service. To control the flow in slurry transportation systems, variable speed pumps are utilized. Block valves are typically hard-faced ball or plug valves designed specifically for slurry service. Slurry pipelines require a routine main— tenance program to monitor and replace wear parts in pumps and valves.‘The abrasivity of a slurry is determined in the laboratory by repetitively abrading weighted chrome steel blocks across the bottom of plastic trays con- taining the slurry samples. The blocks are removed, cleaned and weighed at intervals, and the abrasivity (rate of weight loss) and the attrition (percentage rate of change in abrasivity) are calculated. © Slack Flow On steep downhill grades and when the design flow rate is not sufficient to maintain a completely packed pipeline, the hydraulic gradient will inter- sect the grade level line as illustrated at Milepost 70 in Figure 1. Where this occurs, pres- sure in the pipe drops to zero or less; cavitation and high slurry velocity ensues. In slurry service, these conditions result in rapid pipe wear, as par- ticles impinge on the steel at high speed. Two design approaches can mitigate slack flow conditions. Where the length of line subject to slack flow is short, a reduction in pipe diameter downstream of the affected area can raise the hydraulic gradient above the ground profile and maintain a packed pipe line as shown in Figure 2. Care must be taken to avoid excessive velocities in the reduced pipe section. When velocity constraints or the magnitude of correction preclude the use of a reduced pipe section, replaceable chokes or orifices may be used to provide a step function in the hydraulic gradient, as shown in Figure 3. LABORATORY TESTS The definition of the configuration of a slurry transportation system begins with a series of bench-scale laboratory tests which quantify the material's hydraulic properties. Tests are conducted to determine such things a © Particle size distribution (Sieve analysis) «© Specific gravity © Moisture content© —- Rheology (viscosity and yield stress) @ Settling characteristics © Corrosivity © Abrasivity The particle size distribution is determined by sieve analysis. The material's specific gravity, surface moisture, and where appropriate, inherent moisture is determined using standard soils test procedurt ‘The rheology of the sample is determined with a coaxial cylinder rotary viscometer, (Figure 4), In this device, slurry occupies the annular space between the inside of a cylindrical container and the outside sur- face of a rotating cylindrical bob. Measurements of the bob's rotational speed and the torque on the bob are translated into shear rate and shear stress, respectively. The resulting curve of shear stress versus shear rate is illustrated in Figure 5. In couercial applications, most slurries exhibit Bingham plastic behavior. The interactions between the particles and carrier fluid at rest cause a resistance to deformation. Once the yield stress is attained and deformation begins, the structural interactions are broken, and stress increases linearly with shear rate. The measured curve is nonlinear at stress values near yield because, at such low stress values, only a portion of the flufd in the annulus {s deformed. The plastic behavior of slurries is contrasted with the behavior of Newtonian fluids (such as water), in which the yield stress equals zero. The viscosity of a Newtonian fluid is defined by the ratio of stress to strain (shear rate), which is a constant equal to the slope of its stress/ strain curve. The “apparent viscosity” of a Bingham plastic slurry has the same definition (shear stress divided by shear rate), but is a non- linear function which converges, at high shear rates, towards the slope ofits stress/strain curve. Apparent viscosity is plotted versus shear rate in Figure 6, The slope of the stress/strain curve is referred to as the coefficient of rigidity of the slurry, and is used as the slurry viscosity in turbulent flow calculations. Settling tests are used to determine the angle of repose and the settling characteristics of the slurry. In these tests, an elongated transparent cylinder is filled with slurry and agitated to produce a homogeneous mixture of known concentration, before being positioned at a fixed, pre~ determined angle from the horizontal. The depth of bed is recorded as a function of time, and assessments are made of the particle size and type of sediment packing in the bed. The concentration of the settled slurry is determined from the starting concentration and the beginning and ending volume, Penetration tests, in conjunction with actual field experience, provide an indication of the degree of difficulty which may be encountered in attempting to resuspend a slurry which has settled in the pipe as a result of an unscheduled shutdown, ‘These tests are used to determine the maximum pipeline slope for a given concentration and design size consist. Tt has been found that, at certain concentrations, the presence of fine particles will hinder the settling of coarse particles, resulting in a relatively stable slurry, A sediment analyzer is used to determine particle shape factor. The corrosivity of a slurry mixture is evaluated with a galvanic corrosineter. This test is used, in conjunction with abrasion tests, to determine the internal corrosion allowance to be included in the pipe wall thickness. ESTIMATING FRICTION LOSSES The measurement of rheology, size consist, shape factor and specific gravity are used to calculate the predicted friction losses over a range of concentrations and velocities in a pipe of specified diameter. Asample output of the computer program which is used to perform this cal- culation is shown in Figure 7, which covers only one slurry concentration and velocity combination. For heterogeneous flow conditions, the fine particles are assumed to be homogeneously distributed in the carrier fluid, forming a “vehicle” in which the coarse particles are heterogeneously distributed. The coarse fractions are collectively referred to as the “bed.” The assignment of particles to vehicle and bed is based on the settling velocity determined in the laboratory for each fraction, and the flow condition being evaluated, The friction loss associated with the homo- geneous portion is calculated using a modified Fanning friction factor correlation, and is displayed under “Vehicle”. The friction losses asso- ciated with the bed are determined from Durand’s equation, and are added to the vehicle's friction losses to obtain the vehicle-plus-bed value. The friction loss for the carrier fluid (typically water) is also calcu- lated and displayed under “Liquid.” This calculation uses an unmodified Fanning friction factor correlation, and is evaluated at the diameter and fluid velocity under consideration. All friction losses are displayed in psi per mile, feet per 100 feet, and as wall shear in pounds per square foot. Figure 8 is a simplified flow chart of the Friction Loss Program. Figure 9 illustrates the behavior of friction loss versus velocity for heterogeneous and homogeneous slurries. Homogeneous slurries, which typically consist of high concentrations of fine particles, are capable of laminar flow without particle deposition. Their friction loss curves are characterized by a viscous transition velocity below which flow is laminar and above which flow is turbulent.Heterogeneous slurries, consisting of coarse particles at relatively low concentrations, are characterized by a deposition critical velocity. At and below the deposition critical velocity, a bed of particles settles on ing the bottom of the pipe, reducing its cross-sectional area and incr the associated friction losses, As velocity increases above the deposi- tion eritical velocity, the particle distribution becones more and more vaiform, At high velocities, the friction loss curve approximates the The log-linear curve of homogeneous slurry in the turbulent regim deposition critical velocity typically occurs in the turbulent flow regime. ESTABLISHING PIPELINE DESIGN CRITERIA - PIPELINE DESIGN PROGRAM ‘The Pipeline Design Program is used to determine pump requirements, steel tonnages, and wall thickness requirements by milepost. Input parameters include friction loss (expressed as wall shear); throughput; pipeline availability; concentration, specific gravity and particle shape factor (rom laboratory tests); corrosion allowance (from corrosion tests and/or previous experience); pipe material requirements; and appropriate safety factors. The pipeline profile and pump station location(s) are also input. ‘The program starts at the downstream end of the pipeline and calculates the friction loss and wall thickness of the first incremental pipe segment. Since both parameters are interdependent, an iterative proce dure is used until convergence is achieved. The second pipe segment is then determined, and so on, until all pipe segments and pump stations are defined. As the sample output in Figure 10 shows, a complete schedule of pipe wall thickness by milepost is produced, along with pump station design crit! ria and a summary of pipe steel tonnage. A hydraulic gradient is also plotted.OPERATING RANGE A family of curves plotting friction loss versus velocity is generated for various slurry concentrations at one pipe diameter. (Often several families of curves evaluating several pipe diameters are generated). By inspection, the minimum velocity is set at least one foot per second above deposition velocity, and a pipe diameter is selected which will accommodate the desired throughput. Once the pipe diameter is determined, the proposed operating range can be defined, as shown in Figure 11. The minimum operating velocity is deter- mined from deposition velocity criteria. The concentration range is set from the analytical data to include concentrations which are stable and which have near-optimal friction-loss characteristics. The maximum velocity is initially set from erosion criteria. In the later stages of design, the maximum velocity is modified by the hydraulic limitations of the proposed pumping equipment, which is optimized for the design condi- tions and economic considerations. SUMMARY Although the design considerations for slurry transportation systems have some unique aspects when compared to gas or liquids pipelines, slurry technology is not a new field or a new technology. In fact, as early as 1891 a patent was issued for a method of pumping coal and water. In 1957 the first coal slurry pipeline in the United States began operating in Ohio. Since then, over twenty slurry systems have been constructed and the technology and operating experience has developed and expanded with each system. Those slurry pipelines which have been engineered and con- structed by Bechtel are shown in Figure 12. Sufficient experience has been obtained with these systems to instill a high degree of confidence in the design techniques presented in this report and has advanced the design and operation of long-distance slurry systems from an art to a mature technology.i) HLINST ANT TadId 6 68 BL Bg es or we Be a TEP PPTL P PEEP PEPPY TELE P TTT O PTLD SELLE TPT TSE TTYL TST T ETSI oat aot Bose eoge en0e oe Boor soar * 00s peas GSH Tee Sead curd i iz be: Gas oe tte Wns Bon nee en bel WOH eat 06 88 BL 69 cy Br BE ee a a TWA NOLLIGNOD MO14 HOVIS Leunéig did(#9) HLSNTT SINT TdId 69 6S or Be Be TET PEEP LTE PETTITT TTT EP TTT IT oat oz ae Boar 00s Py : CUlec ies ol Tremere patna ia ed OTL eat 86 88 a9 as oy ae ae ar a TWA Bald MO14d 4OV1S ALVOLLIW OL ¥3LaWVIG a39NGay zomnby4) HLONST 3NITdId fet 86 tC) aL 69 8S er BE Be a 8 TOT TET TPE EE TTT E TT TE O PT ETeELE eT eTTTT THe ry a E gat F eae F bape F par F boas F oatFigure 4 COAXIAL CYLINDER ROTARY VISCOMETER ToT seat ‘SCALE SLURRY 12SHEAR STRESS MEASURED YIELD STRESS Figure 5 SHEAR STRESS VS. SHEAR RATE TYPICAL GRAPH SHEAR RATE 13APPARENT VISCOSITY Figure 6 APPARENT VISCOSITY VS. SHEAR RATE SHEAR RATEarcrion casses wenncue wenscue rius ve9 suner FarcTion Factor HPN aa TY SLUMRY viscosity venue onoseneoosscosi7¥ ‘eastaon CRU TCAL WELOCITY 0.06 38.0 isles aa sean 910, ra cous se ‘at ont Figure 7 SAMPLE OUTPUT: FRICTION LOSS PROGRAM sweur ata vevacity cous 2200 vi Pence SLR 2000 Hie neve dae isa Tenrenatune sacanaa figs 6PEC, oewetTY sauiy "153000 Seecarie cxavire suutb 18000 AsSOLUTE rouriness 0020 SHFETY FACTOR 1400 canststexer ur, rencent cureut vate psig FTrvoweT ta wLars0.eT. 19s aw 1908 same ane 207 were 1 048 lisa 2458261 cenmnvonse 2.o00n CENTDPOISE a7 FIe/SEE ICLECCH.) SLURRY VOL.PERE.—_VEN.WOL. tat "27 ft a oo 16 a3 .a San es 15 rrr. ces ves. F. svare facto sweo.06r rat 32,000000 centzP01sE tat 00000 2Y¥Es/s0.c8. 2a n0000 45,000000 conTIPaIsE Pen CONT SOLIDS em tau v2 80000 DYNES/S0.0H. en cant sous0s Con.FlUiD viseesiry 35.200000 20600 CENTIPOLSE crea sen esti. sew rs sna) ‘oat ‘ootsa en, vol. Fac. aFigure 8 FLOW CHART: FRICTION LOSS PROGRAM START INPUT DATA: © VELOCITY RANGE AND INCREMENT * CONCENTRATION RANGE AND INCREMENT DIAMETER * VISCOSITY OF CARRIER FLUID © TEMPERATURE * SOLID PROPERTIES: = GRAVITY ~ SIZE CONSIST + SLURRY RHEOLOGY + FACTORS ——__——_| Liguio AP CALCULATE LIQUID PRESSURE DROP INPUT CALCULATE SETTLING VELOCITY OF EACH SIZE FRACTION (FROM GRAVITY, SIZE ASSIGNMENT OF AND SHAPE FACTOR) PARTICLES TO VEHICLE AND BED CALCULATE RATIO OF VEHICLE TO BED BY VOLUME CALCULATE VEHICLE SPECIFIC GRAVITY AND VISCOSITY VEHICLE AP CALCULATE VEHICLE PRESSURE DROP FOR EACH MESH SIZE - WEIGHT % VEHICLE + CALCULATE BED AP FOR EACH MESH BED SIZE - WEIGHT % oP CALCULATE TOTAL SLURRY PRESSURE DROP CALCULATE DRAG COEFFICIENT 16Figure 9 FRICTION LOSS VS. VELOCITY A-HETEROGENEOUS SLURRY B-HOMOGENOUS SLURRY Vp - TYPICAL DEPOSITION CRITICAL VELOCITY VT— TYPICAL VISCOUS TRANSITION CRITICAL VELOCITY PIPE WALL SHEAR STRESS Loc w BULK VELOCITY LogySAMPLE OUTPUT: PIPELINE DESIGN PROGRAM, Page 1 of 4 Wv3-sx19 S MNTA CASE; SUZ wt; 95% avl; 3.6% moisture THROUGHPUT (ton dry solid/y)= 4,820, 000¢ 1,3 solsd sp. are 5,000,000 25 mined) AVAILABILITY % = 95.00 Q.D, at both ends (in) = 18,000 MIN. WALL THICKN.. (in) = 219 LENGTH OF PIPELINE (mi) = MIN. L FOR CHANGE OF WT (mi) = 3.00 MAX. INTERVAL OF LALC. MP (mi? = 130 SOLID WT, CONC. % = 52.00 SULID SP. GR. = 1.3000 LigUID SP.GR. = 3.0000 SLURRY SP. GR. = 1.1364 CORROSION ALLOWANCE (in) = 070.030 PPE STEEL IIGOP STRESS (psi) = 52,000. VELOCITY SAFETY FACTOR = 1.00 PRESSURE SAFETY FACTOR = 115 GRADIENT CLEARANCE ALLOWANCE (ft) = 100.0 TERMINAL REQUIRED HEAD (Ft) = 100.9 PIPE WALL SHEAR STKESS (psf) = +1560 +1560 SHEAR VELOCITY (ft/s) = 5.1700 © 5.1900 COMPUTED RESULTS: Zmax,Zmin, DH (ft) = 1500.00 490.00 900,00 SLURRY FLOW “(design gpm) = 3,916.3 SLURRY FLOW (t/h) = 1,113.8 SOLID FLOW (t/h) = 579.2 PIPE STEEL REQUIREMENT: O.D. (ind) W.T. (ind PLY. psd) L (mid Pow. (ton 1.000 219 52,000 $2.30 -0 18,090 231 $2,000 4.30 6 18.000 But 52,000 5.20 4 18.000 1312 52,000 6.20 3 18,000 saa 32,000 3.50 18,000 18.000 OPERATING VELOCITY (ft/s) = P(diseh)-asi = DESIGN POWER (hp) = REQUIRED (tons) = STEEL 1,225.1 5,180.7 @ (LIF = 31,722.4 18Figure 10 SAMPLE OUTPUT: PIPELINE DESIGN PROGRAM Page 2 of 4 HYDRAULIC DATA OF uUS-Sx18 N mPCad)—-ZEFT) Doin) CACEMD UTCERD «PERRY HEED ALGER UCSD 1 8,00 1400.00 18.000 070.438 2447.8 = 100.0 ne St08.@ 5.46 2 1100 1400.00 © t@.000 /070 145g 0 2446.8 © 100.0 ne 5108.8 | 5.46 3 N00 13e0.00 18.000 1070 1375 2308.8 120.0 nc 2870.6 © 538 4% Soo de0.00 © taso00 lo70 37s 52811 «10010 ne au7ece © 5.38 S 6100 1500.00 18.000 070 375° 2tab.8 Gone 2576.6 5.38 6 7,00 1400.00 19.900 070 75 2206.1 100.0 ne 2576.6 5.38 3 isa 1300/00 © 18.000 1a70 1375 228013 2000 ne 257616 5138 8 9.00 1290.00 © 38.000 1070 1375 2286.5 2200 ne 2576.8 ©5138 9 19/00 1120/00 © 18.000 070 1375 2367.2 © $80.0 ne 2576.6 © 5138 10 talon 1050/00 8.900 1070 1375 238719 ASO ne B87e.8 5138 1113.80 1300,00 18.000 070 +375 2248.4 400.0 nc 2576.6 5.38 12 14100 1080.00 18.000 \o70 1375 2248.6 4200 ne 2878.6 | 5138 13 18.00 950.00 18.000 [070-375 -2388.9 © SSD.0 ne 2576.6 © 5.38 14 16150 1040.00 18,000 1070 \3as © Dae.s et D ne 2514.7 5134 18 19:00 1000.00 18.000 [070/344 -2131.9 © S000 ne 2Si4.7 5.34 16 20.00 920.00 © 18,000. 030 1322 2172.9 © Se0.0 ne B3e2.3 5.30 17 21100 910lo0— te.o00 1030 1312 2iaale © $9010 ne 23e2.3 S30 12 22,00 900.00 © t@.000 030 312 © 216s 00.0 ne 25e2S 5150 19 35.00 a00.00 © 19.000 1030 312 «21013 70010 ne 2302.3 5.30 20 26120 ge0,00* 18:00 1030 aur 1995/3 GanlD ne 2l20ls | Slee 21 28.00 950.00 18.000 030.28 1037.5 880.0 ne 2120.4 © 5.28 22 29/00 900.00 © ta.og0 /030 .2u1tgay.d 808.0 ne 2120.4 5.26 25 31.80 192.404 18.000 030 1251187710 «417.6 ne 164810 S120 3% 31.50 190.00” 18.000 030 2st 868.7 ANDO ne tee 5.80 2 34.50 970,00 18.000 050 123187517 «S30. ne 1698.0 | SL2e 26 35.70 1020.00" 18.000 030.219 1491.7 a9. 0 ne 1896.68 5.19 2/ 36.00 1020.00 18.000 oso u19 © tay0.@ «© Sa0 ld ne ie9e08 | SLty we 37100 1020.00 © 8.000 ‘og0 laiy 145815 4uDLO ne 1a¥e.6 5.19 3 4u0 50/00 18.000 losn 219 © ta9s'8 301d nc 19e08 S19 So 41.00 ga0.o0 © 18.000 1050 1e19 © t4ay.2 S280 ne 139818 19 4 G0 ge0.00 18,000 030 .2t9 1392.9 620.0 ne 189.8 SLY se 80 750.00 18.000 {030 at9 = 1aats2 77010 ne 15988 «5.19 3s 4:20 900-00 18.000 930 21e 1520/3 70010 ne Ie96.8 © S119 SA 49.30 es.00 16.000 L030 1319135013 S00 ne 18PEe | EL1P ES 00 680-00 © t8.000 030 219 = 102,220.10 ne 1896.8 SLIF Sh 35.80 y00.00 18.900 030.217 1344.2 1900.0 ne 1576.6 5.18 3/ 55.00 530.00 18.000 1030 1219 1270.8 970.0 ne 1586.6 5119 $8 38,00 300.00 18.000 (030 1219 1264.2 1000.0 ne tuyere SF 3% 31/00 g00.00 © tg.000 1030 13190 7eu.5 “700.0 ne tevers © Sui9 4063.00 1000.00 t8l0n0 1040 219 50010 se tsvers | 5119 4167.00" 970,00 19,000 030.219 330.0 se 1596.6 5 v2 99/00 tuso.00 © t8o0n Joo Leas 350.0 ge 139688 § 35 70/30 tooo.na e000 Loa lat9 S000 se 1uv6.6 3. av Fulon “asoloa — elous aga ary S00 ae tyes 73.00 @s0l00 © 1e.900 |030 1839 5010 se 1596.6 0S47 48 39 30 s1 ss os 55 3 " 73. ‘0 7 72 78. 30 ar 82 8S a7, a8. oo 20 uo 20 oo a0 a0 a0 me cma SAMPLE OUTPUT: PIPELINE DESIGN PROGRAM. 00.u 720.90 a0 700.00 00.00 950.00 540,00 500,00 490.00 490,00 00.00 zen Interpolated Valve: 12.000 18,000 18;000 18.000 ye.000 18.000 1alago 38.000 ts:o00 18.000 00 ‘030 a30 ‘030 fos0 +030 Sogo ‘030 030 ‘030 oso Figure 10 Page 3 of 4 ay Dein? CAaCind UTCan) COMPUTATION COMPLETED 20 273. 30) Bas) 235 28a. 30s. 274 245. 219. 146.8 100.0 pers 790.0 780.9 750 300. 300. 950 700, 1000 tora 1020. 1o0e.a Hert se 1596.6 1596.5 15¥66 1596.6 1598.8 1596.8 1596.5 1396.6 1598.8, 1396.6 1596.6 aur) 5 3 e 19 1 19 i 19 19 219 ny 3 19 a9 verser(#) HLINST ANI TAdId e881 eee 006. eee y 40 y abe WV¥DOUd NOIS3G SNITAdId -LNdino a1dNVS OL emnbiyCONCENTRATION WEIGHT PERCENT SURFACE DRY SOLIDS 53 52 51 Figure 11 TYPICAL OPERATING RANGE COAL THROUGHPUT MILLIONS OF SHORT TONS PER YEAR (M.T.P.Y,) AS MINED 14.0 145 15.0 155 DESIGN THROUGHPUT: DESIGN ‘CONCENTRATION gy 3 3 & S & yy § & Fy $ § = 1650 1700 1750 1800 COAL THROUGHPUT SHORT TONS PER HOUR ~ T.P.H, ~ SURFACE ORY 95 PERCENT AVAILABILITY 22 16.0Figure 12 SLURRY TRANSPORT PROJECTS CONSTRUCTED BY BECHTEL Pipeline Solids Throughput Diameter Length Project Material (millions tons/year) _ (inches) (miles) Savage River, Magnetite 2.25 9 53 Tasmania Concentrate Black Mesa, Coal 5 18 273 Arizona Waipipi, Magnetite 1.0 an2 ar New Zealand Sands (Land/M Calaveras, Limestone 15 7 7 California Irian Jaya, Copper 03 4 69 Indonesia Concentrate Pinto Valley, Copper 04 4 " Arizona Concentrate Bougainvi Copper 1.0 6 7 Papua, Concentrate New Guinea Pefia Colorado, Magnetite 18 8 30 Mexico Concentrate Las Truchas, Magnetite 15 10 7 Mexico Concentrate Hematit 12.0 20/18 247 Concentrate Western Mining, Nickel One o1 4 4 Australia Tailings Magnetite 24 8 20 Grande, Concentrate Argentina VALEP, Phosphate 20 9 70 Brazil Concentrate Kudremukh, Magnetite 75 18/16 a India Concentrate 23